Mean TOL members

[Free-Agent Smith]

What a hateful attitude smaller. Chileice I have read most of this thread, as generated, and have seen nothing wrong with what she has said.

 

[adajos]

Nineveh:

No, I suggested those passages because of your statement: "I'm not trying to take sides."

You'll need to put a sentence of your own next to uncommented Bible verses in the future so I know what you're trying to reference.

And as far as taking sides goes, I want you to know I take a solid stance on an issue like this, I don't "take sides" personally. IOW I don't pick a side in arguments based on who the participants are.

I notice you didn't address my post directly to show how she wasn't exalting herself. You disagreed without supporting your idea with reasons.

It's your reasoning I disagree with.

Well, that's not much of a revelation. Care to show me what part of my reasoning in that post you dispute? I'm sure we both agree that stating "I disagree with your reasoning" does not disprove an invalid argument. If my argument is invalid, please show me.

Not harsh to anonymous strangers? The woman at the well didn't seem to know Jesus, yet he all but called her a slut, didn't He? I don't think the Bible indicates anything other than brothers (in Christ) and neighbors. Who do you consider "too anonymous" to share the Gospel with?

As Lucky and Chileice have pointed out, this is simply false. They have already addressed this at length, so I feel no need to comment on the specifics.

I will say that your bias is showing very clearly with this passage. Try this: pretend you'd never heard of Enyart and never been told that frequent Christian rudeness to unbelievers is always good, and read the passage and tell me if you think it equates to Christ harshly calling her a slut?

Any objective party who reads your post would clearly be able to see how your bias is influencing the clarity of your interpretation negatively.

BTW, nobody is too anonymous to share the Gospel with. But "sharing the Gospel" is different that telling somebody that make you want to puke and that you will rejoice when they burn in hell.

No, that's what I meant. Using the excuse that Jesus wasn't always harsh doesn't let folks off the hook from standing against sin.

You're absolutely right. What you're forgetting is that "standing against sin" doesn't mean that you call somebody a disgusting bag of promiscous vomit who will very fortunately be tortured for eternity. Why must you have such a bizarre, narrow definition of what it means to stand against sin? In your definition, foul-name calling is a required element apparently.

To stand against Communism, do you have to be rude to every Communist you ever see?

No, that's not all it takes. Acknowledging that she is a Christian but is still capable of committing the sin of self-righteousness. She refused to even recognize the possibility. Do you as well? You say her fruit isn't prideful, and yet you gave no substantive reason as to why you disagreed with me when I claimed she was exalting herself.

Because I see this:

You are judging a Christian who is judging a sinner. Poly is saved, beanieboy is not. If your intent is to edify or correct Poly's witness perhaps you should speak to her privetly other than derail the witness to the lost one on this thread.

If you'll notice, I have never once disagreed with the assesment that homosexuality activity is a sin. I have never once disagreed that we are all sinners and even the teeniest of sins is sufficient for our damnation. I have not disagreed with that statement that only through accepting the freely given sacrifice of Christ to atone for our sins, can we be saved.

I have no contradicted the Gospel message that has been set forth. I have taken issue with the poor way in which it was delivered.

I have not turned beanieboy off towards the Gospel. Ask him, if you don't believe me.

gloat: ... often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction ...

Malicious? Malice: desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another. Poly is this way concerning beanieboy? I tend to think she wants him out of the "malicious" deathstyle of homoism.

"Self satisfaction"? God will be satisfying His own standard of Justice when the unrepentant are sent to hell.

We can play the word game if you want, but I truly believe you misunderstand Poly's intentions toward beanieboy.

Look, however you want to twist it to excuse her appalling behavior is your business. It is quite obvious to somebody who isn't personal friends with her that she was expressing personal pleasure at someone else's dreadful misfortune that will not befall her. If that isn't gloating in your dictionary, then I am wasting my time trying to reason with you.

As far as misunderstanding her intentions---I don't think I do. But, I'll play your game for a second. Let's say I did misunderstand her. If I, a lifelong Christian misunderstand her, what do you think the odds are of unbelievers mistunderstanding her?

If I'm not mistaken she was refering to the joy we will have when evil is finally put away after the Judgement. If she were, in her heart, as you claim her to be, she would be on this thread trying to thwart any witness to beanieboy. Those are the people who are taking self pleasure in the misfortune of the unrepentant.

The joy that we have about no more sin and evil is a joy about the absence of something in our lives. It's not about rejoicing that many people that you knew on earth are burning in hell.

I think you realize that she made an indefensible statement and so you are trying to interpret it in the nicest possible light. Lest we forget, here's exactly what she said:

And those that continue to spit in the face of God until the day of judgment, we get to rejoice over when they get what's coming to them.

I realize she seems to be your friend, but try to look at it objectively.

I tend to believe she would be singing praises to God right along with the angels who were rejoicing. But before we can get that far, beanieboy needs to know what God thinks of him today.

Hey, I hope she would be doing just that. I think beanie has had it made abundantly clear to him that you think he's a disgusting pervert. I think it's been made clear to him that you believe that God thinks him a disgusting pervert.

I don't know that's it's been made clear to him that God loves him. I don't think it's been made clear that it hurts God when those He loves commit sin. Just as it hurts Him when people lie, cheat, steal, kill, lust, etc.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Not calling people foul, offensive names is not equivalent to "tolerating sin".

How about judging the Christian for judging a sinner? I tend to think this most certaining tolerates the unrepentant sinner in favor of preaching to the chior.

