Literal interpretation only forum

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

p.s. It would be easier to say on topic if you would stop throwing the blanket condemnations around...[/QB]

Give us all a break BB you never intended to stay on topic but rather to disrupt it. On the other thread you promise that if we got a conservative forum you would not post on it. If you are true to your word why is it that you can't even stay out of this one?
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by rsr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Baptist Men Who Are Now IFB, But Used To Be SBC, and have Attended CBF Churches, Who Also Believe In The Virgin Birth, Take The Bible As Literal, Don't Believe In CCM, but Don't Mind A Little Dancing Now and Then As Long As You Dance With Your Wife.

LOL.

I thought the entire forum was already conservative.</font>[/QUOTE]You thought what?
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robert J Hutton:

Yes, definitely; it's about time we had a board where liberal apostates can't promote their evil views.

And who gets to decide who is "liberal" and/or "apostate" and which views are "evil"? You?</font>[/QUOTE]The Bible.

Murph

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

p.s. It would be easier to say on topic if you would stop throwing the blanket condemnations around...

Give us all a break BB you never intended to stay on topic but rather to disrupt it.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]False accusation. You assume something that you could not possibly know -- AND YOU ARE WRONG.

On the other thread you promise that if we got a conservative forum you would not post on it. If you are true to your word why is it that you can't even stay out of this one?

Because you are in a public forum -- not some private "conservative" ghetto. Have you noticed that I'm now in favor of your idea?

Now stop making assumptions about other people's intentions -- that's been the problem all along. You judge, but you have judged falsely. It's time to stop.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robert J Hutton:

Yes, definitely; it's about time we had a board where liberal apostates can't promote their evil views.

And who gets to decide who is "liberal" and/or "apostate" and which views are "evil"? You?</font>[/QUOTE]The Bible.
</font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Your *interpretation* of the Bible. I certainly hope you understand that!

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Murph,
Two great ideas that seem to have potential. You are on a roll

I again see that those who agree see no problem (literalists) and the others...

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
Murph,
Two great ideas that seem to have potential. You are on a roll

I again see that those who agree see no problem (literalists) and the others...

Some of those who you claim are "liberals" are literalists too. Literalism is a smoke-screen.

 

[rsr]

Murphy:

Only half of your quoted post was mine. I stand by it.

[ August 29, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
Murph,
Two great ideas that seem to have potential. You are on a roll

I again see that those who agree see no problem (literalists) and the others...

I am a literalist. And I see a problem.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

rsr sorry to misquote.

BB come on brother Peter said no private interpretation that is the problem now. He goes on to say that men wrote the scriptures as they were moved by the Holy Ghost so no way can we treat the Word as something that should be evaluated like a scrap of egyptian pottery, we must accept it. sorry to run a rabbit but I think
you jumped him out of the bushes.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Latreia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
Murph,
Two great ideas that seem to have potential. You are on a roll

I again see that those who agree see no problem (literalists) and the others...

I am a literalist. And I see a problem.</font>[/QUOTE]So what is the problem? Yes I know there will be issues but when our basis is what the Bible says not what some theologian says we can get along. Atleast that is my hope. The Bible must be our anchor the unmovable rock that men must bend their will to not the other way around. Yes there will be issues but should we give up because it will not be perfect, please don't tell me you think what has been happening around here lately is perfect.
Murph

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
Murph,
Two great ideas that seem to have potential. You are on a roll

I again see that those who agree see no problem (literalists) and the others...

I am a literalist. And I see a problem.</font>[/QUOTE]So what is the problem? Yes I know there will be issues but when our basis is what the Bible says not what some theologian says we can get along. Atleast that is my hope. The Bible must be our anchor the unmovable rock that men must bend their will to not the other way around. Yes there will be issues but should we give up because it will not be perfect, please don't tell me you think what has been happening around here lately is perfect.
Murph</font>[/QUOTE]The thing is, even the most rank liberals, and people whom we may not even consider to be Christians can take the Bible literally. Granted they do it inconsistently, but then there is no such thing eally as a completely consistent literalism in hermeneutics.

Yes there will be issues. Those can and should be disucssed broadly, and not in a holy huddle.

is the current situation perfect? No. But it does show diversity. And that is very baptist. And this is a Baptist Board!

 

[go2church]

Reality check, fact is most of you who claim to be literal in your interpertations only do so when it fits your theology. Each and everyone one of us have "lens" that we put on when we come to the scriptures. We just can't help it, we are still fallen beings who don't know everything about God. Already there is a "we're better the they are" attitude oozing from this thread. If you are incapable of defending or discussing your point of view in a civil manner*, perhaps you need to be the one that leaves!

