How do you view God?

[smaller]

1Way quote:
Clete does not say that, you are a moron.

Clete's quote:
I do think that homos should be executed through due process of law just as I believe that murderers should be and rapist and child molesters and abortionists (oh wait I already listed murderers) and whomever else is guilty of what the Bible clearly teaches is a capital crime.

1Way quote:
Jesus would never lead a homosexual to church, he would minister the truth and if it was not accepted, off to the gallows it would be.

Clete quote:
You will submit yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as God, or you will go to Hell.

1Way quote:
Those who affirm/support homosexuality (a capitol offense) who also reject God and His ways, should be condemned as evil and wicked, a promoter of a capitol offense.

Clete is right to include “all” pro homo’s for personal rejection and contempt and for giving the reasoning for doing so to reasonable requests even though some are pro-homo. Is the Christian supposed to be personally accepting of a kidnaper, rapist, pedophile, murderer? Of course not, same with pro-homos because we Christians should know right from wrong and live what we preach.

Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The beast and the false prophet never change....

Now WHAT were you blowing about smaller???

WAIT! I think I hear a little town in the middle east calling for you.....

BAG DAD BAG DAD

 

[Aimiel]

To attempt to answer the literal question which is the title of this thread: I view God from an attitude of repentance, thanksgiving and worship; mainly from my knees, but often standing. I don't believe in 'falling under the power.' I'm not trying to say that it doesn't happen, but rather that The Lord is looking for those who are willing and able to stand in His Presence.

 

[adajos]

Clete:

I think I may understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I really hope I'm right on this because there simply isn't anything controversial or even disputable about what I'm trying to communicate.

Well, we'll see. This is definitely the best post you've made on this thread.

It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).

I understand.

Let me give an easy example...

Let's take abortion as our example issue since there is no dispute as to which side God is on and which side is considered conservative and right-wing in today vernacular.

Now assume its 150 year from now and that abortion in some form or another is still being debated. Assume also that the terms right-wing, left-wing, conservative and liberal all mean precisely the opposite of what they mean today.

If this were the case then God and all of those who agreed with Him that abortion is wrong would be liberal, left-wingers. So the terms would have all changed but the issue and the side of that issue one is on would not have changed and the reasons why one is on that particular side would not have changed either.

So do you see my point? It is the issues and which side of those issues one is on that has to do with religious convictions or the lack thereof, not the political title one tacks onto them.

Yes, I see your point. And you did a much better job of making it this time. But I feel like there are some unspoken assumptions behind your point I would like to explore.

The act of abortion is evil, except to save the life of the mother. It is a violation of the Ten Commandments on murder, and thus God finds it evil. So there's the Biblical case for the evil of abortion itself. Next comes the question of whether or not it should be illegal in civil law because of that. I'm sure my answer to that question is in agreement with yours, but we ought to think about how we arrive at that answer....

Let's step back for a minute, before continuing with abortion and examine another abhorrent practice, slavery. Slavery existed in Biblical times yet the institution is not condemned in the Bible. How then do we conclude that civil laws allowing slavery are ungodly and evil? I believe that civil laws allowing slavery are evil, for the record.

One we have answered that question, we will have a sound Biblical basis for our beliefs about the wickedness of certain civil laws.

This by the way is why the Bible is even relevant to today’s society. There is nothing new under the sun. The very same issues that we face today were being faced 4000 years ago in one form or another and the same moral principles apply to them today that did when God said, Thou shalt not steal, which, by the way, is why universal health care is wrong. It is stealing, the government takes my money under threat of law and pays some doctor to give mediocre medical treatment to a bunch of people who may or may not need it.

I am in agreement that UVH is a bad idea in terms of quality of services. Also high taxation usually comes back to bite us in the, uh, butt.

But where Biblically do you get the idea that taxation is stealing in God's eyes? As BChristianK pointed out earlier, Christ said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

 

[Clete]

Excellent post 1Way! :thumb:

 

[1Way]

The smallishness said

"It's not my intention to be unreasonably harsh" says Clete as he declares that all homosexuals should be killed and those who do not advocate the killing should also be killed...

The fact is that Clete nor I suggest to put to death anyone who does not advocate capitol punishment for homosexuals. Smaller is soon to go on my ignore list. I have never put anyone on my ignore list, because to me, information is not a bad thing. But in smaller’s case, putting up with his falseness and hypocrisy and ill will is a good case for ignore. Ya keep hoping that irrationality and hypocrisy would stop... but then again, there’s smaller.

 

[servent101]

1Way

Ya keep hoping that irrationality and hypocrisy would stop... but then again, there’s smaller.

I gather that you caught smaller quoting someone and the quote he made up himself... that is pretty sick, smaller you need to repent.

I can understand your disgust 1Way - and I myself have only put one person on my ignore list - was not happy with the results - their name still appears on the board - but the post is hidden. I found it a very difficult thing to do - almost un-Christ like. It is a very painful thing to do.

Smaller why don’t you come clean and repent?


With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by 1Way

The smallishness said The fact is that Clete nor I suggest to put to death anyone who does not advocate capitol punishment for homosexuals. Smaller is soon to go on my ignore list. I have never put anyone on my ignore list, because to me, information is not a bad thing. But in smaller’s case, putting up with his falseness and hypocrisy and ill will is a good case for ignore. Ya keep hoping that irrationality and hypocrisy would stop... but then again, there’s smaller.

If you put him on your ignore list be prepaired for the consequences!

He'll put you on his ignor-ant list! :shocked:

That is if your not there already. :darwinsm:

And by the way, you can still tell he's posted and can check out his post just by clicking on it. I don't do that very often but from time to time I read one of his posts just to get a laugh and to remind myself what a waste of time it is to read his lunacy.