Nope. I'm not on Poly's case for telling beanie that homosexuality is a sin. I'm on her case for how she did it and with her attitude in doing so.

I have not excused sin, of any kind, in any way. Only your bias could make you believe otherwise. Try to step back from the situation a bit and you'll see the truth of it.

I didn't realize the name of the sin was "queer" or "fag" or "homo".

I find it odd... I don't get offended for being called a "hetero", perhaps the perversion itself is the offensive thing. But just for you, I'll use the term sodomite, is that better?

Don't change your terms for me---do it for God and for love of the lost. Do it out of humility that "But for the grace of God, there go I"

Oh, and do it seriously, rather than disingenously swapping one derogatory and dehumanizing word for another.

If by your statement you mean you are viscerally repulsed by what they do, then I agree. But I don't think visceral repulsion at sinful actions we treat them worse than other sinners.

Sodomy is repulsive, the act is akin to a "pile of vomit". I'm sorry you missed the point.

Actually I didn't miss your point. I am fully aware that you think your personal disgust towards a particular sin determines that God hates that person and will banish them to a particulary hot spot in the lake of fire. Thus, you have free reign to treat them like crap. OK, maybe that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but it does sound like that's what you're saying.

Personal disgust with a sin should have no bearing on how we treat people who engage in that sin.

I am viscerally repulsed at anal sex within a heterosexual marriage as well. So what? Oh yeah, overweight heterosexual married people having sex also repulses me.

Why are you trying to get the focus off the unrepentant sodomite by even bringing this into the convo?

See above---your personal disgust is irrelevant is what I am pointing out. It's my way of saying "You're repulsed, so what?" Why are you trying to give some kind of spiritual credence to your personal feelings of repulsion?

So in your book, anything is ok, as long as they are unrepentant. Your judgement is only reserved for Christian witnesses you don't approve of.

Of course not. That's just silly. My point was that beanieboy isn't a Christian, so don't expect him to know everything or agree with you on everything. I don't expect him to inherently judge sin according to evangelical Christian standards, but I do expect that from Poly, as well as treating sinners like Christ would.

Right, they did the easy things like "go to church" and "tithe", but they didn't know God in their heart, they kept those away from God who aught be drawn near, like the lame and blind. They went by their own standard of righteousness, not God's.

Yes, I know that you think I'm playing the Pharisee role in this conversation. Fortunately the truth of what it means to be like a Pharisee is obvious enough that I feel no need to respond to your statement.

The merely judgemental Christian takes issue with the Christian witness, a Christian who judges rightly take issue with unrepentance. I see more Pharisee in those that stand in front of the Law shaking their fingers at folks who desire to bring the unrepentant out from under the Law.

Again, the truth of what a Pharisee does is obvious, I won't bother rebutting this.

As an aside, you'll notice that I never claimed that she judged wrongly. I just said she made her judgement without humility and seemingly without love.

If you don't look righteous on the outside, then a comparison to a Pharisee is a bad comparison.

Isn't there a saying... don't judge by outward appearance?

Yep, which is why you'll notice I never said we ought to judge by outward appearence.

Of course "upon their own rules" was intended to get at the incessant rules about how if we don't call people foul names we don't really love them.

No one is stopping you from witnessing to beanieboy in the way you are called, except you (if you haven't).

I have no idea what the connection is between the quote of mine, and what you said.

You're right, nobody is stopping me. I feel that standing up for him when he's been mistreated is the start of a witness because it shows that I care---which I do. There's more to witnessing that saying "the Bible says this about your damnation".

Look, if that's what I've been doing, then may God truly forgive me and may beanieboy know Christ personally. However, I think I've been trying to prevent pointless harm be done to an unbeliever by getting a wrong idea of how Christians ought to act.

Even better, you are leaving beanieboy in death, while showing him it's ok to judge those who judge him. Judging rightly would go further toward your goal.

Actually, pointing out a Christian with an improper attitude is a good step towards improving the ability of an unbeliever to discern God's truth and judge rightly.

I tend to think what you are saying in this back and forth to be even more ominous. "Speak nothing but kindness to sodomites, that will convict them of their sin." Let me know if it works for you, so far, I have never witnessed a sodomite being convicted by niceness. But I have witnessed harshness convicting sin.

C'mon now. Why do you always exaggerate and misrepresent my position? Do you really not understand it? Are the concepts of "love for sinners" and "call people foul names" so fused in your thought that you cannot separate the two?

"Speak the truth in love" is my approach. Sometimes love requries harshness. Sometimes it doesn't. Love isn't always warm and fuzzy. But nor is it always harsh and abrasive when expressed towards sinners who are ignorant of their sin. One thing I do know---love is humble, no matter what.

Ok, so stand up for beanieboy getting out of sodomy. Let him know his life is an abomination and his works are dirty rags in God's eyes.

Sure, just as my heterosexual sinful life was an abomination and dirty rags before God's eyes prior to salvation.

Why must homosexual sin always be worse than any other sin to you people? God's perspective is an eternal perspective. Try to see it His way. In the scope of eternity homosexuality has the same severe consequences as stealing a paperclip.

And I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. "Nice" has homos in the pulpit. Again, I haven't seen much of an example of "how" from the "judge-not crowd".

The misrepresentation continues. Everyone who disagrees with your approach is apparently also in favor orgies in church as well as not calling people foul names.

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Nineveh


This is a large thread, I'm sorry, I thought you might take the opportunity to show me how it's done. I guess you are free to read into my intentions anything you like.



