Featured The "I" problem

Which is consistent with the laws of logic.

The law of noncontradiction for example says something cannot be that something and not be that something at the same time AND IN THE SAME SENSE.

None of those miracles violate the laws of logic.

They violate the law of nature which is a created law and subject to change AT ANY MOMENT.

If that asteroid had struck the earth today it could have changed the gravitational pull on the surface and ALL OF US BE ABLE TO WALK ON WATER.

But that would not in the LEAST change the fact that A is A and A cannot be A and NOT A at the same time.

Eternal logic is not to be confused with the temporary laws of nature.

 

But A can be B so long as B doesn't contradict it's being A.

I am a man. (A)

I am a father. (B)


There is nothing that violates the law of noncontradiction.

Light cannot be one thing and NOT be that thing AT THE SAME TIME and IN THE SAME SENSE.

 

We strayed from the op.

Any support for or detraction from the above?

 

I appreciate what you are saying but it seems to me that "rude" is a better description than "self-righteous" for what you are decrying.

Throwing caution to the wind concerning what people think of you, being willing to have them think of you in negative ways- this is what one does when he is blunt- even appropriately blunt. This is simply not what self-righteous people do.

Self-righteous people are concerned about being thought of by others and especially themselves as morally superior. So they snootily lecture others about their inferiority as pertains to spiritual maturity and behavior.

Now, being frank and blunt about why someone's thinking on a matter is wrong is very different than trying to appear above them by lecturing them on why they ought to work on this moral issue or that ethical issue.

Self-righteous people are primarily concerned with occupying the moral high ground and constantly PROJECTING to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture.

The very fact that appearing this way and projecting that image is so manifestly important to them is unequivocal proof that they are actually the OPPOSITE of the very thing they try to project.

 

better but not more righteous, right?

Righteousness has to do with morality and ethics.

It is the CONSTANT lecturing by people who purport this air of ethical and moral superiority that needs to go. It needs to go because, for one thing, the ones who do this pious lecturing get just as nasty and more WHENEVER IT SUITS THEM.

Take webdog, for example, who entered the other thread to point out how wrong I am for being so harsh.

Within a couple of pages he called me a liar, a coward, a fake, unfit for pastoral ministry, etc...

This is my point. SURELY some others get sick of the bull crud!

People who attack people for attacking people.

People who call people names for calling other people names.

There is so much BULL on this site that you could dive in, swim and never touch bottom.

I am calling for us ALL to stop the self-righteous bull.

That doesn't quite hit the bulls eye in my opinion.

I don't care if you have as much education as I do. You have more education than I do. Some sharper than me on here have LESS education than I do (I refer to FORMAL education).

I don't care if you have NO FORMAL EDUCATION.

That's not the problem. The problem is people who don't know hermeneutics from Herman Munster and speak with the authority of the world's greatest Bible Scholar.

I like that- a lot. But with one caveat- when you try that and it doesn't work, then you have to turn up the heat.

 

It depends on what you think "love" means and requires

If you think it means you are NEVER to be blunt and harsh, I think you have overlooked numerous examples in Scripture to the contrary.

I think the error people make here is that they take a passage about "speaking the truth in love" or "let your speech always be seasoned with grace" or passages about "gentleness" and they do one of two things with such passages.

#1- They assumed they mean something that the context of the whole of Scripture simply dictates that they cannot mean

or...

#2- They try to make some of those passages universal when they actually are intended to apply to a certain context (like how you approach weaker brethren or how you behave yourself in the church, etc...)

It is wrong to take a passage that is specific in nature and try to apply it universally.


This is one of the things that some people try to do to me often on baptistboard. They say, "Do you speak to the people of your church you pastor this way?" The answer is "Very rarely." The local church congregation is a totally different context from baptistboard. It would be silly to think that because you approach one group of people in a specific context one way that you should approach all groups of people in all contexts that same way.

That is what is done to these "gentleness" texts. Some of them are NOT universal. Others ARE universal but they do not mean what some try to make them say.

A passage must be interpreted in its immediate context AND ALSO THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE.

 

\

This is purple prose. It is empty. It is designed to manipulate people with less criticial minds. This whole "...discussing the grace and salvation or our Lord..." stuff is language you intend to make you look like a defender of some just and loving cause.

More thoughtful people will pick up on this manipulative language immediately.

Less thoughtful people will certainly swallow it hook line and sinker.

We do not JUST discuss grace and salvation.

And the MOST VEHEMENT CHRISTIAN DEBATE OF ALL TIME has been around those issues ANYWAY- AS THEY WELL SHOULD BE.

NOTHING ON EARTH should be fought for as FIERCELY as those two issues.

So are you saying that you are against harshly condemning people who assault the doctrines of salvation?

Should we COURT sweetly the likes of Fred Phelps???

Should we pet warmly the likes of Joel Osteen, Rob Bell and Gene Robinson?

How so?