C.S. Murphy
New Member
I hope anyone who thinks the BB doesn't need some cleaning up will read the last few posts here. Let's go back to the Bible
Murph
Murph
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If certain "Baptists" don't believe the Bible is God's Holy Word,
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
The way I see it, Post-it is expressing a view I do not support and Latreia is doing a pretty good job supporting my view. What's the problem?
I noticed your new post in the Fundamental forum this morning that expressed the idea that the fundamental forum is for people who accept the Bible -- a position that you seem to suggest that people who are not welcome there do not support. That's naive and/or insulting. You also indicated that you didn't want discussion of certain subjects like homosexuality, virgin birth and abortion because apparently you dislike discussion of subjects that are already settled in your own mind.
Personally, I have very strong convictions on homosexuality and abortion (and I have publicly stated them in several places), but I find it useful and informative to follow discussions of the subject even if I don't participate.
You now have a forum where discussion can be controlled more tightly, so please don't complain about the rest of the board.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
I don't recall anybosy being excluded on the new forum and if it were so would that mean I can't post anywhere else? Sorry to raise your hackles adn I thought you were my friend guess I am naive. Just kiddingOriginally posted by Baptist Believer:
You also indicated that you didn't want discussion of certain subjects like homosexuality, virgin birth and abortion because apparently you dislike discussion of subjects that are already settled in your own mind.
You didn't include my last comment to add to teh list above i said that there need not be discussion about rather the bible is the Word of God why did you leave that one out? I dislike discussions that do not have a recognized source as authoritative so no I don't want to debate those who deny the scriptures
Personally, I have very strong convictions on homosexuality and abortion (and I have publicly stated them in several places), but I find it useful and informative to follow discussions of the subject even if I don't participate.
for a baptist board to include non christian views does it benefit anybody? and yes I say denying the Bible as being the Word of God is a non christian view. I agree with the Webmaster when he said he wanted this to be a place where we could look over teh fence at different Baptist views but I hope anyone here will agree that thsi view is not just over the fence but is over the line.
You now have a forum where discussion can be controlled more tightly, so please don't complain about the rest of the board.
Murph
If I understand it correctly, the fundamental forum is supposed to be for fundamental Baptists. While I certainly don't think of myself in those terms (I really don't apply labels to myself very much), according to the most popular definitions of the fundamentals raised in the forum, I am fully qualified to post there. But I'm pretty sure I'm not wanted because some may falsely interpret some of my positions as evidence that I "don't believe the Bible."
Are you saying you want me and the rest of the so-called "liberals" to join?
Not at all. I was just pointing out that if you want a "clean" board, you have a spotless new forum to use. Otherwise, please don't try to impose your views of cleanness on the rest of us -- that's what the moderators are for.
Speaking of moderating, I hope you will become one of the moderators of the fundamental area. You seem to have the clearest vision of what it is supposed to be.
My hackles are on a counter-weight system, so they raise rather easily.
Believe it or not, I would like to be on friendly terms. I have been trying to make an effort. (By the way, have you received the private message I sent the other day. I checked last night and it said that you had not read it. I'm just wondering if the system is somehow not reporting it properly or if you don't ever check your private messages...
My claim is that not all homosexual behavior is sin. Some is and some isn't.
Before going any further with you on this subject, please answer the following.
Has the Bible detailed enough about homosexual behavior to know under all circumstances that it is a sin?
Is Theft always a sin?
Is lying always a sin?
You can now see why we will never agree.
I also believe, the law we are now under is taught us by the holy spirit in our hearts. Once one is saved, they know what is sin and what is not. A list of sins in a book 2000 years ago is not correct. The way the Apostles came up with the sin laws to give to converted Gentiles was their opinion as a "guideline" until the Holy Spirit would guide them to know additional sins. Just 3-4 items COULD NOT be the only sins to refrain from. Use some reasoning power here. Further, no formal list of sins came forth in the entire rest of the NT, only examples.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Inerrancy is the topic of this thread, right? Lessee now.