I'm glad you witness in a different way than others (I wish you had shared an example with me). However I am not in agreement that all parts of the Body have the same calling or "style".

You have a point. I do not KNOW your reasoning for checking the posts. I hope you will read them to learn and not to criticize. If that is your true intention, then I do want to help. Keep reading beyond this post a bit and find beanie's reply. It is interesting.
Hoping for the best,
Chileice
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=518771#post518771

 

[smaller]

What's really laughable is seeing people who believe identically (cheleice/adajos/NINevah)

that should beanieboy remain blinded by what has captured him until death he will STILL burn in torture forever argue about how he is treated.

IF this position is TRUE then the MOST DEDICATED, FIRERY, NO HOLDS BARRED, SHOCKING things should be done to help avoid this eternal consequence.

Why SUGAR COAT it? Why AVOID the (so called) TRUTH of your bottom line? You ALL have the same bottom line.

ALL 3 of your positions are called repent or burn forver in fire.

This is the VERY VERY best that ANY of your so called "love" has to offer.

smaller

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Poly

:thumb:

If I see beanieboy when I get to heaven I'll be jumping up and down and elated because I'll know that there was a point and time that he Must have repented from his sins, humbled himself and accepted Christ. Otherwise he wouldn't be there.

Or that you have repented from your self righteous self exhalting abusive "I hate you because I love you" lie you keep living.

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Or that you have repented from your self righteous self exhalting abusive "I hate you because I love you" lie you keep living.

hugs n kisses, beanie!

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Nineveh

4th and counting, don't ever accuse someone else of not answering your questions, hypocrite.

I'm 40.
I'm HIV negative.

Exactly when were you planning this premature funeral for me?

And, do you honestly believe that heterosexuals can't become infected with HIV?

Or do you not love sexually active heterosexuals as much as you do homosexuals?

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by smaller

What's really laughable is seeing people who believe identically (cheleice/adajos/NINevah)

I don't think they are believing identically.

Adajos makes really good points.

For example, it has been pointed out to me that they tell me that their religion condemns me, their book condemns me, their God hates me and I repulse him and he calls for my death, and I repulse them.

Then they want to know if I want to sign up, and are angry and confused when I say no thanks.

Adajos points out that instead of expressing the forgiveness of God, they only present condemnation. Instead of presenting the love of God, they present his anger and hatred. Instead of offering hope, they offer eternal burning in hell.

When confronted with questionable tactics, they twist the bible.
I couldn't find the word "slut" in the woman of the well story. "You have answered rightly" = slut? um. ok.

But adajos approaches it from a much different way.
He is humble. He is understanding.
He doesn't put words in God's mouth.

So I can listen.

Poly, you keep avoiding the question put to you:
How many times have your abrasive tactics ever worked?

 

[smaller]

Eternal damnation in any other name remains the same.

My only points in this entire matter is that we ARE ALL CONCLUDED as UNDER SIN...

there is no person who can as a BELIEVER say "I HAVE NO SIN."

there is no person who can as a BELIEVER say "I have not sinned."

there is no person who can as a BELIEVER say "I (or God) have ridden myself OF sin."

I also believe that judging another person to burn in fire forever for the VERY SAME THINGS that EXIST in them constitutes THE GREATEST SIN.

There simply is no greater form of hatred than seeing someone tortured FOREVER in fire. So they are merely mouthpieces of the GREATEST FORM OF HATRED EVER DEVISED. If this is what their "god" is, then he certainly has SHOWN Himself AS THIS HATRED eh?

They think themselves EXEMPT from the FATE OF FIRE but yet 95-99.9999999% of the entire human race is slated for such a fate of fire whether by "freewill" or by "predestination."

And they really hate it when people like me point out this SUPREME HYPOCRISY and claim JESUS CHRIST is indeed who He claimed to be:

The Saviour of The World.

...not their petty paltry little tightwad percentage of The World, but EVERY CREATURE.

Romans 8
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

They get even wilder when people like me point out that it is GOD HIMSELF who raises these things LIKE CORRUPTION in The World.

This is ALL a part of God's Plan.

God commanded from the beginning that LIGHT should shine FROM DARKNESS.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I'm 40.
I'm HIV negative.

Exactly when were you planning this premature funeral for me?

And, do you honestly believe that heterosexuals can't become infected with HIV?

Or do you not love sexually active heterosexuals as much as you do homosexuals?

Oh, I believe that immoral heterosexuals (and sometimes their unfortunate spouses) definitely can become infected with HIV.

There just aren't as many heterosexuals flaunting their immorality on this board for us to love. But we love them all the same.

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smaller

Greetings AIM meal

Howdy SMALLER brain.

I believe I am still waiting for you to condemn me to eternal torture Mr. Chicken Feathers.

I don’t have to, your sin will do that. Yours is obvious, that of being a stumbling-block for Jesus’ Lambs. Don’t you realize how precious they are to Him, and the fact that you will be held accountable for the things that you say and do, especially for perverting His Word and making up your own un-sound foolish doctrine?

You WANT to damn beanieboy to BURN FOREVER, yet you would PERHAPS allow him into heaven? You are so very solid on your positions eh?

