Posted on 05/09/2015 7:44:31 AM PDT by RnMomof7
What you said.
I remember the tattling whiners in grade school. I often wondered what they turned out like as adults. Now I know.
Our Mods are more than patient and fair. God BLESS THEM!
“Ealgeone can refute every point you made and has tried”
That is just an empty assertion. Baseless. Read the written record of the exchange. Points were raised (e.g. the Old Testament conflicts to demostrate literal reading is inconsistent) - he criticized making such points (as you do) and criticized me (as you do) but did not (I assume could not) refute the points themselves - except to claim the authority of the Holy Spirit to support his opinion.
This whole thread was about imperiously deriding those who practice religion in a different way (brown scapula). I argue that this is based on a closed-minded (bigoted even) interpretation of scripture. If practices are helpful to people to improve or draw closer to God, they are good.
Initially, the argument was made that such religious practice (brown scapula) is wrong or foolish , because it does not comport with a certain interpretation of scripture. The argument was that there is one right way to understand scripture, and they have a lock on it.
The claim was that the text is explicit and authoritative, denying the need for interpretation. I was basically called a blasphemer for using the word “interpretation”. But when confronted with the obvious conflicts of a literal (Fundamentalist) reading, the argument suddenly flips 180 degrees, to a purely revelatory authority - I have the Holy Spirit’s right guidance and you don’t, therefore I invoke divine authority on setting doctrine.
This is the same argument made by Muhammed, in establishing his religious authority. It is the same claim that can be made by any fraud, or impressionable personality. In fact, the same basis could be claimed by those practicing the brown scapula - that their good vibes indicate that the Holy Spirit is leading them. It makes it purely subjective.
That is all the argument boils down to. On this basis, schism among Christians is promoted.
“Scripture that are confusing or ambiguous, ...is to be OBEYED, not “interpreted.”
Well by that logic, the rules concerning slavery should be OBEYED. And rapists should be forced to marry their victims. And a hundred other Old Testament conflicts with morality and the modern world.
So with your interpretation of the Bible, you are saying you don’t believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God? What do you believe about it, then, and do you hold to the other fundamental beliefs of Christianity, like the virgin birth of Christ, His death to atone for our sins, the historical reality of His miracles, and His bodily resurrection from the dead?
Up to encountering your posts, it’s been either very clear to me, or else very easy to discover, what the individual posters here believe. I know I frequently feel there’s a need to state that I’m an evangelical Christian, and I know others do the same as needed. So, then, how do you describe yourself?
I pinged metmom and eagleone to a post addressed to BeauBo as they were also involved in the discussion, but the actual post is addressed just to BeauBo. Sorry for any confusion.
I understand and agree with the dangers you’re pointing out. I have a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, and I do believe the Holy Spirit interprets it for us. But the fact that we grow in understanding of it means in some sense our own imperfect human understanding is involved, too, and that can be all that’s meant by interpretation. It just refers to making sense of something, which is what we do when we read. A born-again Christian and an atheist will read/interpret the Bible differently. So, in another words, reading and interpreting the Bible can mean essentially the same thing. The real difference is in the belief or unbelief of the person reading/interpreting it. The idea of just reading and not interpreting the Bible can be abused as well. Anti-Christian unbelievers do it when they argue things like, “The Old Testament condemns as an abomination, right next to homosexuality, eating shellfish.” Their rationale is that this is right there in plain English and doesn’t require any interpretation, which of course it does. But they deceive many, many people with such arguments about many Bible passages that they take out of context. Most especially they mislead those who know little about the Bible, encouraging them to read certain passages and assuring them to take them just how they sound to them. In atheistic, anti-Christian writing, there’s a lot of that.
What sins then might have been committed in the womb? And upon whom were they inflicted?
Having a sin nature does not translate to sinning every minute.
Do you even understand what the new covenant is all about?
They are this:What I would suggest to you (and every other NCC who loves this site) is to pray to Jesus, "our life," "our sweetness," and "our hope," and ask Him to work on the Free Republic Religion Forum, that it be run in a way pleasing to Him.
That is a slam at the management, not a simple request that Christ help make the RF more pleasing to Him.
There's nothing wrong with the way the RF is being managed. What would make the RF more pleasing to Him is for the posters to moderate themselves and speak in a way that is more pleasing to Him, and to not unjustly accuse others of not moderating the site in a way that is pleasing to Him.
No confusion on my part.
I’ve always understood the first name in the To: field to be the person to whom the post is addressed and the others after that are simply being courtesy pinged.
Amen!
It’s interesting that scripture is totally silent on Mary or her life after Pentecost yet the Catholics have elevated her to goddess status.
Yes, this is one broad category of tension between "since the moderator will not determine truth, don't expect..." and "do not make it personal."
Although this tension has been mentioned before and should be pretty obvious, I'll mention it again to acknowledge it: general statements which someone finds defamatory will be taken "personally." I mean both (1) the sense that the personal application logically follows and (2) the sense that someone will interpret it as a personal insult and then respond with the holiest insults possible.
If anyone needs help understanding (1), here's an example syllogism:
- "Anyone who isn't affiliated with the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 is a heretic." [As guidelines stand, this statement is probably allowed here.]
- "You aren't affiliated with the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879."
- "Therefore, you are a heretic." [As guidelines stand, this statement is probably "making it personal."]
And then we see (2) in all its Christlike glory.
ping
Yes. I find the pattern interesting, at least because both jabs and their responses reveal character, and then one's character (or lack thereof) will affect how people view one's beliefs, one's scriptures, and one's God.
My tagline quotes the Religion Moderator profile for a reason: "When he is being rude or mean it drives people _away_ from his confession and _towards_ yours."
If I had the room, I would've also quoted the caveat that follows: "That is of course if you can resist the urge to meet fire with fire, in which case neither confession is appealing to the lurkers."
(I notice complaints similar to "the problem with the Religion Forum is all the fault of you on the other side!" But I've also noticed that neutral-party complaints about the Religion Forum tend to be general, not directed against a particular confession.)
The profile continues, "The poster who 'turns the other cheek' wins every single time." I don't know if the wording was designed to hint at this, but with some justification I can recast this as "The poster who follows Jesus's teaching wins every single time." Now, I am not thereby saying that every poster must follow Jesus's teaching, but I could pick worse examples to follow (and such examples abound). Maybe God wants to see more winners. At least I do.
Likewise, when one fixes their eyes on Jesus, they don’t gaze on anyone else.
JESUS is the Name above all names and it’s at HIS name that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.
No one will be sharing that with Him, no matter how poetic and romanticized it sounds or feels. All that gushy, feely good nonsense and flowery words directed at Mary only appeals to the emotions but has no basis in the truth.
What hurts me, is not the jabs or the disrespect shown to Catholics, it's the disrespect shown to God and Mary, Jesus's mother.
I have seen this often, but just where is this horrible treatment disrespect shown to God and Mary, rather than reproving the extra-Scriptural and unScriptural exaltation of Mary "above that which is written," (1Co. 4:6) which is disrespect shown to God and Mary?
Debate the issues, and substantiate your charges, rather than engaging in ambiguous complaining.
How would you feel if some random blokes began to worship your mother as a deity over and above the true God of the universe, requiring the ignorant hordes to bow and scrape before her alter in order to gain mercy from God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.