Does God ever lead a preacher in what to preach? ( ) yes ( ) no
Of course God does. But we don't claim the preacher is inerrant. Unless, of course, you are catholic and are speaking of the pope proclaiming something "ex cathedra".
Does God lead and guide in the translation of scriptures into english?
Of course God does. But we don't claim the translation is inerrant. Unless, of course, you are one of those KJV inerrant bunch.
Does God lead and guide in the preservation of the text of the bible through the ages?
Of course God does. But we don't claim the preservation of the text has been inerrant. Unless, of course, you are one of those "textus receptus" bunch.
Did God lead and guide in the original penning of the scriptures? Of course He did.
as for the inerrancy, well . . . we can't really tell, can we, in view of the fact that every step afterwards is admitted by most of us to have occasional errors creep in?
Longing for the inerrant message from God is so ubiquitous. Is there any religion anywhere that hasn't made the claim of inerrancy? Even the writings of Marx are considered inerrant by faithful communists! Its a very human thing to claim inerrancy for one's foundational beliefs.
Does God ever lead a preacher in what to preach? ( ) yes ( ) no
Of course God does. But we don't claim the preacher is inerrant. Unless, of course, you are catholic and are speaking of the pope proclaiming something "ex cathedra".
Does God lead and guide in the translation of scriptures into english?
Of course God does. But we don't claim the translation is inerrant. Unless, of course, you are one of those KJV inerrant bunch.
Does God lead and guide in the preservation of the text of the bible through the ages?
Of course God does. But we don't claim the preservation of the text has been inerrant. Unless, of course, you are one of those "textus receptus" bunch.
Did God lead and guide in the original penning of the scriptures? Of course He did.
as for the inerrancy, well . . . we can't really tell, can we, in view of the fact that every step afterwards is admitted by most of us to have occasional errors creep in?
Longing for the inerrant message from God is so ubiquitous. Is there any religion anywhere that hasn't made the claim of inerrancy? Even the writings of Marx are considered inerrant by faithful communists! Its a very human thing to claim inerrancy for one's foundational beliefs.
Bible-belted
New Member
"My claim is that not all homosexual behavior is sin. Some is and some isn't."
That isn't where you started. You stared saying that sin changed, clearly implying that in the NT homosexuality is not a sin. I pointed to the continuity in taching form OT to NT regarding homsoexual acitivity.
Then you claimed that the fact of the salvation of some homosexuals vindicated their behaviour. I pointed out that this is not the case, that the reasoning is fallacious since it can be used to "sanctify" behaviours you still think are sins.
Then you argued that homosexual behaviour is an exception because it is a case of "no harm, no foul". That in itself is a questionable assuption, one which I countered.
You also tried to sday, without evidence, that some homosexuality id ok and other is not. I countered that this has problems. You don't address them.
See? You don't actually answer any challenges. You just try to support one questionable statement with another one.
"Has the Bible detailed enough about homosexual behavior to know under all circumstances that it is a sin?"
LOL. That is a dodge. you attempt to ignore what Scripture does say by appealing what you say it doesn't (but in your opinion should) say. You cannot use silence as an excuse for license. There are a host of sins which ar enever mentioned in Scripture. Are you going to say that they are not sins for that reason? Of course not.
Yes I can see why we will never agree. I argue froom the Scriptures, using a proper hermenutic, taking it in ts own context and on its own terms whereas you approach it for what you want. You don't exegete or interpret. You proof text and read in (eisegete).
As for your belief about the Holy Spirit, you use it as an excuse for subjectiviism, private interpretation, making Scripture teach whatever you want. But you don't actually deal with it.
I do use reasoning power here. It is you whjo do not use reasoning. You use assumption. And presumption. You cherry pick to suit yourself. But you do not interpret. You do not reason. YOu have your a priori positions but no proof.