I don’t damn anyone, since each and every person must pay for their own sins (according to The Word of God) and the wages of sin is death (according to The Word of God), and after that The Judgement (according to The Word of God), and those whose names are not found in The Lamb’s Book of Life will be cast into The Lake of Fire (according to The Word of God); but I do point out the fact that if someone doesn’t accept God’s free gift of eternal life, that they don’t have it. Your posts are proof that just because something is offered doesn’t mean that it is ‘owned,’ or usable. You are offered wisdom, because The Word of God says that if anyone of us lacks wisdom (that’s you, SMALLER brain), that he should ask God, Who gives liberally, and He will give you wisdom. Well, The Lord offered it, and you refused, so you don’t have wisdom. The same logic applies to eternal life.

Damn me to hell if you DON'T THINK I KNOW MY WORD.

Your words have already done so.

The reason you ALL don't is YOU KNOW I know My Lord, The Word made FLESH.

If you did, you’d demonstrate it. You don’t, so you can’t.

Newsflash...the blood of Jesus is ineffective without (Aimiel) activating it!

It is not ineffective without application, merely un-applied. The Lord chose to ‘offer’ His free gift (salvation) to men; not to force it on them, the way you try to force your foolishness on the unsuspecting.

Yeah, God hid his GIFT in JESUS CHRIST so well that only AIM meal and a pathetic few others ACTIVATED IT (but they are not really that sure...God could decide to BURN THEM as well just for spite.)

If He did, He would be a liar, which He is not. He said that those who believe in Him would be saved.

The Lord already showed me YOUR TRUTH and He said DAMN THAT LIE.

Your ‘lord’ is not Jesus, it is Satan, if you believe that is what he said.

Oh such WISDOM. Newsflash...GOD IS LIKE THE IRS.

I guess asking you to grasp a concept such as that was a stretch, wasn’t it?

Your "lawyer" looks effective for you that's for sure.

Yes, Jesus is The Only Defense Lawyer Who will be allowed to speak in That Court on Judgement Day.

You and the others, Poly, Sibbie, AIM meal, EXEMPLIFY the very people who KILLED THE WORD and who CONTINUE TO KILL HIM TO THIS VERY DAY.

You’re now trying to resurrect anti-semetism. Why? Is it because you are bitter and full of hatred and spite? Besides, all that I have to say to your charge is: “His Blood be upon us, and upon our children.”

You SHUT UP THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN TO OTHERS.

It is The Word of God, and just because you have a perverted view of it and don’t hold onto sound doctrine, that is your problem.

YOU yourself DO NOT GO IN.

Oh, I go in. I go in. I have been to Heaven. I have seen it. I go in. I enter The Presence of The Lord quite frequently. I go in. It takes ‘pressing’ to reach His Presence. You will be ‘straightened,’ by the exercise. It is the hardest thing you will ever do, but the wages are the best thing in the world, His Presence. There is no way to describe the things He shares.

YOU are full of DEAD MENS BONES.

It is more fitting to apply this to you. The people who listen and believe what you say (if there are any, which I seriously doubt) The Lord will require their blood by your hand. Yours is the position which is most precarious.

What's really laughable is seeing people who believe identically (cheleice/adajos/NINevah) that should beanieboy remain blinded by what has captured him until death he will STILL burn in torture forever argue about how he is treated.

IF this position is TRUE then the MOST DEDICATED, FIRERY, NO HOLDS BARRED, SHOCKING things should be done to help avoid this eternal consequence.

You mean like God allowing Himself to be put to death, to demonstrate how serious this thing really is? You mean like turning someone into a pillar of salt, or having a donkey speak? How about causing a whole troop of soldiers fall over backwards when Someone merely speaks Their Name? I believe that The Lord has done all that He is going to do to give salvation the emphasis that it needs, and that getting this message across is up to us (Jesus-believing Christians, not ‘professing Christians,’ such as yourself.

Why SUGAR COAT it? Why AVOID the (so called) TRUTH of your bottom line? You ALL have the same bottom line.

ALL 3 of your positions are called repent or burn forver in fire. This is the VERY VERY best that ANY of your so called "love" has to offer.

The Lord, Whose first words, as A Preacher, were: “Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” has good reason to be very proud of them, and not yourself. The very, very best that God could demonstrate His Love, was to surrender His Son to be tortured and killed, and He did so. This would not have been necessary (to demonstrate His Love) if the drawing of men to Him were not His Goal. He longs for all men to be saved (His Heart) but has not designed this earth to fulfill His Heart’s Desire, but to fulfill ours. We are His Pride and Joy. We are The Apple of His Eye. He longs to give us the desires of our heart. He emptied Heaven to make it so. We need to ‘engage’ in order to reach Him. If we never ‘hook-up,’ never come to faith in Him, we will never meet Him. If we never meet Him, He will say to us, on Judgement Day, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

 

[Aimiel]

Blue Meanie

Blue Meanie

The meanest TOL member of all is SMALLER brain, who hijacks every thread he gets his hands on to try to promote his Universalist hogwash, even though he hasn't had one single taker, yet.

I think he should drop the Green Arrow avatar in favor of the Blue Meanine, from Sgt. Pepper.

 

[beanieboy]

I don't start threads about homosexuality.
And when I respond to a thread, suddenly I'm flaunting.

I find it much more disturbing to claim to be christian, then excuse any and all behavior because you somehow believe you are exempt for the law.

I find it much more disturbing to quote the bible ("Jesus called the woman at the well a slut") when the bible says no such thing, not even insinuated.

I find it much more disturbing that one calls other Christians to stop being "nice", as in, respectful, kind, gentle, and many of the things Christ called people to do.

I find it disturbing to call oneself Christian, and demand people to repent, yet refusing to acknowledge one's own glaring sins of self exhaltation.

Even though you keep telling me to look over there, I can still see the elephant in the room.

 

[smaller]

Greetings AIMmeal

You will have to excuse me for MANipulating the ETERNAL TORTURER in you.

I don’t have to, your sin will do that. Yours is obvious, that of being a stumbling-block for Jesus’ Lambs. Don’t you realize how precious they are to Him, and the fact that you will be held accountable for the things that you say and do, especially for perverting His Word and making up your own un-sound foolish doctrine?

I count my rewards as the number of hits I get from the ACCUSER OF OTHERS that comes out in our discussions.

I don’t damn anyone, since each and every person must pay for their own sins (according to The Word of God) and the wages of sin is death (according to The Word of God), and after that The Judgement (according to The Word of God), and those whose names are not found in The Lamb’s Book of Life will be cast into The Lake of Fire (according to The Word of God); but I do point out the fact that if someone doesn’t accept God’s free gift of eternal life, that they don’t have it. Your posts are proof that just because something is offered doesn’t mean that it is ‘owned,’ or usable. You are offered wisdom, because The Word of God says that if anyone of us lacks wisdom (that’s you, SMALLER brain), that he should ask God, Who gives liberally, and He will give you wisdom. Well, The Lord offered it, and you refused, so you don’t have wisdom. The same logic applies to eternal life.

I don't judge says AIM meal, as he launches into ETERNAL DAMNATION. What a belly laugh you bring. It is so..... entertaining to see your strings being pulled.

quote from smaller
Damn me to hell if you DON'T THINK I KNOW MY WORD.

Your words have already done so.

Oh, how is that Mr. NON judgment??? (hahahaahahahahahahaah)

quote from smaller:
Newsflash...the blood of Jesus is ineffective without (Aimiel) activating it!

It is not ineffective without application, merely un-applied.

Is there a difference??? (smaller says while still chuckling profusely.)

The Lord chose to ‘offer’ His free gift (salvation) to men; not to force it on them, the way you try to force your foolishness on the unsuspecting.

I see. So the BLOOD OF CHRIST was shed for all men so they could SAVE THEMSELVES???

quote from smaller:
Yeah, God hid his GIFT in JESUS CHRIST so well that only AIM meal and a pathetic few others ACTIVATED IT (but they are not really that sure...God could decide to BURN THEM as well just for spite.)

If He did, He would be a liar, which He is not. He said that those who believe in Him would be saved.

Oh, that's right. YOU are a member of the SINLESS GOD ACTIVATORS club (thump)

quote from smaller
The Lord already showed me YOUR TRUTH and He said DAMN THAT LIE.

Your ‘lord’ is not Jesus, it is Satan, if you believe that is what he said.

How do you KNOW this AIM meal?

Yes, Jesus is The Only Defense Lawyer Who will be allowed to speak in That Court on Judgement Day.

But you see YOU ARE SPEAKING for JESUS already. In case I have not made the point I find that a LITTLE more than presumptuous on your part unless of course you claim to be SINLESS.

quote from smaller:
You and the others, Poly, Sibbie, AIM meal, EXEMPLIFY the very people who KILLED THE WORD and who CONTINUE TO KILL HIM TO THIS VERY DAY.

You’re now trying to resurrect anti-semetism. Why?

Oh boy, this should be good....I say ALL PEOPLE are already SAVED and this makes me ANTI-semetic HOW?

Is it because you are bitter and full of hatred and spite?

Well let's see. You and your pack condemn nearly everyone to burn in fire forever and I say ALL PEOPLE are God's Children and as such ARE SAVED and YOU are NOT full of hatred and spite and I am????

I'll get back to you on this one AIM meal...NOT...

Besides, all that I have to say to your charge is: “His Blood be upon us, and upon our children.”

It will be.

quote from smaller
You SHUT UP THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN TO OTHERS.

It is The Word of God,

I am glad you are owning up to DOING THE SHUTTING up of HEAVEN.

and just because you have a perverted view of it and don’t hold onto sound doctrine, that is your problem.

What position is that AIM meal? I really don't think you have quite gotten a hold of it yet, so you struggle with the little voices in your head that just wants to ACCUSE others without a BASIS.

quote from smaller
YOU yourself DO NOT GO IN.

Oh, I go in. I go in. I have been to Heaven. I have seen it. I go in. I enter The Presence of The Lord quite frequently. I go in.

What did God tell you when you were in HEAVEN???

It takes ‘pressing’ to reach His Presence. You will be ‘straightened,’ by the exercise. It is the hardest thing you will ever do, but the wages are the best thing in the world, His Presence. There is no way to describe the things He shares.

I see. Perhaps He was trying to tell you and you DIDN't GET IT???

It is more fitting to apply this to you. The people who listen and believe what you say (if there are any, which I seriously doubt) The Lord will require their blood by your hand. Yours is the position which is most precarious.

What position is that AIM meal? That I believe that the blood of Jesus was sufficient for ALL OF CREATION regardless of MEN'S ACTINGS????

quote from smaller
What's really laughable is seeing people who believe identically (cheleice/adajos/NINevah) that should beanieboy remain blinded by what has captured him until death he will STILL burn in torture forever argue about how he is treated.

IF this position is TRUE then the MOST DEDICATED, FIRERY, NO HOLDS BARRED, SHOCKING things should be done to help avoid this eternal consequence.

