Transgendered Member?

[Reformed1689]

Why?

Because it lists tons of things that are irrelevant, taken out of context, and misrepresented not to mention tons of assumptions that aren't valid.

 

[agedman]

Yeah you need to be more clear. No idea what you are trying to say.

I don't think that the problem with me being clear is necessary for a change.

I ask two simple questions.

Are you avoiding the answers?

Possibly.

But, it is not for me to press the issue.

One of the greater disconnects of the posters on this thread is the agenda versus the practical teaching of which they have a history of agreement.

All have sinned.

Believer also sin.

All are unfaithful.

God is not unfaithful.

We believers abide in Romans 8.

 

[agedman]

Because it lists tons of things that are irrelevant, taken out of context, and misrepresented not to mention tons of assumptions that aren't valid.

Please make a list of what you consider irrelevant, misrepresentations and invalid assumptions.

Did I misstate the Scripture presentations?

Did I present what was not factual in some manner?


Or was it that your own opinion is obligating the rejection and assignment of “nonsense?”

Just need clarifications.

 

[Reformed1689]

Please make a list of what you consider irrelevant, misrepresentations and invalid assumptions.

Did I misstate the Scripture presentations?

Did I present what was not factual in some manner?


Or was it that your own opinion is obligating the rejection and assignment of “nonsense?”

Just need clarifications.

For one, you said Peter confessing his betrayal is not found in Scriptures. What does that have to do with anything? Do we have a record of every single thing Christ and the Apostles said and did? No we do not. So to try and argue that is nonsense.

 

[Reformed1689]

I don't think that the problem with me being clear is necessary for a change.

I ask two simple questions.

Are you avoiding the answers?

Possibly.

But, it is not for me to press the issue.

One of the greater disconnects of the posters on this thread is the agenda versus the practical teaching of which they have a history of agreement.

All have sinned.

Believer also sin.

All are unfaithful.

God is not unfaithful.

We believers abide in Romans 8.

Ok then please spell out your questions. And then please explain how and what part of Romans 8 you are tying into this. You are projecting things on to me that are not true rather than simply doing what I asked for clarification.

 

[agedman]

For one, you said Peter confessing his betrayal is not found in Scriptures. What does that have to do with anything? Do we have a record of every single thing Christ and the Apostles said and did? No we do not. So to try and argue that is nonsense.

No it is not not nonsense.

Showing the focus, the direction of confession and the resulting benefit is not nonsense.

 

[Reformed1689]

No it is not not nonsense.

Showing the focus, the direction of confession and the resulting benefit is not nonsense.

But your arguments to back your position are completely made up in your assumptions and not grounded in reality.

 

[agedman]

Ok then please spell out your questions. And then please explain how and what part of Romans 8 you are tying into this. You are projecting things on to me that are not true rather than simply doing what I asked for clarification.

I present that Romans 8, not in part but the whole very much pertains to the thread.

 

[agedman]

Here is just a small section in which I put some in bold that the reader may see. BUT do not isolate this from the rest of that mountain top section of Scripture. I used the NIV (which I rarely do) out of concern for the reading level of those following the thread.

5Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.​

There is no need to comment, for the whole passage (not just that posted) is easy to understand and apply

 

[Reformed1689]

I present that Romans 8, not in part but the whole very much pertains to the thread.

The please explain what you mean when you say that. Don't just throw out a reference.

 

[agedman]

The please explain what you mean when you say that. Don't just throw out a reference.

I gave a small portion to examine.

 

[Reformed1689]

I gave a small portion to examine.

Ok, this is NOT difficult.

Give your point, give the Scripture, and please state how it relates.

 

[agedman]

Ok, this is NOT difficult.

Give your point, give the Scripture, and please state how it relates.

I gave Scripture and explanation in at least these posts:

Post 51
Post 60
Post 103
Post 149​

In some, I used multiple passages from various places.

A remarkable awareness came to me. The responses were not refuting what the Scriptures stated, nor my use of the Scriptures in support of the presentation.

So, look at what is already presented.

See if I presented something in error.

But do not attempt to claim I have not presented Scriptures and have expressed the appropriate application.

 

[Reformed1689]

I gave Scripture and explanation in at least these posts:

Post 51
Post 60
Post 103
Post 149​

In some, I used multiple passages from various places.

A remarkable awareness came to me. The responses were not refuting what the Scriptures stated, nor my use of the Scriptures in support of the presentation.

So, look at what is already presented.

See if I presented something in error.

But do not attempt to claim I have not presented Scriptures and have expressed the appropriate application.

Sorry I'm not going to go back and read it all. Just give me a simple synopsis. You have taken Scripture out of context multiple times on this thread so I'm not inclined to go back and look at all of that junk again.

 

[agedman]

Sorry I'm not going to go back and read it all. Just give me a simple synopsis. You have taken Scripture out of context multiple times on this thread so I'm not inclined to go back and look at all of that junk again.

I’ll give this short statement.

At EVERY point of contention, I presented a clear Scripture in response. Not ONCE was anything I posted concerning the Scripture was refuted. Would that it had so I could join in the crowd of condemnation. But nothing was presented.

I not once misrepresented, nor took Scriptures out of context. That is a false accusation.

So, I offered you the opportunity, and you consider the posts “junk.”


Better had you actually presented something truthful, or at least a systematic refutation posting your own presentation of the passages.

But like the rest, you can only demean the presenter, not the presentation.

 

[Reformed1689]

I’ll give this short statement.

At EVERY point of contention, I presented a clear Scripture in response. Not ONCE was anything I posted concerning the Scripture was refuted. Would that it had so I could join in the crowd of condemnation. But nothing was presented.

I not once misrepresented, nor took Scriptures out of context. That is a false accusation.

So, I offered you the opportunity, and you consider the posts “junk.”


Better had you actually presented something truthful, or at least a systematic refutation posting your own presentation of the passages.

But like the rest, you can only demean the presenter, not the presentation.

Of course this is false as well. I know for a FACT I disputed Scriptures that you presented in this thread.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:40 PM Pacific.

 

[agedman]

Of course this is false as well. I know for a FACT I disputed Scriptures that you presented in this thread.

What little was presented was an inappropriate use of the OT law, and some comments concerning how the law was still all binding.

I showed that in deed for Gentiles the law, except the Decalogue, had been moved from binding and punishment, as it applied to Jews, to that of principles to live by for Gentiles.

I gave examples from the NT as to how such was the accepted policy for gentile believers with the exception of only three.


If you would like to further dispute those statement, and because this thread has about run its length, why don’t you start a thread quoting the Scripture so that it is unrelated to the agenda of this thread issue and see if your presentation stands.

Express how and what law is still binding.

But include what condemnation the NT brings upon breaking the law.
Be certain to also include passages in which such condemnation brought unavoidable punishments such as the Jews experienced.
Be certain to include passages I used to demonstrate and how such proper as you present is far superior.

After all, I wouldn’t want the casual readers to be misinformed by my “junk.”

Otherwise, I think I am done.

 

[Reformed1689]

I showed that in deed for Gentiles the law, except the Decalogue, had been moved from binding and punishment, as it applied to Jews, to that of principles to live by for Gentiles.

Where did you show this? The only thing that was removed were laws that were specific to the nation-state of Israel being the purification laws and the judicial. NOT the moral law.

 

[ChasingChrist]

It absolutely would be homosexuality as it would be a man in a man in a relationship. You should be banned from this board.

Again, what distinguishes us as Christians is salvation by faith instead of by actions. So I maintain that safeguarding this young woman's sense of safety in the church would be more conducive to growing her faith and, consequently, bringing her soul closer to God. The goal of religious leaders should be to selflessly bring their congregations closer to God, regardless of the sins they are bringing to the table. Also, it does seem highly inappropriate to suggest that another Fundamental Baptist be kicked from the board for presenting their beliefs in good faith. As this is a debate forum, disagreement will occur. What's important is to respond to these disagreements with maturity and an open ear. Or are you not here to debate? Are you here simply to propagate your own opinions and censor others?