*civil manner defined - not calling people names or questioning their relationship with Jesus Christ, that is between them and Jesus Christ. That is something a holy, righteous and just God reserves for Himself!

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Latreia:

Yes there will be issues. Those can and should be disucssed broadly, and not in a holy huddle.

is the current situation perfect? No. But it does show diversity. And that is very baptist. And this is a Baptist Board! [/QB]

Diversity yes that is what I meant by issues, the funny thing is that the liberals seem to think that if they are left out we will be bored, evidently they forgot KJVO, women preachers etc. But we should not consider those who deny easily understood passages as merely adding to the diverse mix. Paul said everything is lawful but everything doesn't edify, and he said that if his meat offend that he would not not eat it. This is what I simply desire from my otherwise minded brethren. Whatever way you wish to describe the different groups they are different, those with the more radical (atleast on this board) views should act as Paul and not eat their meat in front of us and the only way for this to happen is a private forum. those in Paul's day didn't know as much as he did but notice he didn't stuff it down their throats but rather kept it from them. Please do us this same service.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by go2church:
Reality check, fact is most of you who claim to be literal in your interpertations only do so when it fits your theology. Each and everyone one of us have "lens" that we put on when we come to the scriptures. We just can't help it, we are still fallen beings who don't know everything about God. Already there is a "we're better the they are" attitude oozing from this thread. If you are incapable of defending or discussing your point of view in a civil manner*, perhaps you need to be the one that leaves!

*civil manner defined - not calling people names or questioning their relationship with Jesus Christ, that is between them and Jesus Christ. That is something a holy, righteous and just God reserves for Himself!

I am not asking anyone to leave but rather to allow us atleast one forum that we can expect posters to hold to literal views. Please don't come out against others and by your own words you break your own posted rules. as above you say to not call people names, but above that you say that I have a holier than thou attitude and also that I am incapable of handling myself in a cival manner. Would you like to rethink your rules of cival behaviour or just admit that you have broken them yourself.
Murph

 

[Bro. Curtis]

OK folks, now your all scarin' me. I thought a literal forum would be a good idea, but I definately don't like the direction this is going. I certainly don't want a forum where we just sit around and bash liberal christians. I thought it would be a place where we could discuss issues that aren't clear cut in the Bible. But the way this is shaping up, it would be a nightmare to moderate. I think we should just keep it like it is, post our views, and debate them, and let the chips fall where they may.

This is the best Christian message board on the web. Let's keep it that way. I don't think a private forum for innerrantists is a good idea anymore.

I may not come off as the nicest person here sometimes, but it ain't just me. There is mud coming from every direction, so much that it is hard to figure out who's who anymore. My heart is heavy about how we are getting along. But I won't leave. Actually, I have learned a lot from Joshua, he doesn't pretend to be something he is not. I rarely agree with him, but do appreciate his honesty. I can see why Post-it doubts as much as he does, coming from the scientific POV, but him and I would probably not get along if we were neighbors. And I think Baptist Believer belittles people from time to time when it's not necessary. But I also think some of us conservatives need to come down off our horse. I am guilty of some nastiness here and I hereby repent. Yes, seperate, call liars liars, identify apostacy, but lets ALL try and glorify God with our posts. This board is read all over the world, and this thread, and the other one like it has made me think that we are not glorifying God, but actually doing him a disservice by our bickering.

Maybe instead of a private forum, maybe we could just limit our posts on a subject to enough to get our point across, and leave it at that. Not argue and argue, because somebody always gets angry and calls someone else a Nazi, or child of Satan, or something else ridiculous like that.

OK, I feel better. I have my plastic sheet on, so let the rotten tomatoes fly.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
Yes, seperate, call liars liars, identify apostacy,

No tomatoes here but just think about it for a minute wouldn't it be nice to have atleast one forum where we didn't have to spend so much time doing the things you mentioned above. It is a dream I know but we are entitled to that aren't we. Murph

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Only if it's done in a spirit of prayer. I don't want a board where us fundies sit around and tell each other how much more saved we are than everyone else.

 

[go2church]

Murph,
I wasn't addressing you in the least little bit, it was a general post to everyone who claims to be a literalist.
I don't think it will work because the use of literal interpretation(s) is not the same for everyone. There is no way to keep it "Literalist Only", it won't work. Just as there is not a way to have a "Liberals Only" forum. The definition of liberal varies from person to person.
No one was called a name and I did not question anyones relationship with Jesus Christ, I was civil.

 

[go2church]

Of course I am going by a literal interpertation of the posted rules.
I literally didn't call anyone a name
I literally didn't question anyone's relationship with Jesus Christ.