 

[1Way]

Clete - Thanks for the thumbs up. BChristianK seems to be at least responding in a somewhat reasonable way especially compared to others. I just wish to make the posts way smaller and take fewer and more foundational issues first and then go from there.

I especially liked the “peace” issue and also ”opinions verses righteous judgment”. Many liberals assume that having peace roughly equates to not offending or upsetting the kind and friendly acceptance of one another. The peace of God lends to very unpleasant situations when evil should be opposed. It has been a pleasure our mutual agreement, and to be quite honest, after only reading a bit of your views, I mostly assumed the rest of our agreements. LOL, so I find your comments now most refreshing. Our liberty in the truth is wonder to share.

Smaller is one terribly confused person. He is about to be put to ignore for shear and willful stupidity. I just want to see this bit end about falsely accusing you as he has.


servent - Thanks for the backup, but you know, with “nice” talk like that, your about to push me over the edge and put the smaller on ignore. It is good and godly to personally reject divisive strife causing people. But believe it or not, I would accept it if smaller repented*, and I would be glad for him.

Ya, well, he restated in his own words what Clete supposedly teaches, and it is a complete lie, and then so often you hear smaller say something like, ya, I just like pushing your buttons and watching you wiggle in your own pool of self righteous bla bla bla. He can be so demented and ill willed it is terrible, and it is better not to dwell on such things, so putting him on ignore has very good upsides.

*(But I would not forget it incase he repeated the same offense showing no repentance. If he repents, I will forgive, if he lies and does not truly repent, he is not forgiven.)

 

[BChristianK]

1way:
Thanks for your post;
I asked if you would agree then to amend Cletes statement to the following:

Needs to be qualified and amended so that it reads. “All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homosexuals (who claim to be believers) that I can."

You did not agree.

No. If a pro-homo, like perhaps the several here in this thread, is actively seeking God’s views on the matter of homosexuality and how Christians should respond to it, I would say that it is ok to stop shunning long enough to teach the truth because at that point, the issue is not one of promotion, but one of learning.

Stop shunning? Where do we have the biblical mandate to start shunning anyone outside the church? Let me refresh your memory as to how this conversation arose. I disagreed with Cletes statement. You responded and pointed to 1 Corinthians 5:11. I pointed out this applied uniquely to believers, you agreed. That leaves you with no biblical precedent as of yet to make the claim that we should start shunning unbelieving homosexuals.

Next you claim:

Also part of the mix is that we are sharing our faith at the same time with many who are uncertain or who are not pro-homo, so we are not being hypocritical by addressing these issues and to some extent have been allowing pro-homo type arguments against our views. So it’s not simply an issue of pure personal rejection, otherwise discussions like this could never happen.

Pro-homo. If your applying this label to me, you have created yet another straw man argument.


Regarding Romans 12:9 you said:

So you say peace, and I think we may not agree as to what that idea means. The peace of God causes all kinds of unrest and even violent opposition from the wicked. We are responsible for not creating an unjustifiable offense, but if the righteous judgment against something wrong or bad creates a non-peaceful response, then the responder is the guilty party, not the righteous judge. It is he who is wise who will love you if you rebuke him. The impetus is more upon the proper response, not the delivery. A righteous rebuke has no need to be given in a non harsh or kind way. Yet along the scale of various way to expose an offense, nicer and kinder is a good preference, but is optional with rebuke. I hope that explains things.

It does explain things, it is also unbiblical.
Peter said that our apologetics are not to be without gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) and Galatians likewise reminds us to restore one another gently (Galatians 6:1). When it comes to rebuke, kindness isn’t optional.

Now you said:

You quoted a question that brought me and Turbo into comparison and asked me if I understood the question. That was not the question I was answering, this is the first time I’ve seen that question.

Right, I hadn’t expected you to answer it before it was presented.

Much of your previous posts have been so filled with problems of misunderstanding that I stopped answering your post before I got to your similar question because I am getting sick and tired of working against so many misunderstandings.

Well, its possible that I am entirely culpable for all of those misunderstandings. If you need to blame someone for the misunderstandings generated in our conversation, I’ll take the blame.
So, now that this is cleared up, let’s continue with the conversation, ok?

Now you start answer some of the questions I posted. BTW, thank you for answering these.

The Christian’s yet future judgment (that will happen come judgment day when the world and the angles will be judged) is to be proceeded “so much more so” with judgment of things in “this life”.

Now we are finally to substantive argument.
The verse you are alluding to is:

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? (1 Cor. 6:3).

Now this particular verse does not extend the scope of judgement outside of the church is simply makes a contrast between heavenly matters (Angels) and matters of this life. This verse is couched within the context of judging legal matters inside the church as apposed to going before a Roman magistrate for the arbitration of disputes. In going to Roman authority, the church was letting their petty disputes be settled according to the worlds unrighteous standards. If you are gong to appropriate this verse you should at least keep in the same scope that Paul did, judgment within the church.
So, we are still left with no mandate to judge those outside the church.

You argue this point in your following statement:

Also we have the correspondence of subjects on both halves of the immediate comparison. We should now live in accordance to the righteous judgment that the world is unworthy to judge us because of their ungodliness, but we should judge ourselves to be fully fit to judge amongst our selves. So 1Co 5-6 does not restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, it promotes righteous judgment for all.

Well, this passage, in and of itself, does not explicitly restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, but it certainly does not go so far as to mandate or even permit that judgment be outside the brethren. Taken on its own, its purpose was solely to promote judgment among the brethren instead of taking matters to the Roman courts, and was silent concerning judging anything else. To appropriate the verse to substantiate judgment outside the brethren would be to ignore the context of the verse.