You mean like God allowing Himself to be put to death, to demonstrate how serious this thing really is? You mean like turning someone into a pillar of salt, or having a donkey speak? How about causing a whole troop of soldiers fall over backwards when Someone merely speaks Their Name? I believe that The Lord has done all that He is going to do to give salvation the emphasis that it needs, and that getting this message across is up to us (Jesus-believing Christians, not ‘professing Christians,’ such as yourself.

OK Mr. NON judgment. (still chuckling slightly.)

quote from smaller
Why SUGAR COAT it? Why AVOID the (so called) TRUTH of your bottom line? You ALL have the same bottom line.

ALL 3 of your positions are called repent or burn forver in fire. This is the VERY VERY best that ANY of your so called "love" has to offer.

The Lord, Whose first words, as A Preacher, were: “Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” has good reason to be very proud of them, and not yourself. The very, very best that God could demonstrate His Love, was to surrender His Son to be tortured and killed, and He did so.

Yes, God's Own Son was tortured and killed so that God could burn the majority of humanity in fire forever?????

This would not have been necessary (to demonstrate His Love) if the drawing of men to Him were not His Goal. He longs for all men to be saved (His Heart) but has not designed this earth to fulfill His Heart’s Desire, but to fulfill ours.

So MY desire will go UNfulfilled and YOURS fulfilled??? How is that? (still chuckling)

We are His Pride and Joy. We are The Apple of His Eye. He longs to give us the desires of our heart. He emptied Heaven to make it so. We need to ‘engage’ in order to reach Him. If we never ‘hook-up,’ never come to faith in Him, we will never meet Him. If we never meet Him, He will say to us, on Judgement Day, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

I think you are still trying to HOOK UP there AIM meal.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by adajos
And as far as taking sides goes, I want you to know I take a solid stance on an issue like this, I don't "take sides" personally. IOW I don't pick a side in arguments based on who the participants are.

Nor do I, I base my side on the side of Christ.

Well, that's not much of a revelation. Care to show me what part of my reasoning in that post you dispute? I'm sure we both agree that stating "I disagree with your reasoning" does not disprove an invalid argument. If my argument is invalid, please show me.

I wrote a big ol long paragraph about "the seriousness of the charge" being more important than (in this case) Poly's real intentions.

As Lucky and Chileice have pointed out, this is simply false. They have already addressed this at length, so I feel no need to comment on the specifics.

I will say that your bias is showing very clearly with this passage. Try this: pretend you'd never heard of Enyart and never been told that frequent Christian rudeness to unbelievers is always good, and read the passage and tell me if you think it equates to Christ harshly calling her a slut?

Any objective party who reads your post would clearly be able to see how your bias is influencing the clarity of your interpretation negatively.

Hold the phone...

First off, Mr. Enyart isn't even on this thread. Do you often debate people you aren't even speaking to?

Secondly, Jesus was harsh. Telling a total stranger her past is a bit shocking and forward. Not to mention the times He outright called people "vipers", children of the devil, and "hypocrites".

It seems the part you miss is this isn't rightly done out of context, no matter how hard you may want it to be. I'm simply standing up for Sibbie and Poly (along with actually witnessing to beanieboy) and I am getting nothing but rude judgmentalism from the "judge-not-ers". I see hypocrisy going on here in mass quantities.

BTW, nobody is too anonymous to share the Gospel with. But "sharing the Gospel" is different that telling somebody that make you want to puke and that you will rejoice when they burn in hell.

Back to this? If kept in context you agree you will be one rejoicing on judgement day, or did you forget that? I guess if you must twist what was meant to make your point.... :shrugs:

You're absolutely right. What you're forgetting is that "standing against sin" doesn't mean that you call somebody a disgusting bag of promiscous vomit who will very fortunately be tortured for eternity. Why must you have such a bizarre, narrow definition of what it means to stand against sin? In your definition, foul-name calling is a required element apparently.

Oh? Is this what you got out of my witness to beanieboy, or are you just trying to lump me in to try to make your point? Again, I will try to get this across to you: we are all part of the same Body, we all have different functions. What may appear rude to me may be dirtectly speaking to an unrepentant heart.

But then again, I know the difference between an improper judgement, for example calling a person's family member derogatory names instead of addressing them. I also know how and when to use the tools at my disposal, among them is harshness.

If you'll notice, I have never once disagreed with the assesment that homosexuality activity is a sin. I have never once disagreed that we are all sinners and even the teeniest of sins is sufficient for our damnation. I have not disagreed with that statement that only through accepting the freely given sacrifice of Christ to atone for our sins, can we be saved.

Well, that's all nice and good, but what have you done for beanieboy?

I have not turned beanieboy off towards the Gospel. Ask him, if you don't believe me.

I didn't mean to impy you did. My stand is you stand in the way of the Gospel by chastising those who do tell him what God thinks of his perversion.

Look, however you want to twist it to excuse her appalling behavior is your business. It is quite obvious to somebody who isn't personal friends with her that she was expressing personal pleasure at someone else's dreadful misfortune that will not befall her. If that isn't gloating in your dictionary, then I am wasting my time trying to reason with you.

I think you are wrong. If agreeing with you is basis for our convo, I agree it can end now.

As far as misunderstanding her intentions---I don't think I do. But, I'll play your game for a second. Let's say I did misunderstand her. If I, a lifelong Christian misunderstand her, what do you think the odds are of unbelievers mistunderstanding her?