That isn't where you started. You stared saying that sin changed, clearly implying that in the NT homosexuality is not a sin. I pointed to the continuity in taching form OT to NT regarding homsoexual acitivity.
Then you claimed that the fact of the salvation of some homosexuals vindicated their behaviour. I pointed out that this is not the case, that the reasoning is fallacious since it can be used to "sanctify" behaviours you still think are sins.
Then you argued that homosexual behaviour is an exception because it is a case of "no harm, no foul". That in itself is a questionable assuption, one which I countered.
You also tried to sday, without evidence, that some homosexuality id ok and other is not. I countered that this has problems. You don't address them.
See? You don't actually answer any challenges. You just try to support one questionable statement with another one.
"Has the Bible detailed enough about homosexual behavior to know under all circumstances that it is a sin?"
LOL. That is a dodge. you attempt to ignore what Scripture does say by appealing what you say it doesn't (but in your opinion should) say. You cannot use silence as an excuse for license. There are a host of sins which ar enever mentioned in Scripture. Are you going to say that they are not sins for that reason? Of course not.
Yes I can see why we will never agree. I argue froom the Scriptures, using a proper hermenutic, taking it in ts own context and on its own terms whereas you approach it for what you want. You don't exegete or interpret. You proof text and read in (eisegete).
As for your belief about the Holy Spirit, you use it as an excuse for subjectiviism, private interpretation, making Scripture teach whatever you want. But you don't actually deal with it.
I do use reasoning power here. It is you whjo do not use reasoning. You use assumption. And presumption. You cherry pick to suit yourself. But you do not interpret. You do not reason. YOu have your a priori positions but no proof.
Latreia, I'm afraid we are too far off topic and I would hate to see good arguments from both our sides get deleted like my no life before first breath did in the "child in the Womb" thread this morning.
If you wish to discuss this then start a thread on just this subject, I will be glad to detail why you are wrong on each and every count of opinion you hold.
It appears the moderators only want one subject matter per topic even though this type of argument goes to the direct theme of the thread. But I think I understand their reasoning. It must not go off to far in one direction and I think we hit that wall. Thanks
[ September 05, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
If you wish to discuss this then start a thread on just this subject, I will be glad to detail why you are wrong on each and every count of opinion you hold.
It appears the moderators only want one subject matter per topic even though this type of argument goes to the direct theme of the thread. But I think I understand their reasoning. It must not go off to far in one direction and I think we hit that wall. Thanks
[ September 05, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Bible-belted
New Member
LOL. Shift the ground again. Whatever, Post.
You'll pardon me if I dcline the invitation. Homosexuality is not an open question for me, and so I have no need to discuss it. If you really want to be corrected, then start one yourself. However I recommend that you do so ONLY if you are really open to being corrected. I am not of a mind to give you a forum to air anti-biblical views unless you are so willing.
Post-it:
What is your definition of sexual impurity? You obviosly don't subscribe to the biblical defintion as you would never say the above. What if I said that premarital sex was kosher because I loved the person I was with? Well, if you are any sort of Christian, you would scoff and tell me I was wrong....at least I would hope you would. Your logic, once again, is faulty.
The simple fact is that there are sins which are mandated. You may not like it, neither may I, but some sins are sins just because God said so. You sound very much like many atheists and agnostics I have rebuffed in the past for the subjective morals stance. You seemingly cannot handle the fact that some things are sins just because God said so.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe in an absolute moral code, even in the most primitive sense(this being, even one (1) moral absolute which is always true)?
It becomes quite clear with this statment that your understanding of this subject is limited. Intent is important, but only when you understand that somethings are never right.
Situation: Married man sleeps with a married woman (not his wife).
Intent and backstory: Her husband is abusive and ignores her. He has for years. His wife is off cheating on him, he is sure. He and his wife have not made love in over 6 months. These two (the two sinners in question) have known each other for years and have a deep admiration for each other and their respective situations.
