Wife Swap

[annsni]

The name gives that expression. If I had never heard of the TV program, of which many have not, and someone said "our Pastor and his wife are swapping wives", I would think the worst and so does the world and Christians for that matter if they do not know the situation.

It does seem to have reached the point that our children will have to put the TV channel blocks on, to protect our parents, it seems to me. There is no good comes out of this, no matter what spin is put on it.

Just for example, when I first heard that a TV program was coming on about wife swapping, Sex it the first thing I wondered about, how about you???

I was being humorus though, but there really is nothing funny about it, come to think about it.

BBob,

Oh I know. The new show "Swingtown" or some such is just a disgusting show and I can't believe they actually are making a show about that. It just sickens me.

 

[donnA]

The name gives that expression. If I had never heard of the TV program, of which many have not, and someone said "our Pastor and his wife are swapping wives", I would think the worst and so does the world and Christians for that matter if they do not know the situation.

It does seem to have reached the point that our children will have to put the TV channel blocks on, to protect our parents, it seems to me. There is no good comes out of this, no matter what spin is put on it.

Just for example, when I first heard that a TV program was coming on about wife swapping, Sex it the first thing I wondered about, how about you???

I was being humorus though, but there really is nothing funny about it, come to think about it.

BBob,

The title, wife swap, means swapping wives for s*xual reasons, this is the meaning of the term. So just the title is repulsive.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where does it say Matthew invited those people, PL?

How else would they be there? Scripture doesn't require us to not think.

Furthermore, again at the risk of stating the obvious, let's just read the text:

Luke 5:29 And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them.

So we can see that it was Levi giving the reception and a "great crowd of tax collectors and other people" were there. Who do you think Matthew giving the reception for? Matthew was having the reception to introduce his friends to Jesus.

Secondly, we can also see that it was "in his house." So Matthew gave a reception in his house for Jesus and tax collectors and other people were there, and you want us to be dumb enough to think that Matthew didn't invite them. That's too much faith for me. Sometimes, people get so entrenched in a position, they will miss the complete obvious.

Are you not adding to the Scripture to say they were invited by either Jesus or Matthew when Scripture does not say so?

No.

It is possible he was living with those people. Scripture doesn't say one way or the other.

It is not really possible that Matthew was living with "tax collectors and other people." If you are familiar with first century homes, you will know why that is not a viable solution.

If they were friends who had been accustomed to meeting with Matthew/Levi before his becoming one of Christ's Disciples, they may have went to Matthew's often.

I think that's a great point. I am not sure why you make it since it supports me, and not you.

Scripture is not clear on when this dinner was. If Matthew invited Christ directly after his being called to be a Disciple, it is possible the publicans and sinners did not yet know of Matthew's new Master.

Which is hardly relevant. (You seem to have a real penchant for trying to change the subject.) Even if you are right, they are still at Matthew's house hanging out with tax collectors and other people.

This is not a battle you can win, PL. The Scripture is clear.

I already won because the Scripture is clear. I have quoted it for you.

Jesus was at a dinner, publicans and sinners showed up.

That's not what the text says. It says that "Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them."

This is all off topic. I was just wondering if you were consistent. I think what has happened here is that you got caught being inconsistent and now are not willing to back off and say you were wrong. I faced the same kind of thing when I said Jesus did it in his house, and when you pointed out that I was wrong, I clarified, and used Scripture to back it up. Instead of doing that, you are just going on trying to argue the impossible, apparently trying to avoid having to say you were wrong. You clearly are. Just say so.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Scripture does not say the publicans and sinners were invited, only that they came to the reception.

Reckon we won't know until after the Rapture, but I am not going to state they were invited when Scripture does not say so.

You insist that the publicans and sinners were invited and yet there is no mention of an invitation. Just as you had claimed that Jesus had invited the sinners into a house a were caught, I am sure sooner or later you will see that there is no mention of an invitation to the publicans and sinners.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Scripture does not say the publicans and sinners were invited, only that they came to the reception.

How do you think they got there?Why are you being so hardheaded about this? This is quite simple.

Reckon we won't know until after the Rapture, but I am not going to state they were invited when Scripture does not say so.

We already know. Scripture does not say they weren't uninvited, so using your logic, we would have to say they were invited. (That's why arguments from silence don't work well.)

You insist that the publicans and sinners were invited and yet there is no mention of an invitation.

Of course they were invited. How else would they have been there?