Regarding 1 Co. 11:31 you cite Strong’s and conclude.

Pretty interesting deal. This demonstrates glaringly loud that judgment is good and if done righteously can preclude future judgment of doing wrong.

What is also a pretty interesting deal is that this verse tells us to judge ourselves. The object of the verb is reflexive. That means that we are to either judge ourselves individually or to judge amongst ourselves as believers, I would go with the former given the context. What this verse doesn’t say is that we should be judging the outside world.


Now lets recap.

So far you have provided us with:
1 Cor 11:31, which I have dealt with above.

1 Cor 5:11: I have shown that this verse applies to judging within the brethren only.

Proverbs 6:16: This has nothing to do with judging but rather was used as a billy-club to attack me for disagreeing with Clete.

Heb 12:23 Which describes God as Judge not us.

John 5:22 Which describes Christ as Judge not us.

1 Cor 6:2 which you side with Turbo as being at the consummation of all things. And verse 3 which I have shown applies to judgment within the church not outside.

1 Cor 2:15 which carries the word Judge in the connotation of appraisal (as the NAU translates it), not executing sentencing or punishments such as shunning.

John 7:24 Which I showed you carried the connotation of rightly holding an opinion in accordance with righteousness and not according to appearance and that this verse has nothing to do with executing punishment (shunning) on those in the outside world.

Finally the only other verse you have alluded to is Romans 12:9 which doesn’t deal with judgment at all but rather is an admonition to abhor evil and cling to what is good.

So while you and Clete keep tag teaming this issue and patting each other on the back when you post, I don’t see a single scripture that confirms Clete’s determination to:

shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

or your refusal to agree to my amendment of that statement, or your continued argument that his doing so is godly while the rest of us are ungodly pro-homos.

If you’ve got a scripture that confirms Clete’s statement and your defense of it, by all means post it, but contrary to your assertion that you “judge the world by the rest of the bible (which I do believe you desire to do),” you are nonetheless, as of this post, derelict in providing even one scripture that supports your conclusion.

I'll address the rest of your points in a subsequent post.

Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

Continued from post #209

1Way said:

As to Turbo, all I see is that he agrees with me.

He agrees with you and Clete concerning the execution of homosexuals, but he has yet to get back to me on why considering the dispensation we are in. This is the reason for my questions.

You briefly address these questions.

Turbo and I agree that we are not under the law for salvation or a way of living out our faith in God. I assume that we also both agree that the law remains in effect for the dying world as the first step on the road to Romans, which is that all have sinned and need to get saved.

While I agree that the world falls under condemnation, I wouldn’t agree that their condemnation was the Mosaic Law. Rather their exchange of the knowledge of God (Romans 1) is their accusation and they perish apart from the law (Romans 2:12). Though I’ll not go into a full exegesis of Galatians (3:24), I would argue that the us that Paul speaks of as being led to Christ are the Jews since the Gentiles never had the law to tutor them to Christ in the first place. But I didn’t argue this with Turbo and I probably shouldn’t have gotten into it here either. Suffice to say we all agree that all sinned and all need to get saved.
You said:

Secondly, criminal law, which is given to governments, has not been repealed.

I’m not arguing that governmental prerogative and responsibility to execute civil judgment has been repealed.

The main alteration to “thou shall surely such and such ... and thus saith the Lord”, is not a repeal of the law, but an amendment that says that these laws should be enforced by the government, if they are not, then to that extent the government is being unrighteous, yet to the extent that they are not causing us to sin, we should obey them for conscience sake because they are God’s ministers of wrath executing vengeance against the criminal for goodness sake.

I agree.

So God places the entire world under manmade but God instituted government for the sake of opposing criminal activity, do well or be afraid. So we are not exempt from “criminal law”, but the law of God is not for salvation (anymore).

I get your point, I would argue salvation by work in the OT but I get your point.

Sabboth law is not criminal law, it is symbolic, and Christ is the substance that fulfilled the symbols.

Now here is where I get a bit cranky with you folks. I have seen the Acts 9 open theist crowd chew a Calvinist up one side and down the other for being philosophically inconsistent when it comes to double predestination (which I find is great entertainment as I hold a marginal open theist position myself). But here is where you have your own inconsistency.

You folks make a huge deal that the program of God changed at the time of Paul’s conversion and that the gentiles were in no way under the requirements of the law that was the old program, right? But here you start making arguments about the continuity of Levitical requirements like Convenant theologians. How many times have you heard the covenant theologians claim that the symbolic and cultic laws were satisfied in Christ but the moral laws weren’t?

Isn’t this really what your argument comes down to?

My argument is that the law never, ever, made the distinction between a symbolic law and a moral one. The symbolic laws were moral. It was immoral to pick up sticks on Saturday and the penalty for doing so shows that it was just as immoral as homosexuality.

Now was it symbolic in that Christ satisfied the substance of that command so that it no longer applies to us in Paul's dispensation?

Absolutely.

Did Christ absorb in His sacrifice the entire penalty of breaking that command through the cross?

Absolutely!

Is this different than the penalty of any other Mosaic command?

I can’t find one place in the bible that suggests as much. Can you?
Can you find a place where Paul says in effect, “my dispensation is one characterized by Christ satisfying all the penalties of the symbolic commands but the capital punishments of the moral commands of the Mosaic Law go wholly unaddressed by the cross of Christ.”

Can you show me a verse or even a series of verses that amount to saying in substance what that quote says?

You can’t!

And that is why your insistence that homosexuality be considered a capital crime is inconsistent with your dispensational views.
You have to appeal to the Mosaic Law and assume its continuity when it comes to what you would identify as moral commands to make that argument biblical. But before you make that argument you need to make up your mind if this gospel puts us under the law or not, because like the covenant theologians, you can’t have your cake and eat it to.

