Featured Christianized Foul Language

Shuck and jive artists love to redefine the meaning of words such that the Bible does not mean what it says. Christ says not to wrangle over the meaning of words. Violations of this command of Christ are found by the boat load on this forum. For a recent example "ordain" is defined as meaning "to prearrange unalterably; predestine." Every knowingly false statement is also a violation such as claiming someone believes salvation is by human effort.

 

there has always (it seems) been 'cleaned up' language that 'nice' people use, such as "shoot," "dang," "smitherenes," "blazes," "golly,"... In schooll (60's and 70's) we got away with those, but it just seems to make such a biggg difference-- as evidenced on here-- that I can't write those words you know they substitute for, and we'd have been in the principal's office just for changing a letter or 2.

I had a grandmother who I know thought it awful that TV shows in the 70's started putting "Oh, my God!" and such terms in dialog. But she had always exclaimed with "Oh my Lord!" when something surprised or impressed her. What IZ the difference?

 

Really? Did He? Where?

A bit of hyperbole?

You obviously don't think that one of the definitions could be to "dictate, legislate, appoint, install, command, order, decree..."

You think "ordain" ONLY means to bestow some religious or club rights by ritual upon someone?

Yet that is EXACTLY what you do, Van, by using the Matthew passage as proof of your view that some can actually prevent others from entering heaven.

You place human effort having the ability to thwart that of what God determines will take place.

 

Addressing posters directly rather than the topic is also a violation of forum rules, but again we have a boat load of those violations, such as post #23.

Matthew 23:13 says people prevented some from entering heaven. Are we to live by the Word of God or nullify it?

I think bearing false witness as to what God's word actually says can be found by the boat load on this forum.

Until we can agree on exactly what is included in "all that I have commanded" we have no standard for "Christianized behavior" and belief.

 

First, Van, I did address the topic.

Second, I posted accurately your own views. Therefore the claim of "false witness" is invalid.

Third, YOU did not address the points against your view stated in post #21 in the response found in post #23.

Fourth, perhaps "bearing false witness" is a part of the BB, for the discussions of the forum do range in matters from weighty to childish; however, the contention that there is a "boat load" is hyperbole at best. And more often over a matter of authoritative view(s) of Scriptures.

Fifth, again you want to place Matthew as stating that mere mortals can thwart the very Creator's will. Yet you claim that: "Every knowingly false statement is also a violation such as claiming someone believes salvation is by human effort."

Either humankind can and do prevent the will of God or they do not. One cannot hold to your view of Matthew and then hold to salvation is not by human effort. That isn't logical.

Are you not dancing to mixed messages?

As it pertains to the OP or to the subsequent posts, was it not asked on this thread, "Did you report the offending post?" If there is a rule violation, it is important to report such posts if self monitoring isn't working as a corrective measure.

 

It is a waste of time to discuss anything with those untethered from truth. Here is quote: "Fifth, again you want to place Matthew as stating that mere mortals can thwart the very Creator's will. Yet you claim that: "Every knowingly false statement is also a violation such as claiming someone believes salvation is by human effort." Again no human can thwart God's will. So in a post denying bearing false witness, another falsehood is posted. No quote will be forthcoming. As I said, it is waste of time to engage these folks.

Jesus said, Matthew 23:13 that humans prevented people entering heaven from going in. This is not my assertion, it is Christ's very word. I am sick of those who do not believe God's word means what it says, when it contradicts their man-made doctrine.

We have no standards of behavior, such as providing a quote when asserting someone believes something. Therefore this forum does not enforce Christ's command concerning bearing false witness.

 

You want to state that mere humans can prevent others from entering heaven. Where was that ever shown as happening? There is that wonderful scene of the final judgement. Is it found there? Does not that very scene prove your view false, and that humankind entering or not entering has nothing to do with human prevention by the Jewish religious leaders?

Who untether you from the truth?

You have read into the Scriptures what you desired and tried to make a stand upon that which you desired rather than the truth.

It is your own "man-made" scheme that you are convinced is greater than the truth of Scriptures. Your own claim about others that is turned upon you.

That is not bearing false witness, for I accurately quoted your statements and as shown by your own posting. I give you these four statements concerning you view.

1) YOU claim mere mortals can thwart others from entering heaven.

2) Conclusion, humans determine whether one goes to heaven or not.​

3) That thinking places God diminished in authority over heaven and earth.

4) Conclusion, such a view is NOT the intent of Matthew's record of the statement made by Christ.​

It is not my false witness that is objectionable, but the pointing out of your own error.

 

Admittedly (many times at that) I am no calvinist nor (also many times) an adherent to arminius teachings.

I find too many elements in each which (FWIW) I can't accept.

Man's free will vs God's sovereignty is one of the "tension" areas in which neither theology satisfies the soul (well HankD's soul anyway).

e.g. from the lord's Prayer "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".
Would anyone dare to say to the Lord - "well Lord we know you really didn't mean this".

Yes it seems some would say this and then do a verbal tap dance ending up with a theory that would come across as " Lord we know you really didn't mean this". Then comes the thalamus migraine I occasionally get from being on the BB.

Yes, I admit to this instability.

Lastly, I find the only other alternative "Open Theology" more offensive than the aforementioned well meaning but misplaced C&A explanations/rebutalls of the offending "tension".

Is it possible that God's will can be thwarted and yet His absolute sovereignty not be violated?
Short non-combative answer: Yes, I believe it is possible.

Speaking of the will of the worshipers of "the beast"...

Revelation 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

It seems that with God the ends can justify the means.

Example (1 of several),
Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

The ends: We the unjust are brought to God.
The means: the death of His only-begotten just one.

And when we disagree why do we so often have to go for the jugular?

HankD

 

No [edited].

 

Aaron, I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

I'll do both, cuz I know how you feel.

HankD

 

Yes, but he sanitized it (or someone did) similar to what the KJV translators did with some of the biblical references to bodily wastes (plural).

HankD

 

Christ's words are crystal, in Matthew 23:13. People prevented people who were entering heaven from going in. All this claiming I am reading this into the text is baloney. Thus the "you claim that mere mortals can thwart others from entering heaven" denies the very words of Christ. As if Christ did not say it, but I somehow read it into the text. This is an obvious falsehood, and yet not one poster on this thread has pointed that out. Why? Because even obvious truth is denied by the boat load on this forum.

 

Never mind.

 

And speaking of straining at gnats . . .

Loosen up. I was just yankin' yer chain.

It's idle words about which one is given the sternest warning. One will give account for saying "truly sad" idly more than one who uses the s-word to describe lies, heresies and blasphemy.

But you may be right . . . we may be profaning the s-word when using it to describe some of the subterfuge belched around here. Whistling

 

Having spent some time working on a farm as a teen, there is no pleasure in cleaning the filth of stalls.

I do wonder why some take pleasure in unclean, even laugh about it, and are not embarrassed in the slightest by the use.

 

Sometimes it has to do with one's upbringing. They are so used to it that they became insensitive, or rather, they never developed a sensitivity to it, so it's not really a genuine flaw in their character.

Another reason could be cultural e.g. An American missionary in England recounted an incident in which his young boy came home from visiting friends very upset. He was asked "what is the matter" and the child said he had just seen a "bloody" car accident. The English people who heard the explanation were shocked that such a young boy especially the son of a missionary used such outrageous language.

Since there may be English folk using the BB, my profound apology, but an important cultural lesson should be learned from this.


HankD