I don't think beanieboy has missed what she has said to him at all. If the Gospel only meant "let Jesus love you as you are", he'd prolly be a Christ follower now. But there is more to the Gospel than that, there is the harsh side. The side that convicts a person for who they are. It ain't pleasant. I recall being crushed by the law, humbled, and having my heart broken in two. Then I got to experience the other side of the Gospel, the part where in my desperation and pain I reached out to Christ. If I had never known I was a sinner, I would never had repented. It wasn't a Christian judge-not-er that brought me to that point, it was reading the Bible and being directly convicted by the Law. I wish I had met the likes of Poly sooner in life. No matter how hard we may try, the Law is offensive because being under it makes us guilty. Until we know that, we don't need saved.

The joy that we have about no more sin and evil is a joy about the absence of something in our lives. It's not about rejoicing that many people that you knew on earth are burning in hell.

Twist her intention as you may, but whatever you do, don't get so close to agreeing with her

I think you realize that she made an indefensible statement and so you are trying to interpret it in the nicest possible light. Lest we forget, here's exactly what she said:

Again again again......
I will be one of the happy people, and you admit you will be too. You may not like how she said it, but you agree with it.

I realize she seems to be your friend, but try to look at it objectively.

lol... Friendship doesn't play into anything here at TOL. Being right does. If Poly were wrong, I wouldn't be much of a friend by defending her. That would make me a hypocrite, sort of like those who say they are concerned with beanieboy's soul, while putting a hedge between him and the Gospel.

Hey, I hope she would be doing just that. I think beanie has had it made abundantly clear to him that you think he's a disgusting pervert. I think it's been made clear to him that you believe that God thinks him a disgusting pervert.

And what do you think God says about homosexuals?

I don't know that's it's been made clear to him that God loves him. I don't think it's been made clear that it hurts God when those He loves commit sin. Just as it hurts Him when people lie, cheat, steal, kill, lust, etc.

His sin isn't lie, cheat, steal, it's being an unrepentant homo, so why even bring up things that don't apply? That would be like trying to witness to a slut by calling her a theif. He rejects Christ. He revels in the fact he can "hurt" the "fundie" God. So now what? Now that we have pinpointed beanieboy, how will you witness to him?

Nope. I'm not on Poly's case for telling beanie that homosexuality is a sin. I'm on her case for how she did it and with her attitude in doing so.

You don't approve. Well, I don't approve of chastising brothers in public in favor of not addressing unrepentance at all. I guess it's a matter of priorities.

I have not excused sin, of any kind, in any way. Only your bias could make you believe otherwise. Try to step back from the situation a bit and you'll see the truth of it.

I can only judge by what I have seen on this thread. I'll ask you like I did chilieice, please point me to your witness to beanieboy, I would be interested in reading it.

Don't change your terms for me---do it for God and for love of the lost. Do it out of humility that "But for the grace of God, there go I"

Well, good then, I'll keep the term homo, it's short and to the point.

Oh, and do it seriously, rather than disingenously swapping one derogatory and dehumanizing word for another.

If you are going to be the "speech police" the least you can do is give me a list of your approved words.

Actually I didn't miss your point. I am fully aware that you think your personal disgust towards a particular sin determines that God hates that person and will banish them to a particulary hot spot in the lake of fire. Thus, you have free reign to treat them like crap. OK, maybe that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but it does sound like that's what you're saying.

It has nothing to do with "my personal disgust". This has to do with an unrepentant homo and what God says about him.

Ok, this is getting wierd. You are compelled to say what you please in rebuttle to something you know wasn't the point? I'm sure there is a medical term for that.

Personal disgust with a sin should have no bearing on how we treat people who engage in that sin.

See above.

See above---your personal disgust is irrelevant is what I am pointing out. It's my way of saying "You're repulsed, so what?" Why are you trying to give some kind of spiritual credence to your personal feelings of repulsion?

Your intention to make this a "personal" issue was shot down 2 paragraphs ago.

Yes, I know that you think I'm playing the Pharisee role in this conversation. Fortunately the truth of what it means to be like a Pharisee is obvious enough that I feel no need to respond to your statement.

Again, the truth of what a Pharisee does is obvious, I won't bother rebutting this.

So it's safe to assume your response belies your feeling.

As an aside, you'll notice that I never claimed that she judged wrongly. I just said she made her judgement without humility and seemingly without love.

You wanted to put the perverseness of homoism on a personal level for me, yet you feel wholly justified in personalizing a witness aimed at someone else? Maybe you should be the one to admit you may have a problem with self-righteousness and lack of humility, then?

Yep, which is why you'll notice I never said we ought to judge by outward appearence.

No, I think you said something about not taking sides (then railed against Poly).

You're right, nobody is stopping me. I feel that standing up for him when he's been mistreated is the start of a witness because it shows that I care---which I do. There's more to witnessing that saying "the Bible says this about your damnation".

You care so deeply, I can tell. I can hardly wait to see your witness to him, please provide a link so I may see it?

True enough, the Gospel isn't just about fire and brimstone, but it is part. You might want to keep that in mind when judging Poly.

Actually, pointing out a Christian with an improper attitude is a good step towards improving the ability of an unbeliever to discern God's truth and judge rightly.

Perhaps I take issue with the way you are trying to "edify" your sister in Christ. Doesn't Paul give us an example of how to approach our brothers? Anyway, in the mean time, Poly still isn't in danger of hell, and beanieboy is. It's all out here in the open, you say you want to defend the homo from injustice. I'm sorry you put more weight into your precieved injustice than actually telling him what God has to say.