His intent is only to give her some sort of love in her life. He see's physical love as the best way. She wants to give him what his wife has not for quite some time.
Is this wrong? Yes. Without a doubt. What about their intent? Whatever their intent, their situations dictate this action being wrong/immoral.
In Christ,
jason
Bible-belted
New Member
Aw now see??? You've gone and make SheEagle LIKE me!!!Originally posted by SheEagle911:
Latreia,
Just kidding!
I am amazed to read what I have read on this post in many different directions. For people to say the Bible is the word of God is unbelievable. I understood what Josh meant. It does not mean I agree with his teachings but he is saying that every word in the Bible did not come out of God's mouth. Paul himself many times over made the comments that certain things were his opinion or his teachings not the Holy Ghosts. He used his Apostolic authority many time and made it very clear these were not direct commands from God.
I can remember in the King James Version many years ago where there were words in ITALICS which meant this part of the scripture was not in the original. I also find it strange that anyone would claim that Jesus and the Bible is one and the same. That is the farthest from the truth.
Then I am amazed by individuals like POST It who makes claims that there are certain Homosexual acts that are not sin and if two men or women marry they are no longer sinning. There is no Bible justification for this belief. For 6 months I worked with a Gay ministry reaching men for Christ who are Gay. Every one of these men told me they knew that homosexuality was a sin
and that they needed to overcome this sin. Not a one of them would justify their sex life. Many of them committed their first homosexual act out of ignorance. They had no teaching on sex in any shape, form or fashion and after the act was completed they told me they felt sick and it was like something was telling them it was wrong. They had never heard anything to give them this feeling. I asked each one why they thought this happened and they all said they felt that it was something built into them.
I believe God puts into each person a sense of right and wrong even when we are children. If any form of Homosexuality was acceptable then I don't believe these men would have experienced this guilt when it came from no source but from within.
The Levitical law was given because God is a Holy God and we cannot say because we are under grace that God does not expect the same morality out of us that he did Israel. When God said that two men lying together as with women is an Abomination this has not changed just because we are under grace.
I can see why Post It can believe what he believes when we have men like Charles Stanley making comments in his books that if a Homosexual
comes to know the Lord by accepting him as his personal Saviour and finds salvation he or she will be saved even if they fall back into this sin and live the rest of their life as a homosexual then they will go to Heaven when they die.
I can remember in the King James Version many years ago where there were words in ITALICS which meant this part of the scripture was not in the original. I also find it strange that anyone would claim that Jesus and the Bible is one and the same. That is the farthest from the truth.
Then I am amazed by individuals like POST It who makes claims that there are certain Homosexual acts that are not sin and if two men or women marry they are no longer sinning. There is no Bible justification for this belief. For 6 months I worked with a Gay ministry reaching men for Christ who are Gay. Every one of these men told me they knew that homosexuality was a sin
and that they needed to overcome this sin. Not a one of them would justify their sex life. Many of them committed their first homosexual act out of ignorance. They had no teaching on sex in any shape, form or fashion and after the act was completed they told me they felt sick and it was like something was telling them it was wrong. They had never heard anything to give them this feeling. I asked each one why they thought this happened and they all said they felt that it was something built into them.
I believe God puts into each person a sense of right and wrong even when we are children. If any form of Homosexuality was acceptable then I don't believe these men would have experienced this guilt when it came from no source but from within.
The Levitical law was given because God is a Holy God and we cannot say because we are under grace that God does not expect the same morality out of us that he did Israel. When God said that two men lying together as with women is an Abomination this has not changed just because we are under grace.
I can see why Post It can believe what he believes when we have men like Charles Stanley making comments in his books that if a Homosexual
comes to know the Lord by accepting him as his personal Saviour and finds salvation he or she will be saved even if they fall back into this sin and live the rest of their life as a homosexual then they will go to Heaven when they die.
sex outside of marriage is wrong.
I agree, that would be wrong.
