Trolls, to name or not to name

Mr Anderson,

I did post a reply to your male gynecologist thread. In your sermon, you said that Jesus said if a man looks at a woman he commits adultery.

My answer was that is not what Jesus said. What Jesus said was, ' If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he hath already committed adultery in his heart.

Just looking at a woman does not bring adultery. If that were the case, we would all be guilty of adultery. We all see women every day. One has to lust for that woman in order to have committed adultery in his heart.

That being said, unless one knows the heart of the gynecologist, and I mean the mind when I say the heart, one cannot say that gynecologist is lusting in any way.

 

Remember, lads, this is a fellowship forum and not a debate forum. We will have a moderator on our toes in short order.

Cheers,

Jim

 

*sigh*

You're missing something.

The problem most of the BB members have is that you post a link to one of your essays and then never offer a point-by-point counterargument or even an explanation of anything. It seems you just expect us to acquiesce to your interpretation of The Bible without protest.

And yes, the whole "male gynecologist" essay was just bizarre. I originally thought it was a satire from Landover Baptist when I first saw it.

If a man has a pressing desire to see naked women, then he likely won't spend 12 years of (very difficult) schooling and wade through day after day of sick, elderly, 300-lb women to sate that desire.

Grow up,

Sincerely,
-JF

 

Aside from them lusting, is it not wrong to look on nakedness in general? That was the point of my essay: that nudity before the opposite gender in and of itself is wrong.

Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and *****that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear*****; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

God wants us to have our nakedness covered.

Sincerely,

Pastor Steven L Anderson

 

If one does a search for those breeches, one may be interested to learn that it was the priests that were commanded to wear the breaches, that God did not say take this to my children. Also, the breeches were an undergarment to be worn under the robe. The breeches reached from hip to just above the knee.

 

Well, that would get it away from my eyesight, but Other Christian Religions would work..remember, I am Anglican...Baptists forbid me to enter......*smile*

Cheers,

Jim

 

I thought you all would enjoy having the last word! I just figured if people didn't agree with the contents of the post, I probably wasn't going to change their minds. I was just getting feedback and giving others the opportunity to give their views and Bible references in defense of their contrary position.

Sincerely,

Pastor Steven L Anderson

 

God did not tell Moses to put breeches on, but only his brother Aaron and Aaron's sons.

Just a thought...

 

I thought you all would enjoy having the last word! I just figured if people didn't agree with the contents of the post, I probably wasn't going to change their minds. I was just getting feedback and giving others the opportunity to give their views and Bible references in defense of their contrary position.

Sincerely,

Pastor Steven L Anderson [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Hehe, I guess some of the old timers here might be used to this sort of condescension.

Carry on, preacher man.

 

Oops.

Sometimes thing come across in the written word in a way not intended.

All I meant was that some of you folks who have been posting here for a long time have undoubtedly seen your share of hyper-fundamentalists, legalists and crackpots who are convinced that they and only they have the "correct" interpretation of The Bible.

 

If you're talking about the Leviticus list, uncovering someone's nakedness is euphemistic for having illicit sex. See Leviticus 20:11--a man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness. Obviously his father is nowhere in the vicinity to be seen naked, so it's referring to having illicit sex with his (hopefully step- ) mother when she belongs to his father.

 

I think part of the problem you're having is that you don't seem to realize that this is a discussion board, and not a "Hey-aren't-I-holy-let-me-preach-at-you" board.

If you just want to preach at people, as though we haven't studied the scriptures or given these issues any thought. I've been posting here since 2,000 and I've got to tell you, I don't always agree with everybody here, but I've never seen a group of people who love the Lord more or who are more committed to the study and the proclaimation of His word.

For you to come in here, guns a'blazin', and treat them like that is not an attitude that's going to be conducive to building good relationships here.

Frankly, it's not a very Christ-like way to behave, either.

No.

I was a paramedic for several years. Very often it was necessary for me to strip patients, many of them women, to various states of nudity, in order to help them.

Was I in sin for doing this?

If your wife or daughter, Heaven forbid, were in an accident and my male partner(s) and I arrived on scene, would you accept our help or would you ask us to call an all female crew?

Also, you claimed that those of us who study the original languages could "not even say, 'Hello, how are you'" but when I said "γειάσου πώς είστε", you didn't say "γειάσου". That was kind of rude, don't you think?

 

Hello,
Read thru this entire thread, & I think what we have here is mabey an over zealous young man, (judging by his photo) who is just trying too hard, & sure doesn't seem to be used to the world of forums. Or mabey he's like I once was....pretty sure I had it down pat & wanted to warn everyone of the evils that lie awaiting us in this world. If you read this young friend, I am in no way putting you down, but I've been here since 2000 also, well, mostly, & the different views here have taught me alot. Mainly to be sure of what I stand for & be able & willing to take the time to back it up. It's a lot easier in the confines of a local church where, for the most part, veiws are the same. It's a whole different ballgame on the web!! I looked at a portion of your website, (will return & finish) & a lot of your convictions are on target. But some even an older IFB'er like me wonder at. Course...I do the same thing at some of the posts here at the BB too!!! Just continue to post...& learn like I did...when to DUCK!

 

Ok, you got me, I must confess, my name is donnA, and I'm a troll.

 

If I am not mistaken, this verse is about the priests. Menaing you ahve taken it out of context.
Do you not care if you take scripture out of context?
Do you not care to properly handle the word of God?

 

On this much, you and I agree completely. However, you seem to infer that a person who believes that you have to earn your salvation does not believe on the Lord Jesus as his savior. Their view may be faulty, but the belief is still there.

 

A lot of wisdom there, preacher.
Even if a person is a troll, I don't see any point in labelling.
Besides, honestly, wouldn't the BB be a pretty boring place without the 20 pages we spend attacking outrageous statements?

Look at all the threads that die with 2-6 posts.
I don't have time to read them all, I expect many don't either.
But I expect most of us kept up with the threads of the young poster in question.
It had a certain amount of usefulness. Whether or not a majority of active posters on the BB actually agree with a hot topic, a lot of people out there in the "real" world do have some pretty unusual ideas, and it can be useful to hear some of their ideas and respond on-line. Practice for the real world.

Karen

 

On this much, you and I agree completely. However, you seem to infer that a person who believes that you have to earn your salvation does not believe on the Lord Jesus as his savior. Their view may be faulty, but the belief is still there. </font>[/QUOTE]I also agree that it a sugar-coated version of works,, but to make it a rule or doctrine that you must beleive in OSAS in order to be truly saved is a form of works also...

SOme are saved, but have a faulty doctrine afterwards..

TO require certain beleifs after one is saved in order for them to be saved is a works religion.