Just as you had claimed that Jesus had invited the sinners into a house a were caught,

Yes, I was writing quickly and thinking of the story briefly and I mistated the point. I fixed my mistake, which is more than you have done.

I am sure sooner or later you will see that there is no mention of an invitation to the publicans and sinners.

Having been (so far as I can recall) the only one in this conversation between us to quote Scripture, I am quite sure I know what there is mention of and what there isn't.

 

[Benjamin]

What I find not so funny is the problem many have getting past the actual literal meaning of the name of the show because of injecting the thought from their mind that it must relate to fornication. On top of that, after this thought in reality actualizes as a strawman, some still add to the attack, because of their first misguided notion and will remain objectionable, maybe because of whatever insecurities IDK. Then would take the strawman further by even suggesting that one’s children would not, or could not, come to understand that Daddy and Mommy would not partake of watching it, or give credit if it was of such content. So now the developing argument centers on “IF” they (the children) were to even “actually” take the same notion as the one who finds the name of the show so problematic,…but…also now then the false accusation grows, (in what some may take as insult,) that the children will believe the parents would partake of such entertainments while suggesting that maybe the children should block shows on the parents through this false accusation, thereby not giving credit to either the parents or the children’s perspective of their parent’s judgments, and do this to support a condemnation of the show because of their misguided interpretation of the title. All of said argument was originally built on nothing but a strawman built upon another strawman.

Get reality…er.. I mean…real.

 

[Brother Bob]

What I find not so funny is the problem many have getting past the actual literal meaning of the name of the show because of injecting the thought from their mind that it must relate to fornication. On top of that, after this thought in reality actualizes as a strawman, some still add to the attack, because of their first misguided notion and will remain objectionable, maybe because of whatever insecurities IDK. Then would take the strawman further by even suggesting that one’s children would not, or could not, come to understand that Daddy and Mommy would not partake of watching it, or give credit if it was of such content. So now the developing argument centers on “IF” they (the children) were to even “actually” take the same notion as the one who finds the name of the show so problematic,…but…also now then the false accusation grows, (in what some may take as insult,) that the children will believe the parents would partake of such entertainments while suggesting that maybe the children should block shows on the parents through this false accusation, thereby not giving credit to either the parents or the children’s perspective of their parent’s judgments, and do this to support a condemnation of the show because of their misguided interpretation of the title. All of said argument was originally built on nothing but a strawman built upon another strawman.

Get reality…er.. I mean…real.

Hogwash............

 

[annsni]

Scripture does not say the publicans and sinners were invited, only that they came to the reception.

Reckon we won't know until after the Rapture, but I am not going to state they were invited when Scripture does not say so.

You insist that the publicans and sinners were invited and yet there is no mention of an invitation. Just as you had claimed that Jesus had invited the sinners into a house a were caught, I am sure sooner or later you will see that there is no mention of an invitation to the publicans and sinners.

If they are in the house, they had to have been invited in. There were doors. They could not just walk in. It doesn't say that they barged in or that they were there as an enemy. So there was an invitation whether to come to the house or to come IN the house.

 

[tinytim]

Go into the highways and byways, and invite them to come in...

Unless you are Saved.

Because we wouldn't want to muddy up our homes with all those "SINNERS"

Those repugnant, filthy, wretched "SINNERS"...

How dare they come and eat with us....
We may catch something...

Hey remember the guy a yr or so ago that swore you cpuld catch "Gay"?

We don't want to be around those wretched SINNERS....
We are Pristine
We only use the KJV
We only listen to hymns
We condemn anything that we don't like because we have the truth...

We are the perfect ones...

How dare anyone suggest we hang out with sinners the way Jesus did...

We should have told Jesus how unclean his actions were.

But we couldn't, we were not born then...

Oh, how I wish someone could have warned Jesus of those filthy, rotten, sinners.... and what their sins would do to him...

But wait... a group of people did try to warn Jesus not to hang out with sinners....

It was the Pharisees....

And what was that word Jesus called them/?
Great Christians?
Seperated?
Followers of God?
Wonderful holy men?

No

HYPOCRITES!!!
And sons of Satan!

Hmmmm....

Gotta think about this one.

 

[Joe]

What I find not so funny is the problem many have getting past the actual literal meaning of the name of the show because of injecting the thought from their mind that it must relate to fornication.