Please show me scripture where God gave us this list of sins, I must have missed it.
No, I feel there are many more things that are sin than even you or most typical conservatives on this board. I think speeding 1 mile over the speed limit is a sin. I think just thinking about speeding is a sin.
Define your idea of what an absolute moral code would be.
Say no more, this would be a sin for me and most people. Hurting the spouse and hurting a Godly marriage is wrong.
I have never said that "sin is ok"! You are jumping to conclusions.
So, how is homosexuality cool when marriage is one man and one woman?
Why would you say this? You can't say this in light of this statement you made:
Some notes:
1. I don't know if this was your intent, but your language gets you into trouble. Saying "and the homosexual doesn't have a heart message from the Holy Spirit saying it is wrong, then it can't be wrong." you imply that if ANY individual homosexual does not have a conviction of the heart via the Holy Spirit...homosexuality is UNIVERSALLY right. You imply this because you left a qualifer of "for that homosexual". Again, I am not sure which you mean.
2. You appear to undermine your own statment (see speeding as sin).
3. This line of reasoning (the implied statement) allows for no universal rights or wrongs. Do you really want to go there?
Please clarify so I can continue.
Pretty simple really. There is at least one thing in this world which is universally wrong. No amount of justfication can make that thing right. If something is always wrong, it is absolutely wrong. I give no further definition because I first need to know if you believe there is at least one thing which is universally wrong.
No, rather I simply showed you how intent cannot be counted on to be the sole delimiter between justified action and unjustified action (or unrighteous action). If this is the case, there could never be a universal right or wrong.
In Christ,
jason
jason:
As I said in my post that the majority of the men i dealt with in the gay ministry told me that from day one there was something inside of them that told them this was wrong and a sin. They chose to ignore these feelings. Also many of them had their first homosexual experience when they were young teens and had not been told about sex yet they still had feelings this was wrong but chose what they said the good feelings of the wrong of the act. I noticed post it did not address this.
As I said in my post that the majority of the men i dealt with in the gay ministry told me that from day one there was something inside of them that told them this was wrong and a sin. They chose to ignore these feelings. Also many of them had their first homosexual experience when they were young teens and had not been told about sex yet they still had feelings this was wrong but chose what they said the good feelings of the wrong of the act. I noticed post it did not address this.
Equivocation!
My heart tells me it is wrong to violate State law, as it can result in harm to others.
Accepted, I meant individually.
That is correct, there is no universal right or wrong except sin.
Sin is the only absolute wrong. Defining sin can be a problem universally, but very easy individually or within a society.
</font>[/QUOTE]
Equivocation!
</font>[/QUOTE]Quick refresher on logical fallacies. Equivocation is using misleading words or using the same word with two different meanings. How is 'marriage', 'man, or 'woman' misleading or which one is used with two different meanings?
I have to assume you want marriage to mean "legal union between two people" while you imply that I mean "one man, one woman before God and country". Is this correct?
So, sex outside of marriage is wrong unless you are homosexual? Is that what you want to say? Since homosexuals cannot legally be married, any active homosexuals would be sinning (by your own admition) if they practice in these states. This only concerns the legal definition of marriage, not the God given one.
Accepted, I meant individually.
</font>[/QUOTE]By this admition, you deny that anything can be universally wrong. Everything is dependent upon the individual and the condition of their heart. Below you are not as clear and I ask you for further clarification. Your position is becoming more and more tenious with each post.
Well...hedging our bets aren't we? That isn't even close to a valid response. 'Sin is the only absolute wrong'? You might as well have said 'Bad is only what is not good'. What does that prove? Nothing. Again, you avoid the question.
Is there a UNIVERSAL right or wrong? Even one? Come on, this is not that hard. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Again:
Dear Post-it;
Please answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Do you believe that there exists at least one action which is absolutely wrong, no matter the intent/situation/circumstances?
()Yes ()No
Thanks,
jason