Is calling Beanieboy a . . .

[Lovejoy]

I don't buy it.
Why would Jesus call Peter, "adversary" when He knew that He would begin His church with him, and yet call Judas, "friend" on the very night He knew Judas would betray Him?
The answer is only seen through spiritual eyes. Jesus had to be speaking directly to satan through Peter otherwise, he may have discouraged Peter. I think Peter understood this. However, Peter was in fact rebuking Jesus and Jesus was reminding him who he was talking to.
The very Creator of the universe!

The hardest part is determing where the assault was coming from and where it was going. Personally, I am of the opinion that Satan is not allowed to test without leave (permission). He did not have permission to test Peter at that time (that would come later, as indicated by the Gospel of Luke), and he certainly had not entered his body (as we see with Judas, he needed permission to do that too). However, he may have had leave to test Jesus (as he had with the temptation). I don't know, really. But it he did have leave to test Jesus, there is no reason he would not have been allowed to do so through Peter and his words. One thing we have to keep in mind is that the scripture specifically states that the rebuke was aimed at Peter. While Jesus may have been ending an attack whose origins where in Satan, the fact that He issued words from His mouth for all to hear was intended to discipline Peter and educate the crowd (at least according to Mark chapter 8). The resemblance between what Peter was saying was all too clearly in line with the temptations that Jesus was struck with through Satan. Perhaps the use of "Satan" by Jesus had a double meaning, both rebuking Peter's narrow minded rebuke and ending Satan's attack. It may have even been a highly unflattering comparison of Peter's inability to see God's plan to Satan's lack of discernment.

This is one of those Scriptures that leads me to believe that this whole issue is not so much black and white (it is neither immediately wrong or right to use harsh language) as it is a matter of situation and intent. I hope that Scriptures like this both slow the tongue of the hot and fire up the indignation of the meek.

 

[Lovejoy]

obviously a metaphor, unless you think we are expressly forbidden from literally putting pearls before pigs.



from name calling? angry, upset, and mad. it did not lead to repentence, only to thoughts of revenge.



the fact that they don't die immediately after commiting the sin shows that God has at least some tolernace for it. do i need to quote Romans 2:4 again?



which post?

Of course "pearls before swine" is a metaphor. Virtually all insults are. It is, however, still a very unflattering metaphor implying that someone is desperately unworthy of your energy.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Of course "pearls before swine" is a metaphor. Virtually all insults are. It is, however, still a very unflattering metaphor implying that someone is desperately unworthy of your energy.

the context deals with judging hypocritically, not about worthiness of energy.

 

[Lovejoy]

the context deals with judging hypocritically, not about worthiness of energy.

I have never heard that particular piece interpreted that way before. Certainly, the preceding paragraphs in Matthew are about judgement, but the only way I can see that his particular paragraph relating to that subject is in our capacity to judge who is worth of our "pearls." It seems to me very clearly about those we should spend our time teaching. Have you another explanation?

 

[Agape4Robin]

The hardest part is determing where the assault was coming from and where it was going. Personally, I am of the opinion that Satan is not allowed to test without leave (permission). He did not have permission to test Peter at that time (that would come later, as indicated by the Gospel of Luke), and he certainly had not entered his body (as we see with Judas, he needed permission to do that too). However, he may have had leave to test Jesus (as he had with the temptation). I don't know, really. But it he did have leave to test Jesus, there is no reason he would not have been allowed to do so through Peter and his words. One thing we have to keep in mind is that the scripture specifically states that the rebuke was aimed at Peter. While Jesus may have been ending an attack whose origins where in Satan, the fact that He issued words from His mouth for all to hear was intended to discipline Peter and educate the crowd (at least according to Mark chapter 8). The resemblance between what Peter was saying was all too clearly in line with the temptations that Jesus was struck with through Satan. Perhaps the use of "Satan" by Jesus had a double meaning, both rebuking Peter's narrow minded rebuke and ending Satan's attack. It may have even been a highly unflattering comparison of Peter's inability to see God's plan to Satan's lack of discernment.

This is one of those Scriptures that leads me to believe that this whole issue is not so much black and white (it is neither immediately wrong or right to use harsh language) as it is a matter of situation and intent. I hope that Scriptures like this both slow the tongue of the hot and fire up the indignation of the meek.

Thank you :LoJo: after re-reading that scripture, I have to agree with you. I stand corrected.
:e4e:

 

[temple2006]

A4R...No chapter and verse. This something that I read in a commentary and heard in a Bible Study. It seemed to me that " Get thee behind me, satan" did not make sense .

 

[BillyBob]

As opposed to, "Don't get thee behind me, Beanie!"

:shocked:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

I have never heard that particular piece interpreted that way before. Certainly, the preceding paragraphs in Matthew are about judgement, but the only way I can see that his particular paragraph relating to that subject is in our capacity to judge who is worth of our "pearls." It seems to me very clearly about those we should spend our time teaching. Have you another explanation?

Matthew 7
1"Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
6"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Prayer and the Golden Rule
7"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

i think the context of any verse is important. the verses before the pearls and swine speak of judgement. the ones after it speak of having the door opened to us if we knock. i would think it odd that this one verse would have a completely different point than both the verses before it and after it.

i think that the "pearls" Jesus is speaking of is judging among us. he is saying that we should not take our differences and let ourselves be judged by those who are corrupt in governments. if we take it to them when it should be settled among us, they will trample over us and tear us to pieces. when that happens, nobody wins, so we are to make right judgements amongst ourselves.

 

[julie21]

Lighthouse :But I did talk with him today, and he knows that I think he was a faggot when he was a faggot

Nice to have a loving heart to heart with Dad. with a little 'post' name referencing, isn't it? Long after the point is no longer valid, I should imagine that it makes it fine now to say, "Dad, when you were a homosexual, I think you were a faggot." Compared to telling him in a manner of disgust at the time he was one. Reactions might have been very different then.

Rep points? I believe so...
Who said anything about pull with the Lord? I'm merely pointing out that it is possible that I know more about Christianity than you do, seeing as how I've been at it longer.

As I said previously, Rep points don't bother me. Could be you do know more, could be you know less. A lot of atheists know a lot about Christianity too, so do you want to be measured against them?

I've been psychoanalyzing for quite a bit of my life. For some reason I can just read people. Of course, I will admit that it works a lot better when I actually know the person face to face.

Sorry, but I have to laugh at that one...considering some of the posts I have read you post since coming to TOL, I would say that you do not have a clue about people most of the time. Maybe if you tried the other side of the couch it could help.
And sorry about not your not pulling Gas anymore...I honestly thought you were still dispensing it.

Fine then, I think you're afraid. Happy now?

Buzzzzzzz....Nope, still got it wrong there mate. Still not happy 'cos you still are sprouting utter rubbish lad.

Right, prophecy isn't one of the gifts of the Spirit...

Still trying to work out what gift of the spirit you have...no, got nothing yet. Must be something, but it's not really clear to see.

*coughindirectinsultcough*
Just say it, instead of hiding behind fallacies. You're a hypocrite.

Ha! Ha! Ha!...that really gets me! Ooh! Ow! That hurts me sooooooo much LH!
And you are - - - - - - -- - - - ?
I will let others get their crayons and fill in the rest with what they like.

You're denying what I have said I perceive. That is all.

And your perception son, is utter :cow: That is what I will deny...your perception which is so way off!

From three to 23 I was one of those "nicer than God" Christians.

I am not 'anything' more than God. Never professed to be, never will...but you go ahead and put whatever slant on it that you like, as you will no doubt do.

You call people names that Jesus never called anyone, so don't tell me I'm wrong to do the same thing, hypocrite.

Tell you what Lighthouse. Go up to a homosexual and call him a faggot...note the reaction.
Go up to a homosexual and call him a turkey...note the reaction.
Odds tell me that the faggot will not be met with the same reaction as turkey.
Note to self...practice what I preach..do not call Lighthouse names.
Note to Lighthouse...practice what you preach...Jesus wants us to love others as ourselves.
Faggot is not a loving name in this world Lighthouse. It has hateful tones implied to what was once an innocent meaning.
Hateful is not loving. Jesus wants us to be loving...therefore use loving words.
You are a hypocrite...snap!

I am off to classes for now. Hopefully you will not miss me too much.

 

[JoyfulRook]

As opposed to, "Don't get thee behind me, Beanie!"

:shocked:

:shocked: Never!

 

[JoyfulRook]

Ha! Ha! Ha!...that really gets me! Ooh! Ow! That hurts me sooooooo much LH!
And you are - - - - - - -- - - - ?
I will let others get their crayons and fill in the rest with what they like.

As long as it's some thing Jesus said.

I am not 'anything' more than God. Never professed to be, never will...but you go ahead and put whatever slant on it that you like, as you will no doubt do.

I will. :thumb:

 

[Lovejoy]

Matthew 7
1"Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
6"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Prayer and the Golden Rule
7"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

i think the context of any verse is important. the verses before the pearls and swine speak of judgement. the ones after it speak of having the door opened to us if we knock. i would think it odd that this one verse would have a completely different point than both the verses before it and after it.

i think that the "pearls" Jesus is speaking of is judging among us. he is saying that we should not take our differences and let ourselves be judged by those who are corrupt in governments. if we take it to them when it should be settled among us, they will trample over us and tear us to pieces. when that happens, nobody wins, so we are to make right judgements amongst ourselves.

Okay, well that is hardly open and shut. That entire chapter is an issue of shifting principles that end with the people being astonished by Christs doctrine, which is to say that Jesus was presenting an entire set of rules for living, not just one theme. I certainly appreciate where you are coming from, but I find that (from my perspective) you are over-reaching (exceeding what is presented in the text) to form a theme that fits your beliefs.