Earth to Benjamin, come in Benjamin. That is the definition. But unfortunately, I cannot post it here because it is so incredibly offensive. So sick and disgusting that it's a little harder to "forget". Certainly not funny as you say.

On top of that, after this thought in reality actualizes as a strawman,

Oh but it doesn't "actualize a strawman". We were deliberately mislead.

still add to the attack, because of their first misguided notion and will remain objectionable, maybe because of whatever insecurities IDK.

To add to what attack? And who or what is this IDK who posesses so many insecurities?

Then would take the strawman further by even suggesting that one’s children would not, or could not, come to understand that Daddy and Mommy would not partake of watching it, or give credit if it was of such content.

You need to read up on the definition of a strawman.Do not accuse bretheran of attacking a show which the very definition means fornication. Not only are you breaking a BB rule, but it's not smart to attack someone standing up for Christ. People get banned by only doing one of these things, you have done two.
I am not sure where you think you are buddy but this is a christian message board.

So now the developing argument centers on “IF” they (the children) were to even “actually” take the same notion as the one who finds the name of the show so problematic,…but…also now then the false accusation grows, (in what some may take as insult,) that the children will believe the parents would partake of such entertainments while suggesting that maybe the children should block shows on the parents through this false accusation, thereby not giving credit to either the parents or the children’s perspective of their parent’s judgments, and do this to support a condemnation of the show because of their misguided interpretation of the title. All of said argument was originally built on nothing but a strawman built upon another strawman.

That's the longest run on sentence in the history of the BB. I didn't bother to read it. But I hope you are not falsely accusing your bretheren of something again.

Get reality…er.. I mean…real.

If you are taking illegal drugs or drinking alcohol, I suggest you cease. Go to bed.

 

[dan e.]

is that your way of saying I don't carry the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?

shame on you.

I would have turned down the invitation anyway. I don't sit at a table where alcohol is served.

I don't even drink. Just because I don't think drinking is wrong doesn't mean I drink.

 

[Benjamin]

Earth to Benjamin, come in Benjamin. That is the definition. But unfortunately, I cannot post it here because it is so incredibly offensive. So sick and disgusting that it's a little harder to "forget". Certainly not funny as you say.

I’m so sorry you can’t get that definition out of your head. And you want to tell me about what is funny or not??? I saw your little deleted post to Brother Bob and I assure He would not have found that funny, nor did I. Get your head out of the gutter.

Oh but it doesn't "actualize a strawman". We were deliberately mislead.

It certainly does make a strawman. And you were not mislead as the context was explained early on.

And who or what is this IDK who posesses so many insecurities?

IDK = I don’t know. So don’t get a complex!

You need to read up on the definition of a strawman.Do not accuse bretheran of attacking a show which the very definition means fornication.

It was explained in the fifth post what the content of the show was NOT about; that makes the forthcoming argument a strawman! Maybe you ought to look it up, eh?

Not only are you breaking a BB rule, but it's not smart to attack someone standing up for Christ. People get banned by only doing one of these things, you have done two.
I am not sure where you think you are buddy but this is a christian message board.

What??? I disagreed on the principles of logic within a strawman argument, and you get into a hissy over what you “still” consider a concrete definition (which obviously is NOT meant that way in this case.) Your losing me here in your huff. Take life a little easier friend and try to be more gay.

That's the longest run on sentence in the history of the BB. I didn't bother to read it. But I hope you are not falsely accusing your bretheren of something again.

You don’t seem to be bothering to read or comprehend from the beginning of the tread which explained the content of the show, not to mention admitting not reading my entire post. Yet, you get all worked up on what you consider an attack??? My response was mostly roundabout toward Brother Bob’s insinuations which most probably were directed my way and could be taken as rather insulting to my character (although, I don’t take much offense at BB’s posts cause I usually understand where he’s coming from and am not getting exited about any loss of tact that comes through because of the things which are missed when you write what you have to say) ...but this is a debate board and I not only pointed out the fallacy in the argument but how I was seeing his response, in a simular fashion, to him. He doesn’t need your confused defense.

Dude, you posted about being unequally yoked as if that had any bearing since the couples were not going to be married. And are still missing the points.

If you are taking illegal drugs or drinking alcohol, I suggest you cease. Go to bed.

That was mature! But FYI, I don’t take illegal drugs and average less than one drink of wine per year.