Finally I’ll draw this to a close but before I do I’ll comment on one zinger you sent my way.

You intellectual exclusivist.

Well make up your mind, am I an intellectual exclusivist or am I

...dragging the conversation below reasonable and intellectual levels.

Look, from what I can tell you are an intelligent person trying to do your best to follow the Lord. I can assure you that, although I think you are probably smarter than I am, I also endeavor to do the same. We’re going to have to spend a long time together in eternity. Let’s practice not calling each other names here, ok?
I’ll admit that I reacted to what I considered to be your attack on me using Proverbs 16. That was wrong and I apologize.

Now, can we discuss things like adults going forward?

Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

Clete said:

It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).

Now that is an argument I can buy.


:thumb:


Grace and Peace

 

[1Way]

Wow, BChristianK, looking forward to more, but again, I was hoping for more mutual effort towards clarity prior to so much opposing debate.

But, since you are the one drawing the line of separation between us, if you are so inclined, then be my guest, you clearly have drawn the opposition. But I will be somewhat delayed in my response compared to recent activity. Maybe a day or two, I’ll update if it changes for the worse.

In the mean time, as to “name calling”, don’t accuse me as acting “without cause” or that it’s wrong to do as I have done on the basis that it is not nice to name call. I responded directly to what I exposed in “you” doing wrong, yet I do not recall that you made any efforts to make amends. Instead you just defensively charged against me for doing wrong.

Certainly being “nicer than God” is part of this debate, so don’t beg that question. It is precisely because of my godly care for the truth and righteousness that I challenged your behavior and your response is that in so doing, I am doing wrong! It is my good and godly service, do not speak bad/evil of my good. I may be wrong in the content of my charges (though I think not), but that I charge as I have is not wrong.

I affirm your desire to treat each other with the respect and dignity we should have in Christ, but without sacrificing opposition against that which is bad or false or evil, because if we did not do that, then our so called friendly and nice “agape” risks turning into the sin of hypocrisy. Hypocrasy, bad,
judging and opposing evil, good.

So, how about this, on the two issues you specifically sited me for calling you names, please review the context of my charges against you, and let me know of your resolution for what you did (and according to my charges). I say that exposing offense/bad/evil, you say “name calling” is a cross dispensational long standing godly tradition.

In Christ

 

[BChristianK]

1Way said:

Wow, BChristianK, looking forward to more, but again, I was hoping for more mutual effort towards clarity prior to so much opposing debate.

Mutual effort towards mutual clarity is fine with me. If you are referring to the size of my posts, we can get clear on some of the essentials and work outward if you like.
However you choose to proceed. If you back things down to a more fundamental level, I’ll not charge you with ignoring arguments. I didn’t realize your previous posts were designed to do this or I woudn’t have made such a big deal about you not addressing my questions.

But, since you are the one drawing the line of separation between us, if you are so inclined, then be my guest, you clearly have drawn the opposition. But I will be somewhat delayed in my response compared to recent activity. Maybe a day or two, I’ll update if it changes for the worse.

I’m not drawing a chalk line as if this were a boxing match. Yea, we started off on the wrong foot in my opinion but I’m not “out to get ya.” And I don’t perceive that you are “out to get me.” So though we are on opposite sides of this particular issue, I don’t think it is totally accurate to conclude we are in opposition. I think that in most debates, we’d find one another on the same side of the line, this just happens to be one in which we disagree.
No big deal. If we keep the rhetoric the same as if we were having a lively discussion over a cup of coffee, I don’t see how we have done any harm. I have always concluded that you folks are pretty thick skinned and, though I think I am less, I don’t let most things ruffle my feathers. As far as when you can reply, no hurry, take all the time you need.

In the mean time, as to “name calling”, don’t accuse me as acting “without cause” or that it’s wrong to do as I have done on the basis that it is not nice to name call.

I don’t accuse you of acting without cause. I just don’t agree with your cause. You assumed I was supporting the ungodly decision and then, based on that assumption, proceeded to set me straight. I think I have, as of the last post, at least demonstrated that your assumption was not indisputable. If it is true, as it appears to me it is, that your assumption was based on faulty conclusions, then you will have handed out a rebuke that was inappropriate.

I responded directly to what I exposed in “you” doing wrong, yet I do not recall that you made any efforts to make amends.

Amends for what? Disagreeing with Clete. I was invited to do, as were we all, in the start of the thread.

Poly said:
What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Instead you just defensively charged against me for doing wrong.

I certainly defensively charged against you, and I have apologized for that defensiveness. I don’t know what wrong you still think I was doing. If it is disagreeing with Clete, then it is a little more than disingenuous for the “don’t be nicer than God” folks to ask for discussion on a topic, whether it be agreement or disagreement, and then proceed to cast stones when you get what you asked for.

Certainly being “nicer than God” is part of this debate, so don’t beg that question.

Sure, I personally don’t think you can get kinder than God, but if you are going to hand out rebukes openly I think you should be darn sure that you can biblically substantiate the assumptions of your charge. Personally, I prefer the Matthew 18 model to the trigger happy openly public rebuke style.

It is precisely because of my godly care for the truth and righteousness that I challenged your behavior and your response is that in so doing, I am doing wrong! It is my good and godly service, do not speak bad/evil of my good. I may be wrong in the content of my charges (though I think not), but that I charge as I have is not wrong.

That just doesn’t make any sense. IF you prematurely haul off and thwop a guy in a convenience store because you have it in your mind he is going to rob the place, but it turns out that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he was, then you weren’t right in thwopin’ the dude.
Your knee jerk reaction was wrong, you should have been more thoughtful and cautious to make sure you could substantiate your interpretation of the facts before you acted with such aggression.

Finally, when can we start making this about something other than how crappy a Christian I am for disagreeing with Clete? I’ve already apologized for reacting to your charges defensively without so much as a request for, or an expectation of, an apology from you for your aggressive and premature accusation. Can we move on?
Apparently no, I read ahead and the whole of your post was a defense of your name calling behavior.

I affirm your desire to treat each other with the respect and dignity we should have in Christ,

I sense a ‘but’ coming..

but without sacrificing opposition against that which is bad or false or evil, because if we did not do that, then our so called friendly and nice “agape” risks turning into the sin of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, bad,
judging and opposing evil, good.

I’m not saying you can’t disagree with me, I’m just saying that when you do, lets not, first conclude without any conversation that you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong and second, that it is your God ordained role to straighten the rest of us out and to fully unload the arsenal of artillery on the first post.

So, how about this, on the two issues you specifically sited me for calling you names, please review the context of my charges against you, and let me know of your resolution for what you did (and according to my charges).

Is this a, “when you can come out and admit you are wrong, you can join the rest of the family at the dinner table,” speech?

You’re too much.

Look, you think its your deal to rebuke me at will. I disagree. I’m not looking for an apology, just that we move on? Interested or no?

If you want to continue to hand out rebukes, I’ll ignore them until you have convinced me that you are correct in your assumptions, and have done so employing biblical substantiation and logic (which I know you are capable of since I have read your other posts). Then, if you have proven your case, I’ll go back, and repent to the Lord, and if He so leads, to you and Clete as well. Until then why don’t we focus on the substance of the arguments not openly public rebukes that should, at the very least, follow a healthy dialog on the subject, not precede it.


Grace and Peace

 

[1Way]

BChristianK – I was specific in my response to you, I am specifically asking you to get specific with your responses to me. You have made dozens of generalizations of my personal wrong doing, including asking me what I mean while at the same time finding it within yourself to judge against me. So I dismiss your generalizations and I simply await for you to deal with the two specific issues that you raised against me since they are the only two with any teeth in them. If you are unwilling to work towards a peaceable resolution over your claims of my wrongdoing, which was actually over my claims of you doing wrong, then the case becomes all so clear.

I want the issue resolved and if possible, amends made, but you do not, you protect unsubstantiated offenses away from reconciliation, and you resist or perhaps deny accountability over such matters.

You made two specific claims against me, so I am rightly trying to set that situation right. I hope you will be so kind and considerate and respectful as to help me do that. And don’t ask me what the claims are all about, you are the one who supposedly knew enough about the situation to judge against me. So for the second time I politely ask, please substantiate your specific claims of my wrong doing, and stop making slanderous generalizations.

 

[BChristianK]

1Way, in my last post I asked:

Look, you think its your deal to rebuke me at will. I disagree. I’m not looking for an apology, just that we move on? Interested or no?

You replied:

BChristianK – I was specific in my response to you, I am specifically asking you to get specific with your responses to me. You have made dozens of generalizations of my personal wrong doing, including asking me what I mean while at the same time finding it within yourself to judge against me.

Ok then, let’s settle the petty dispute. First off, my making dozens of generalizations of your personal wrong doing is a fallacious statement. It is either a mistake on your part or a lie. In this very post you have admitted that there are two claims that I have made against you. Last time I made cookies two didn’t constitute a dozen.

But as to the two you are probably referring to:

1. Your abusive use of Proverbs 6:19.
a. If you were aware of the first Post made by Polly, then you would have been aware that disagreement was not only permissible, it was invited. To ask for something and then to object when you get it is disingenuous.
b. Your use of Proverbs 6:19 as an accusation that I am sowing discord with Clete presupposes that Clete isn’t wrong. I argue that Clete is, in fact wrong. I did so in a forum in which such argumentation was invited.
c. You have been evasive to this point in substantiating your presupposition that Clete isn’t wrong and until you do I won’t accept your rebuke. I won’t accept a rebuked from you for sowing discord if I am able to substantiate my position biblically, especially in light of your failure to prove otherwise. For if you cannot prove that my arguments against Clete’s statements are biblically unsubstantiated, then your charge that I am sowing discord is illegitimate.
d. If you really thought that I had wronged Clete, you should have PM’d me to deal with it as apposed to taking it upon yourself to do so on the board per Matthew 18.
2. Your name calling was childish.

You intellectual exclusivist.

You know precious little about me, my attitudes toward intellectualism, or who I choose to hang out with. Your name calling is based on your ignorance about my attitudes and behavior and you were out of line.

Is this specific enough?

Honestly, I don’t know why you insist we persist in arguing over these things when the substance of our discussion goes yet unaddressed.

So I dismiss your generalizations and I simply await for you to deal with the two specific issues that you raised against me since they are the only two with any teeth in them.

This is a mischaracterization of my other arguments and I promise once we have worked through these two issues you would like to deal with, the substantive arguments regarding the exegesis of the scriptures we have used and the arguments I have made regarding the discontinuity of the Old Covenant Laws will resurface.

If you are unwilling to work towards a peaceable resolution over your claims of my wrongdoing, which was actually over my claims of you doing wrong, then the case becomes all so clear.

Now, since you now admit that you did, in fact, advanced Proverbs 6:19 against me, in perception of my wrongdoing.
Please, specifically, clarify for me what it is I did wrong that was worthy of your rebuke. For it is likewise true that if you refuse to work toward a peaceable resolution of your claims of my wrongdoing then the case also becomes so clear, does it not?

I want the issue resolved and if possible, amends made…

Cool.

but you do not, you protect unsubstantiated offenses away from reconciliation, and you resist or perhaps deny accountability over such matters.

