GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[Gamecock]

There is, simply put, a mountain of logical, linguistic, and scriptural evidence that all point to Peter as the Rock upon which Jesus built his Church.

and just 4 short verses later we read:

Matthew 16: 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

That's right! Jesus calls "the Rock" of his church Satan....

Just one of those things that meake me go Hmmmm.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

We, of course, have to be careful about the distiction between condemning belief systems and condemning people because we're not the Lord and therefore can't possibly know what's in someone's heart. I suppose even that point can be debated, but that's fine.

That's absolutely correct.

[Lead Moderator]

Why the need for a guide? You are a man, you can learn from experience.

Use your best judgement. If it isn't right, isn't working for the site or the forum, we'll let you know and you can adjust.

Course corrections are part of life. We'll have them here too.

Regards, LM

[Lead Moderator]

Hmm. Must have been before mid-2000, because your account is showing no bans, suspensions, or restorations.

[George W. Bush]

Here is why, contrary to the opinion of some, Jesus' and Paul's words would be accepted on the forum: While they hold firm and unwavering convictions, they did not insult or belittle their readers.

I think you should read what Jesus and Paul said again.

Some pretty offensive stuff, given the cultural and religious context of those times.

Tell me, what do you think Christ meant when He told us the world would hate and curse us for His name's sake? It means that if we preach His full gospel, the majority of listeners just isn't going to like it. Say it nice, say it mean, doesn't matter. Christianity, the mildest and least aggressive of spiritual teachings, will offend the world.

Look at Paul's writing and really think about it and the circumstances under which he wrote it. Can you honestly say that he reminds you of some soft-spoken offend-none kind of speaker? I don't. I can't imagine him as anything more than a firebrand in most of his writings. Peter too, for that matter.

They were not timid and didn't mince words.

tenor != strength_of_convictions

I think a lot of thin-skinned people like to hit Abuse, both here and in the main forum. I think some nominal Christians and some atheists/agnostics/X-tians would genuinely like to see any significant Christian discussion squelched altogether.

And I think they have succeeded. For the time being.

[Lead Moderator]

"I ask you, do those of the liberal persuasion get "driven away" off the news forum by passionate persuasive arguments? Of course they do. Why should the Religon forum have a different set of rules than the News forum?"

Right now, I do not see any significant presence of conservative Jews or several other religious persuasions posting in the religion forum. I also know of several conservative Mormons who not only were driven from the religion forum, but left FR completely.

So if your point is that we should have rules that ensure that conservatives are not run off of FR, then I agree.

And if it wasn't your point, well, it is my point.

Thanks, LM

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

It's always been a shame that the religion forum is the most uncivil are of Free Republic.

[Barnacle]

Don’t tell me R911 has seniority over me.

R911 signed up about 55 users or so before you did. Rookie.

I asked you not to tell me that.

[Lexinom]

I see what you are saying. It appears the central pinion of this discussion is the distinction between attacking people ("flaming") and debating ideas.

Regarding the Scriptural comparisons, let me just say this: to elevate one's self in this day of decadance and moral decay to the level of Peter or Paul seems an arrogation of astonishing proportion. Jesus never abused anyone, neither did Paul, neither did Peter. They told it like it is and called evil, evil. Paul never poked fun at the "immoral brother" referenced in 2Co.; he condemned his behavior and had him put out of the church so he might repent (humanly speaking). The OT is replete with condemnatory language in the prophets, yet whatever words you might user to describe them, "tacky" would not likely be one. They made no sport of it.

When Jesus called a certain group a "brood of Vipers", He spoke as the Lord. If we speak as He did, condemning people whom we have not met, whom we have no idea how they live thier lives, and lacking His divine omniscience, we do so as hippocrites overlooking our own sin ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"). Speaking as a Calvinist, we are part of that very same "brood of Vipers" that nailed him to the cross.

The foregoing is about attacking people - different from debating theological ideas and systems. With God's provision, I will defend to the death the sacred truths of the Faith as the Lord has opened them to me against all who would seek my denial thereof or my life. They are my beliefs, imparted by God from His Word through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, summarized in the Ecumenical Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity. But I hope never to leverage personal assaults against others who do not believe that way (though their belief systems I believe are erroneous), because as a Calvinist, I know that God has His people as well as His times. If He makes orderly discussion possible, so be it: may it be undergired by a spirit of honesty, discretion, and charity (1Co.13).

Finally, it's hard to sound "meek" in print. Some things may be interpreted as attacks which were not meant as such, but that base was covered a few hundred posts ago.

[Barnacle]

R911 signed up about 55 users or so before you did. Rookie.

"You don't understand! I could've had class. I could've been a contender. I could've been somebody,
instead of a bum, which is what I am. Let's face it...... It was you, Charley."

(Not that I’m taking this hard or anything…)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your insight and your candid discussion of the issues!

I strongly agree with the idea of a "plonk" file! On the science threads, we call that a "virtual ignore list" - the ability to ask never to see posts by specified others. It would be a handy device all over the forum to avoid flame wars.

Moreover, I very very strongly agree with you on the Scriptural demand for charity by all Judeo-Christians. The Great Commandment applies without limitation and thus should be the hallmark of all Judeo-Christian posts.

[Elsie]

...even the official Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't claim the Church was built upon Peter.

I wish this info would filter down to the masses!

[DouglasKC]

Re post 731:

Bravo.

[Elsie]

All the major heresies relied on the principle of sola Scriptura.

Montanism. Mormonism. Moonies. JWs.

 

Well, not THESE guys.  They believe in Scriptura Naddanuffa

[polemikos]

That's right! Jesus calls "the Rock" of his church Satan....
Just one of those things that meake me go Hmmmm.

Now what did Peter do that was so horrible? Was there some awful sin committed by Peter? Or was Peter guilty of not yet comprehending the sacrifice required of Jesus? Did Peter unwittingly tempt Jesus with "the things of men"? Clearly, Peter, in his desire to steer Jesus away from His death, was still thinking like a man. The "get behind me" rebuke indicates that Peter must learn to follow Christ (cf. Mark 8:33-38) Indeed, Peter had yet to learn that to follow Christ, he had to deny himself (a lesson devastatingly driven home in Mt 26:75). Jesus is rebuking Peter for thinking like a man (in effect, like Satan), and not as a follower of Jesus. Peter, as the designated Rock, has many lessons to learn before he is finally given the helm.

[Gamecock]

Which of course must be considered.

An alternate thesis is that in the verse I provided Christ is clearly speaking to Peter, and in the earlier verses no distinction is made once he makes the observation that Peter is "peeble." The case can just as easily be made that Christ was referring to himself as the Rock....

[polemikos]

Well, not THESE guys. They believe in Scriptura Naddanuffa

They're biblical wise guys. Badda bing, badda boom.

[Elsie]

So you're sure the Church is built on Peter?

NONE of the verses about rock in the OT made any sense to you at all, did they?

---

Well.... I laid them out there for all to read: not my problem now.