 

[JoyfulRook]

VOTED NO: Agape4Robin, Aimiel, allsmiles, avatar382, beanieboy, beefalobilly, Berean Todd, Caille, Caledvwlch, cattyfan, Chileice, Dave Miller, freelight, God_Is_Truth, granite1010, Holly, ilyatur, Jabez, jeremiah, Jujubee, julie21, karstkid, ktjo, Lovejoy, On Fire, Redfin, seagull, Sold Out, temple 2000, Thia, Ya'nar#1

 

[JoyfulRook]

VOTED YES: aikido7, BillyBob, Clete, Crow, deardelmar, docrob57, Dread Helm, Emo, Freak, lighthouse, Lucky, Mr. 5020, Poly, ShadowMaid, Shimei, SOTK, the Sibbie, Turbo, Wamba the Fool, wholearmor

 

[SOTK]

Wow! This thread is getting out of hand! Some of my favorite brothers and sisters are at each other's throats and getting pretty personal!

Look, I've stated my opinion and some of you agree with it and some of you don't. Basically, I think there is a time for name-calling and a time to not. I think name-calling, at times and under some conditions, is effective; however, I think discernment should be used.

Regarding the abomination of homos, it seems that those Christians who are not comfortable using the term 'faggot' do not deny that homos are an abomination to God. As long as they believe this and do not give homos the idea that "they are okay", I don't see what we are getting so upset about.

I think we should drop this topic before things are said which aren't really meant.

 

[Ninjashadow]

VOTED NO: Agape4Robin, Aimiel, allsmiles, avatar382, beanieboy, beefalobilly, Berean Todd, Caille, Caledvwlch, cattyfan, Chileice, Dave Miller, freelight, God_Is_Truth, granite1010, Holly, ilyatur, Jabez, jeremiah, Jujubee, julie21, karstkid, ktjo, Lovejoy, On Fire, Redfin, seagull, Sold Out, temple 2000, Thia, Ya'nar#1

So?

 

[Ninjashadow]

VOTED YES: aikido7, BillyBob, Clete, Crow, deardelmar, docrob57, Dread Helm, Emo, Freak, lighthouse, Lucky, Mr. 5020, Poly, ShadowMaid, Shimei, SOTK, the Sibbie, Turbo, Wamba the Fool, wholearmor

Again, so?

 

[Agape4Robin]

A4R...No chapter and verse. This something that I read in a commentary and heard in a Bible Study. It seemed to me that " Get thee behind me, satan" did not make sense .

At least you are honest.
I think that is the danger of not researching the scripture for ourselves.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Wow! This thread is getting out of hand! Some of my favorite brothers and sisters are at each other's throats and getting pretty personal!

Look, I've stated my opinion and some of you agree with it and some of you don't. Basically, I think there is a time for name-calling and a time to not. I think name-calling, at times and under some conditions, is effective; however, I think discernment should be used.

Regarding the abomination of homos, it seems that those Christians who are not comfortable using the term 'faggot' do not deny that homos are an abomination to God. As long as they believe this and do not give homos the idea that "they are okay", I don't see what we are getting so upset about.

I think we should drop this topic before things are said which aren't really meant.

SOTK-
I think that is exactly what is happening. Because there are those of us who disagree with the name calling issue, it is being mistaken for tolerance. Anyone who has read my posts concerning wickwoman's neice, would soon find out that I am not condoning homosexuality. But in this thread, that seems to be the case.
It hurts to think that my brothers and sisters in Christ have turned on me. I feel ostracised by the likes of lighthouse, Poly, Turbo, deardelmar and those that I like and respect.
But I don't think so much name calling is effective in reaching out to the lost, and I will not say that it is. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing, but no one ever promised me that being a christian would be easy.

 

[Lovejoy]

Wow! This thread is getting out of hand! Some of my favorite brothers and sisters are at each other's throats and getting pretty personal!

Look, I've stated my opinion and some of you agree with it and some of you don't. Basically, I think there is a time for name-calling and a time to not. I think name-calling, at times and under some conditions, is effective; however, I think discernment should be used.

Regarding the abomination of homos, it seems that those Christians who are not comfortable using the term 'faggot' do not deny that homos are an abomination to God. As long as they believe this and do not give homos the idea that "they are okay", I don't see what we are getting so upset about.

I think we should drop this topic before things are said which aren't really meant.

I am inclined to agree. The sad part is that I waited to the very last minute to even vote, and in the end was swayed. I was not terribly moved by any argument provided by those who felt it was not Christ-like to use that word faggot or insults in general, but in fact was moved by those who felt it was Christ-like. Some of the obvious pleasure (a few) take in using insults moved me to believe that there is nothing inherently Christlike about it. That is not to say that there is not call to use them, or that Christ didn't, but rather that some who defend the practice do not defend it for Christian reasons, but rather to rationalize their own behavior. Sadly, many of those on the other side are just as insulting, but more covert about it. So I am left without a side. Thank God for that. I will say that (a few) people came out as shining examples of those who are willing to look to their own behavior, use discernment for the practice of speech, and have earned my respect. Of course, they didn't post on this thread. :LoJo: I'M KIDDING!