No.

You made two specific claims against me, so I am rightly trying to set that situation right.

Articulated above per your request.

I hope you will be so kind and considerate and respectful as to help me do that.

I hope my articulation of those two claims above were helpful in doing so.

And don’t ask me what the claims are all about, you are the one who supposedly knew enough about the situation to judge against me.

And you apparently knew enough of the situation to accuse me of sowing discord, so I hope you will grant me the reciprocal courtesy of articulating what transgression I committed that was worthy of your uninvited rebuke.

So for the second time I politely ask, please substantiate your specific claims of my wrong doing, and stop making slanderous generalizations.

I appreciate your courtesy. I have substantiated my claims above and If you think I have made slanderous generalizations, I would like for you to please point them out.

Grace and Peace

 

[1Way]

BChristianK - Things are worse. I've lost two hard drives, and my main computer is down. This will take longer.

No, it was not what you went into labors again with. I said it was originally over "my" complaints against "you", you then singled out those two specific complaints of mine against you, and you charged me with doing wrong. "You" specified these two issues of contention. So I simply wanted you to deal with my allegations against you instead of dismissing them as you have. I thought asking to deal with just these two issues will be a great way to show mutual respectable desires in Christ, and pave the way for some healthy personal respect and consideration. If it works out, then great, if not then such is life. If two is too much, if need be, we can just deal with one then. Thanks for your patience as I go through some unpleasant (to say the least) computer issues.

Oh, and I had a rough draft workup of dealing with your post, it was in depth, but it is down with my crashed computer. I may be restricted to less intensive posting for even weeks, not sure though, or it might be fixed by a simple reinstall of windows.
In Christ

 

[BChristianK]

1Way

No, it was not what you went into labors again with. I said it was originally over "my" complaints against "you", you then singled out those two specific complaints of mine against you, and you charged me with doing wrong. "You" specified these two issues of contention. So I simply wanted you to deal with my allegations against you instead of dismissing them as you have.

Your two allegations against me.
1. That I sowed discord among the brethren
2. That I am an intellectual exclusivist

Are both trumped up and fallacious charges. You’re wrong on both counts. I’m willing to let the whole thing go, but I’m not going to confess to fallacious charges. I was not sowing discord among the brethren as you suggest, I was disagreeing on a theology bulletin board after responding to a universal invite to do so. Furthermore, I disagreed with Clete because I am convinced that Clete’s statement was wrong, you would have to prove the tenants upon which I disagree with Clete to be fallacious before you would have just cause to accuse me with sowing discord.
Unless, of course, your definition of sowing discord is disagreeing with anyone even if that person is incorrect. But then that would be ridiculous and in your words, carrying the conversation below intellectual levels.
If your definition of sowing discord is to disagree with another Christian with the basis of that disagreement being incorrect biblical interpretation, then it is incumbent upon you to show that my exegesis of the passages we have been discussing are incorrect before you press the charge of sowing discord And If you are unable to do conclusively, then you should withdraw your charge completely.

Basically, your accusation that I have sown discord is based on the assumption that you and Clete are totally biblically right, and I am totally biblically wrong. Well, I disagree, so your gonna have to demonstrate that I am totally biblically wrong before I will entertain your accusations.

It would be as if Z Man said to you about Open Theism, “Your wrong, I’m right, here’s one scripture that proves it, HA! No way am I going to give you a chance to respond before I accuse you. We aren’t even going to discuss it because I am just right and you are just wrong, and by the way, because you are wrong, your sowing discord.”

When you bring up the meaning of the word Nacham in Hebrew, Z man says, “You intellectual exclusivist!”

Then when you say, “Hey, that’s jacked up, why don’t we analyze the biblical evidence before you determine a priori that I am wrong and you are right, and before you start casting stones based on your a priori conclusions?”

Z man responds, “nope, I’ll not discuss the possibility that you are right, until you capitulate to my a priori accusations that you have sown discord, Oh, I know, that accusation is contingent upon your actually being wrong, which we won't discuss until you capitulate to my accusations but that’s just the breaks.”

You’d be totally justified and saying that Z man has the cart before the horse and was off his rocker.

Second, I’m not an intellectual exclusivist. I was using a tool that has the most recent and reliable scholarship available today. Bob Hill teaches his students Greek.

Why?

So that they can have a better understanding of what the text specifically says. In the same way, I utilize the most reliable lexicon of the Greek language to better discern what the text specifically says. I am no more an intellectual exclusivist for using BDAG than Bob Hill is an intellectual exclusivist for knowing, using and teaching his knowledge of the Greek language in biblical interpretation.

Now I am starting to get the feeling that what you really mean when you say.

So I simply wanted you to deal with my allegations against you instead of dismissing them as you have.

Is..
“I want you to capitulate to the charges I have brought against you before we discuss whether or not my charges were substantiated.

If that is the case, then, yes, you will be waiting a long time for this. I was not sowing discord and I am not an intellectual exclusivist. And I will continue to dismiss charges that are false.

Do you think that false charges should be entertained?



Now you say:

I thought asking to deal with just these two issues will be a great way to show mutual respectable desires in Christ, and pave the way for some healthy personal respect and consideration.

Since when is sowing mutual respect tantamount to you making accusations against my character and my capitulating to those fallacious accusations without the right to show that they are indeed fallacious?

My opinion would be that showing mutual respect is holding off on making charges against one another’s character, at least until sufficient evidence is brought to bear on the subject, and even then it is not always appropriate.

So here’s the deal. I’m through discussing accusations. If you want to address the substantive issues of the post, I’m game. But I’m going to take your advice and redeem the time and to save Knight the server space of bickering with you over whether I have sown discord or not or am an intellectual exclusivist. This is rapidly becoming the domain of foolish argument.

If you want to address the substance of my arguments, then I am more than happy to engage in a friendly dialog. But I’m not going to discuss the charges of intellectual exclusivism anymore, at all, and I won’t entertain your argument that I am sowing discord until you have proven to me that I am not correct in my disagreement with Clete’s statement. If you wanna continue to talk about these two issues before responding to the substantive issues, your going to do it alone.

Thanks for your patience as I go through some unpleasant (to say the least) computer issues.

No problem.

Oh, and I had a rough draft workup of dealing with your post, it was in depth, but it is down with my crashed computer. I may be restricted to less intensive posting for even weeks, not sure though, or it might be fixed by a simple reinstall of windows.

Sorry about your computer issues. I understand, I’m in no hurry for your responses to take your time and do what you need to do.

Grace and Peace

 

[1Way]

BChristianK - I remember the one so the other must be accurate, thanks for helping me find them, and for not begrudging me for not presenting them earlier, I looked for them and did not find them. Your patience in so doing is appreciated, especially since you have now devoted two not small posts to this issue, and we are almost getting to square one. But the other does not seem right, but, for the time being, I am trusting you to deal uprightly representing my words on this issue.

To the point, I did not ask you to exonerate yourself over these issues.

I asked you to help me and my desire to make amends while accurately considering my charges. Plainly, your characterizations of what I levied against you do not match my intentions.

So, lets back up again, and this time try to deal with what I intended to convey. However, I do appreciate your examples using Z Man, they seem rather insightful arguments on their own.

On the one issue, you totally got me all wrong. And because I really want to cut to the chase, I'll just explain. The remark about being "exclusive" was particular to a specific choice of words. It was very exclusive, but there is not necessarily "sin" to utilize exclusive words. I sort of like it sometimes, especially if we remember to incorporate such things with the respect and consideration of others who do not use such terms. So it was not a cheap shot at you, it was a genuine concern for the benefit of everyone. What I stated was "specific", but you took it as "general". You took some liberty to do that, and upon reflection, you should not have done that. In fact, I recently gave a note of appreciation to Clete because of how decent you have been. post 208

• Clete - Thanks for the thumbs up. BChristianK seems to be at least responding in a somewhat reasonable way especially compared to others. I just wish to make the posts way smaller and take fewer and more foundational issues first and then go from there.

So my objectivity towards your contributions are not so unfair and misapplied as you may have thought. But I know this, if I have to correct so many issues of misunderstanding prior to getting at the heart of a matter, the productivity of our debate will not go far. Looking forward to your response concerning my request that we cooperatively make amends over those two issues. I would hope that I would not have to explain what you should do about them. You judged against me concerning those two issues, yet I say you don't even show a reasonable understanding of what I was getting at. What would be ideal, would be for you to accurately reflect my views without my going back to the original context and figuring them out again for myself. That would be a great start. And then you might explain your understanding for why it might have actually been a valid offense, or how I may have been wrong too, but this time, say such things according to my intentions, not contrary to them. (or just about the one that is left.) Thanks.

Oh, here is the latest note about my availability for this debate, which I really look forward to. I have recently went to church! One Sunday, two churches. Anyway, I incidentally met a gentleman who is against the open view, but is not very Calvinistic. So long story short is that I might potentially be dealing with (this guy's associate) a writer in a local Christian publication that is about to publish a public denouncement of the open view, and I am a strong supporter and defender of the Open View, so I may be spending time with that effort which may again put off this debate for a while. I am excited about this opportunity, but so far my desire to be included in that issue is being met with resistance. But I am looking forward our debate too.

 

[BChristianK]

1Way said:

I remember the one so the other must be accurate… and we are almost getting to square one.

Well, that is at least progress.

But the other does not seem right, but, for the time being, I am trusting you to deal uprightly representing my words on this issue.

Ok.

To the point, I did not ask you to exonerate yourself over these issues.

No you didn’t. It sounds to me like what you were asking for is capitulation. If that isn’t the case, then we’ve missed each other again, but that’s my honest assessment. I’ve articulated my perspective on those two issues, if you’d like to respond specifically to some elements of my articulation, I’ll go so far as to go back on my statement that I am done talking about it if doing so will be for the cause of being at peace with all men, (Romans 12:18).

I asked you to help me and my desire to make amends while accurately considering my charges.

Amends to whom and for what?

If you feel like you have a need to make amends with me. Then don’t worry about it, I’m way past being over the ever surfacing issues one and two, and my desire is that we move this thing along, not continue to beat the dead horse.

If you think I need to make amends with you, then please answer the following:
Do you expect me to make amends to you and/or Clete for disagreeing with him and/or you in post #68 of this thread?

And if so why do you assume that I should do so despite the fact that I stand in disagreement honestly. Offering capitulation on this point would be disingenuous of me. I still disagree with Clete and my previous posts have given ample reason as to why this is the case. If you would like to discuss why I disagree then we will have moved into the substantive issues of the discussion I wish to focus on like the exegesis of the scriptures that have been used on both sides and the perpetuity, or non-perpetuity, of capital punishment for homosexuality as prescribed by the Mosaic Covenant.

Plainly, your characterizations of what I levied against you do not match my intentions.

Ok then, what were you intentions?, because my characterization of what you have levied against me are exactly the way I honestly see it. If you see it differently you’re going to have to show me where I mischaracterized your charges against me. Or drop the matter altogether.

Either option is cool with me. But one way or the other, let’s move this thing forward, ok?

On the one issue, you totally got me all wrong. And because I really want to cut to the chase, I'll just explain… What I stated was "specific", but you took it as "general".