 

[readmore]

if someone wants me to listen to a new song called "Wild Friday Night," I better do it

Frankly, I don't care if you listen to "Wild Friday Night" or watch Wife Swap, so I don't know where you get "I better do it" from. I've seen Wife Swap, and I'm telling you that the name doesn't have any reference to the unwholesome activity you think it does. To continue to condemn it as though it did doesn't do anyone any good. Using your analogy, what if some daring Christian friend listened to "Wild Friday Night" and found that it was actually a song about street preaching in downtown Boston, where people mocked the preaching of God, and yet sinners came to be saved. Would you fold your arms, jut your lower lip out, and insist the song must be about fornication because of the name?

because I shouldn't draw my conclusion by it's name? You do it YOUR way, I'll do it GOD'S way, 'k?

Ever heard that old adage, "Don't judge a book by its cover"? How about Proverbs 18:3: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

[dragonfly]

Pastor Larry,

No, we don't. We live in a small one bedroom apartment and there is hardly room for just the two of us.

We do invite unsaved people to the place we go to worship and hear the Word of God.

We witness wherever we go.

But we do not bring the lost into our home. God's Word forbids it.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

The Word clearly states not to bring them over to your home if they are not bringing the doctrine of Jesus Christ with them.

I sure hope you don't need a plumber, electrician, or the like. If you do, I guess you can force them to accept Christ before they enter your premise.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I sure hope you don't need a plumber, electrician, or the like. If you do, I guess you can force them to accept Christ before they enter your premise.

I know plenty of plumbers, electricians, and such like.

Matter of fact, at the Church I pastored for 8 years we had not only a plumber, and an electrician, but we also had a well-digger who were Christians.

 

[Gershom]

John did not say if they bring a different gospel. He said 'if they bring not this doctrine.'

If they don't bring the doctrine of Christ with them, we are not to bring them into our home.

Ever have family over who aren't saved?

 

[tinytim]

I know plenty of plumbers, electricians, and such like.

Matter of fact, at the Church I pastored for 8 years we had not only a plumber, and an electrician, but we also had a well-digger who were Christians.

Did you have a septic system cleaner?

 

[Joe]

I’m so sorry you can’t get that definition out of your head. And you want to tell me about what is funny or not??? I saw your little deleted post to Brother Bob and I assure He would not have found that funny, nor did I. Get your head out of the gutter.



It certainly does make a strawman. And you were not mislead as the context was explained early on.


IDK = I don’t know. So don’t get a complex!


It was explained in the fifth post what the content of the show was NOT about; that makes the forthcoming argument a strawman! Maybe you ought to look it up, eh?


What??? I disagreed on the principles of logic within a strawman argument, and you get into a hissy over what you “still” consider a concrete definition (which obviously is NOT meant that way in this case.) Your losing me here in your huff. Take life a little easier friend and try to be more gay.


You don’t seem to be bothering to read or comprehend from the beginning of the tread which explained the content of the show, not to mention admitting not reading my entire post. Yet, you get all worked up on what you consider an attack??? My response was mostly roundabout toward Brother Bob’s insinuations which most probably were directed my way and could be taken as rather insulting to my character (although, I don’t take much offense at BB’s posts cause I usually understand where he’s coming from and am not getting exited about any loss of tact that comes through because of the things which are missed when you write what you have to say) ...but this is a debate board and I not only pointed out the fallacy in the argument but how I was seeing his response, in a simular fashion, to him. He doesn’t need your confused defense.

Dude, you posted about being unequally yoked as if that had any bearing since the couples were not going to be married. And are still missing the points.


That was mature! But FYI, I don’t take illegal drugs and average less than one drink of wine per year.

This post makes no sense, doesn't come close to resembling a reply to any of the points of which I made. I edited that post for a reason, you might need to try doing so yourself. BB and I are very good with one another, unlike his replies to you. But thanks for the concern.
Your post is exaggerated, untruthful etc...not to mention you didn't reply to my post #2 TO YOU. Not that I care

 

[dragonfly]

This post makes no sense, doesn't come close to resembling a reply to any of the points of which I made. I edited that post for a reason, you might need to try doing so yourself. BB and I are very good with one another, unlike his replies to you. But thanks for the concern.
Your post is exaggerated, untruthful etc...not to mention you didn't reply to my post #2 TO YOU. Not that I care

I think he answered your posting quite well. I just don't think you like what he said.

 

[Amy.G]

Why isn't there a "husband swap"?

:laugh: