freeatlast
New Member
Honestly I can say that you have made my day. I am so blessed. :wavey:
-
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!
Unmarried Couples Going Camping
- Thread starter PrivateWoman
- Start date
- Status
Honestly I can say that you have made my day. I am so blessed. :wavey:
dwmoeller1
New Member
Sometimes you hold a mirror up to someone and they claim the ugly mug must be someone else's - after all, they know their face couldn't look like that...
Yes, my post was an excellent example of how people treat God's word with contempt. Any one who would hold their subjective perspective to be equivalent to God's command is, most assuredly, making a mockery of God's word. They may claim to love and value God's word, but by claiming their own subjective view of a situation is equivalent to God's law, they show contempt for it by making their own personal law on par with God's actual commands.
They aren't content with speaking in terms of their own perspective and their own wisdom. Instead they make their perspective and wisdom out to be God's wisdom. What could show more contempt for God's word than to confuse your own personal view with what God actually says? To insert your own personal view into God's word is equivalent to inserting verses into Scripture.
I agree that is a very rampant problem. And whats very sad is that people take pride in this confusing of personal prejudice and perspective with God's command. Coming from a group of legalists, I feel this more keenly.
dwmoeller1
New Member
You said it was Exodus...it was actually 1 Opinions 20:27
Sorry, sometimes when I am quoting my own personal Scripture I get the two confused.
How ironic.
Last edited by a moderator:
dwmoeller1
New Member
You notice how they don't want to deal with all the sins they excuse in themselves. I bet they even let their wives out in public with uncovered heads?!!! And maybe even makeup!!!!!! Oh the horror.
(Eventually they will get the point if I use a blunt enough instrument...Right?)
freeatlast
New Member
A legalist is a saint compared to a mocker of God's word.
How sad that you cannot see that the legalist is a mocker of God's Word. Adding to the Word of God is also a sin.
A legalist does mock God's Word. There are few things more heretical than a gospel of works instead of gospel of grace.
I doubt they will get the point. It is much more gratifying to think of yourself as being more righteous than another believer.
dwmoeller1
New Member
A legalist IS a mocker of God's word. Hence the point of my post. If it helps, insert at the begging of that post: "Here is an example of how you are treating Scripture."
I was not mocking Scripture but instead showing how you were effectively treating Scripture. That you insist that my post was me actually mocking Scripture only adds to the irony. But thats fine, I won't bother dealing with such a red herring. Especially since I still wait with baited breath (pun intended) to hear how you deal with the inherent inconsistencies in your position.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
If you deem this to be gossip, why are you in here replying to posts? participating in what you call gossip...
freeatlast
New Member
[attack snipped - we do NOT allow questioning salvation]
It would do no good to try and explain truth to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
dwmoeller1
New Member
That doesn't explain though why the wouldn't get the point. After all, if claiming X is a sin is makes you more righteous than another, then denying XY and Z would make you more righteous than even more people.
Clearly they are refusing to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion. Thus, the only conclusion I can come to is that they want to hold on to some secret sin in their life. They want to deny to others the sin of X by want to hold onto their own sin of Y and Z.
The only thing worse than legalists is hypocritical legalists.
(I need a smiley to indicate irony...)
dwmoeller1
New Member
Ah yes, the final argument of every legalist. Their spiritual discernment is superior and thus others cannot see the truth of their position, they being spiritually blind.
Oh wait...what happens when the legalist who claims XYZ is sin encounters the legalist who says that only X is sin and Y and Z are ok? Does that mean the first legalist is even more spiritually superior than the second? Or does it just mean the the first is a legalist and the second is merely spiritually superior? Now there's a conundrum for you.
Seriously though, how can one hold that X is a sin due to things like "going into temptation" and "appearance of evil" but deny that Y and Z are sins for the same reasons?
Steven2006
New Member
Even though I don't agree with their position on this matter. I think it is wrong and unfair to accuse someone of holding onto a secret sin just because they hold to an opposite view in a debate.
dwmoeller1
New Member
Stink! You are missing my point too. I really really need an irony smiley to indicate when I am applying irony to make a point. I thought that making the irony so blunt would make my point obvious.
Notice the secret sins I am accusing them of. Do you really think that I would consider things like Internet usage, kissing before marriage, eating white bread, etc. to really be sins, much less secret ones they are holding on to?
What I was doing was arguing from the perspective of Christians who are even more restrictive in their defining of sin. What needs to be understood is that those who deny things such as kissing before marriage are using the exact same sort of reasoning as those who seek to universally deny the camping situation. After all, [arguing from the point of view of the some Christians] kissing leads inevitably to temptation, temptation to lust and lust to sin - kissing leads to sin! In addition, unbelieving couples all kiss as part of casual dating. We know how kissing is just accepted as part of a sinful lifestyle by the world. Thus, kissing before marriage not only leads to sin, it is also an "appearance of evil". So, on two counts, kissing before marriage is clearly sin (or so unwise as to be impermissible for any believer). [/arguing from the point of view of some Christians]
Yet although the logic process to deny kissing is the exact same as those who create a sin in this thread, although the set of standards is the same as
those who deny camping, I am betting that none of them would agree that kissing before marriage is a sin.
[ironic] Yet even though, by their own standards, kissing before marriage is a sin, they refuse to consider it so. Thus clearly, the only reason they could refuse to accept kissing before marriage as a sin is because they are trying to hide some secret sin in their life. In fact, they probably kissed before marriage themselves!! There you go, they are just trying to justify their own past sin.
Although I will admit, maybe they aren't hiding sin, maybe its just because they aren't spiritually discerning enough to see the truth of the matter - that kissing before marriage is clearly sin.[/ironic]
And even though I am being ironic, I am not being unrealistic, there really are groups of people who view kissing before marriage as ranging somewhere between extremely unwise for the believer to outright sinful. My whole point is to show that when someone else applies the reasoning of those who deny camping to their own lives, all of a sudden we can find "sin" which they refuse to accept as sin. Thus, at best, their logic is shown to be faulty to begin with, or they are just a bunch of hypocrites who aren't willing to apply their own logic consistently.
Steven2006
New Member
OK, I just don't like when a debate starts to take that path towards belittling others or personal insults. IMHO, It kind of felt like it was.
Although I don't agree with the position they are taking towards this matter, I respect the fact that for them they might recognize that if they were placed in that situation the temptation might be to strong for them, and it would be wise to not do this. I even respect the view that for many it might be wiser to reconsider going. I just don't feel they should paint everyone with the same broad brush, and insist that someone that chooses to go camping in this manner is sinning or "ruining their reputations". That is where I disagree completely.
Although I don't agree with the position they are taking towards this matter, I respect the fact that for them they might recognize that if they were placed in that situation the temptation might be to strong for them, and it would be wise to not do this. I even respect the view that for many it might be wiser to reconsider going. I just don't feel they should paint everyone with the same broad brush, and insist that someone that chooses to go camping in this manner is sinning or "ruining their reputations". That is where I disagree completely.
dwmoeller1
New Member
I try my best to refrain from belittling a person and I certainly refrain from personal insults. However, I sometimes resort to irony to drive home a point - I suppose that might be considered belittling an argument. But a argument is not a person.
I totally agree.
If you read my posts I'm interacting with the legalists here...I have not commented on the OP. I'm not in here to gossip as some are.
Ah, another sin committed...you just called out the salvation of a BB member, a violation of BB rules...but keep on telling us what sin really is
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I almost never report a post, but this one crossed the line. As Webdog has said it is a violation of BB rules to question anothers salvation.
- Status