Ok, if you say so.

You took some liberty to do that, and upon reflection, you should not have done that.

Well, I don’t think I took as much liberty as you are suggesting. We were, in fact, talking about my use of the term “seminal lexical” as you say, but your response wasn’t. “this term is intellectually exclusive.” You said: “you intellectual exclusivist.”
The former is what you have just explained you meant, the latter is what you said. And I think most reasonable people would take the latter as a general claim about my character not as a commentary on my word usage. This explanation is not designed to perpetuate the issue however. You may take this comment and do with it as you deem appropriate. If it’s helpful feedback that is useful to you in conversing with me or others going forward, then great, if not, feel free to ignore it.

Nonetheless, no big deal, lets just consider it dropped, ok?

In fact, I recently gave a note of appreciation to Clete because of how decent you have been. post 208

Clete - Thanks for the thumbs up. BChristianK seems to be at least responding in a somewhat reasonable way especially compared to others. I just wish to make the posts way smaller and take fewer and more foundational issues first and then go from there.

I hadn’t read that since I don’t make it a point to read posts that aren’t directed at me not because I’m not interested, but because that would be quite time consuming. So thanks for the kind words. I also think that you are reasonable compared to others as I have responded to Adajos in post #31 in “Its all Jesus (Says the Dalai Lama).

(regarding some posters I Said)
I find it much easier to reason with Clete and 1Way. I am pretty convinced that they do care what the bible says and if we provide compelling enough arguments, they’ll eventually come around.

You said:

So my objectivity towards your contributions are not so unfair and misapplied as you may have thought.

Perhaps not. And if I have overreacted, and I have been unnecessarily aggressive because I have misinterpreted your charges against me, then I am sorry.

But I know this, if I have to correct so many issues of misunderstanding prior to getting at the heart of a matter, the productivity of our debate will not go far.

I feel the same way.

Looking forward to your response concerning my request that we cooperatively make amends over those two issues. I would hope that I would not have to explain what you should do about them. You judged against me concerning those two issues, yet I say you don't even show a reasonable understanding of what I was getting at.

Ok, so let’s assume that you are completely correct, and that I have totally misinterpreted your charges against me. If that’s the case, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Now it is incumbent on you to clarify what you have against me or drop it.

What would be ideal, would be for you to accurately reflect my views without my going back to the original context and figuring them out again for myself. That would be a great start. And then you might explain your understanding for why it might have actually been a valid offense, or how I may have been wrong too, but this time, say such things according to my intentions, not contrary to them. (or just about the one that is left.) Thanks.

Ok, I’m trying to be patient with this 1Way, I really am. So I’ll give it one more shot.

You would have been exposing a valid offense that I had committed. If I had rudely and inconsiderately charged against Clete without deference to biblical or logical truth in a forum where it was explicitly stated that dissenting opinion were not welcome.

However, I intended very much for my post, post #68, to be polite, considerate and concomitant with biblical and logical truth. Furthermore, the post was advanced in a discussion thread were dissenting opinions were solicited.

So that’s where I’m at. I can only call em’ as I see em’. If I don’t see em’ in the same light you do, asking me to go back and try to second guess my reading of your intentions isn’t going to help. I don’t have ESP, so if I have misdiagnosed your intentions you’re going to have to clarify them.

So I’ll leave it to you to specify how your interpretation of the events differ or to drop the whole thing altogether.

Again, either option works for me as long as we can move on.

Finally you say:

Anyway, I incidentally met a gentleman who is against the open view, but is not very Calvinistic. So long story short is that I might potentially be dealing with (this guy's associate) a writer in a local Christian publication that is about to publish a public denouncement of the open view, and I am a strong supporter and defender of the Open View, so I may be spending time with that effort which may again put off this debate for a while. I am excited about this opportunity, but so far my desire to be included in that issue is being met with resistance.

I’ll pray that God will open the way for you to participate.

BTW. A great publication came out recently that I picked up. It is an brief anthology of published debates on the concept of Divine Foreknowledge. Greg Boyd represents the Open View against David Hunt (the simple-foreknowledge view), William Lane Craig (The middle knowledge view) and Paul Helm of the Augustinian/Calvinist view)

The book name is Divine Foreknowledge it is edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, and its published by InterVarsity Press.

You may already have the book, but if not it might be a good resource for you in preparation.

But I am looking forward our debate too.

Ditto, though If you need to duck out, you won’t hurt my feelings any.



Grace and Peace

 

[adajos]

I know those guys....

I know those guys....

BCK:

BTW. A great publication came out recently that I picked up. It is an brief anthology of published debates on the concept of Divine Foreknowledge. Greg Boyd represents the Open View against David Hunt (the simple-foreknowledge view), William Lane Craig (The middle knowledge view) and Paul Helm of the Augustinian/Calvinist view)

The book name is Divine Foreknowledge it is edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, and its published by InterVarsity Press.

Boyd, Eddy, and Beilby are all theolgy profs (or ex-profs) at Bethel College, my alma mater. I am the most familiar with Boyd, who is brilliant and hilarious all at the same time. Every now and again, I atend his church, because he gives incredible sermons and is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard. I also have a good buddy who plays basketball with Beilby at Bethel too.

Boyd and Eddy used to teach a class called God, Evil, and Spiritual Warfare that was apparently terrific. I never took it, but my friends told me that in addition to the content being great, Boyd and Eddy would put each other down all the time, which was quite amusing.

When it first became widely known that Boyd was a proponent of the Open View, there was quite a controversy on campus. If you've read any of his stuff, let me assure you that he's even better in person because he is so excited and full of energy in person.

Well, that didn't add much to this discussion. Just thought I'd throw it out there since I kind of know all those guys.