C'mon now. Why do you always exaggerate and misrepresent my position? Do you really not understand it? Are the concepts of "love for sinners" and "call people foul names" so fused in your thought that you cannot separate the two?

I always exaggerate and misrepresent your position? 'nuff said.

"Speak the truth in love" is my approach. Sometimes love requries harshness. Sometimes it doesn't. Love isn't always warm and fuzzy. But nor is it always harsh and abrasive when expressed towards sinners who are ignorant of their sin. One thing I do know---love is humble, no matter what.

Christians are humble before God. I don't take this to mean I am to lay down and be trampled to death, I think too many Christians have taken humble to mean just that. But, if I haven't expressed it to you enough, since you have said it yourself, I'll just agree with you, Love isn't always kind and nice, nor is it always harsh and hard. I try to keep this in mind when jumping into a witness that isn't directed at me, my perspective is only mine.

Why must homosexual sin always be worse than any other sin to you people? God's perspective is an eternal perspective. Try to see it His way. In the scope of eternity homosexuality has the same severe consequences as stealing a paperclip.

"You people"?

Stealing a paperclip doesn't lead to physical death and disease. Nor is there a major proplem with paperclip stealers demanding their "right" to preach in the churches. :shrugs: I guess this all boils down to priorities again.

The misrepresentation continues. Everyone who disagrees with your approach is apparently also in favor orgies in church as well as not calling people foul names.

I'm sorry you missed my point again. Homos are the ones forcing their way into the churches. The churches succumbing to them are the "judge nots". The Methodists are just now realizing allowing unrepentant homos into the flock was only the first step, now they can't seem to get the homos to back down from demanding the pulpit.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Originally posted by smaller

I admit this is idle speculation on my part but I have contemplated that some stars are brighter than others.

You might consider CS Lewis's take on it. Its possible to
have a universalist understanding that God's Grace brings
all people to His love, but for those who reject it, heaven
is actually hell. The brightness of God's love is a burning
torture to those who reject it.

I thought better of you Dave. Your presentation amounts to more of the same.

IF you are a BLINDED SLAVE OF SIN in this life, toooo bad.

God not only BOUND you TO disobedience, but at the end of this life He will commence your eternal torture.

Oh, yeah, that SIN He said He is not holding against you? Well, He was LYING. He is going to take that time when you stole the candy bar from the grocery store and AMPLIFY it endless numbers of times torturing your mind and body for all of live long eternity.

Your presentation of FREEWILL PERFORMANCE to "obtain" GOD'S LOVE and God not being ABLE to intervene in a persons life is a bunch of nonsense.

God intervenes CONTINUALLY in this world. Everything is held together by HIM.

You freewiller act like He made the world, gave it a spin. Sent His Son down with a few SENTENCES and then took off.

Then you spend your time condemning others for not using their freewill to GET THEMSELVES OUT OF TROUBLE. You expect them to defeat an entity that is what? Thousands of years old and FILLED with deception and able to enter peoples bodies and manipulate their minds.

go figure.

smaller

God has the power to intervene, God has the power to turn
hearts of stone into hearts of Flesh. So I continue to hope
for Poly and Nin and others

I'm not confonting you from a stance of out and out
disagreement. I'm just challenging you to refine your theology to
be more consistant.

Dave

 

[smaller]

I'm sorry you missed my point again. Homos are the ones forcing their way into the churches. The churches succumbing to them are the "judge nots".

HEAVEN FORBID eh NIN?

If the "homos" would only just accept and agree to the ETERNAL TORTURE doctrines the "churches" would let them in without a doubt.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Chileice
You have a point. I do not KNOW your reasoning for checking the posts. I hope you will read them to learn and not to criticize. If that is your true intention, then I do want to help. Keep reading beyond this post a bit and find beanie's reply. It is interesting.
Hoping for the best,
Chileice
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=518771#post518771

Please read the WHOLE passage. I am not defending you, beanie. You are not asking me to. I do not think that homosexual behaviour is God's plan for your life or anyone else's. I think you have sold yourself short of what God intended you to be and for that I am sorry. But my take on this is that I should continue to love you and to interact with you even if you spit in my face (which you haven't).

This is the direct confrontation out of your entire post to beanieboy about his homoism.

About 4 pages later I found his reply:

Originally posted by beanieboy

You have said that you love me, and yet do not love my sin. You have said that you love me, and treat me with respect. You have said that you love me, and take the verses in context.

Your love is without hyporacy, and for that, I can listen.

You say of yourself, "I should be transformed through Christ. "
You look first at yourself. So I can listen.

You point out that many reject your Christianity. Many rejected the attitude of Jesus, because even though they were learners of the Law, Jesus was eating with the lowly sinners. You risk rejection because it is true to your heart, without a bunch of people to back you up. So I can listen.

If more people were living like you are, there would be an abundance of respect for Christianity. Thank you.

His reply patted you on the back for being nice, but, he is still unrepentant. Since "your way" hasn't really changed his heart, how then do you disallow other's ways?

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Nineveh
Secondly, Jesus was harsh. Telling a total stranger her past is a bit shocking and forward. Not to mention the times He outright called people "vipers", children of the devil, and "hypocrites".

He said this to the Pharisees, the people who studied the law, the people who were in the teaching others about God.

Jesus did not call the woman caught in adultery a viper.
Jesus did not call Zaccheus a Child of the Devil.

Why are you so insistent on misrepresenting the bible?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I'm 40.
I'm HIV negative.

Exactly when were you planning this premature funeral for me?

Come to Christ, before you become a statistic.