I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread. I posted my bit on the doctrinal--I don't think you can divorce doctrine from practice--though it is all so much cleaner and neater when you wrangle greek words instead of actual human lives.
The doctrinal forum used to have some lively discussions from different views, seems those days are over.
Back in the days when I was of a belief that homosexuality was caused by a devil spirit, as was taught in TWI, I was always very cautious about what I might say in their presence.(Might be talkin' to a devil spirit, dontcha know? Can't ask them for advise on anything because that would be revealing your weaknesses to a devil spirit.)
That was then---This is now.
Why should it be any business of mine what a coworker does in their own bedroom?
(I say coworker because so many of us spend more time with our coworkers than our family members or aquaintances in general)
So to answer your question, why should I treat a homosexual any differently than a heterosexual?
Follow "The Golden Rule" and things seem to go a lot smoother in this old life.
Every belief system seems to have a version of it. It shouldn't be hard to find.
Hmmm...from a doctrinal point of view, I agree that one cannot separate doctrinal from practical. Doctrine is supposed to be a guildline. It seems to me that the example that we see in Jesus Christ woud be a good place to start. No I'm not talking about the fact that the Bible as we have it today does not record him talking about the subject. That is a different subject. I'm talking about how he treated people in general. I bring this up because he was the one that showed everyone how the doctrinal was to be put into the practical in all things from the Sabbath to teaching. So how did Jesus treat people?
As I recall he treated the vast majority with compassion, understanding and love. He looked upon the intent of the man/womans heart and not necessarily on their actions or sins. Look at Mary Magdalene for example. Certainly her sin was great and yet he chastised the other people in the city stronger than he did her...why? Because of her heart. She ended up becoming a very influential leader in the early church and if the record in the Bible is correct the first person to see the resurrected Jesus.
The people that Jesus treated harshly were those that had 'hardened their hearts' against God or His people. It seems to me that he was hardest on those that knowingly and deliberately blasphemed God. For example the money changers that did their buisness in the Temple. This was not an unknown custom. The Temple in ancient times was also the bank. So why did Jesus get so angry at them? I'm not certain but it could be because they broke God's commandment that He had written in Ezekiel concerning the loaning of money and the amount of interest that you can charge. They intentionally swindled the people of God and used His Temple with which to add credence to their 'company'.
How would I treat a homosexual? With compassion, understanding, love and acceptance, just as I believe my Savior would have done. You cannot redeem someone to the household if you are railing against them. Jesus is my example so I guess I would follow him.
IF ANY OF YOU CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALS OUT OF HAND I SAY TO YOU THAT YOU ARE GUILTY OF BEHAVIOR THAT IS WORTHY OF THE SAME JUDGEMENT, DUHHHHHHHH! PREPARE TO BE JUDGED YOURSELF.
DOES ANYBODY WISH TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO TREAT A HOMOSEXUAL WITH GODLY LOVE?
I play nice ... but you seem to be starting off with a lot of yelling ... and some threats about being judged ...
The folks that seem to say that homosexual acts are "doctrinally fine" ... seem to assume that those folks that believe the Bible says otherwise are going out and beating up gays, or screaming at lesbians ... I would think that is rather insulting. They seem rational and charitable to me.
Is there no room for people that believe the Bible clearly says homosexual acts are "wrong" ... but that certainly don't think that means to go out and beat them up?
It seems the assumption by those that disagree is that some that believe the bible, are haters and out to harm homosexuals. I just shake my head when I see this sort of attack ... as what seems to be the start of this thread.
The thread starts with yelling and accusations and threats ... which to me, seems a rather large problem ... a lot like condemnation ....
Who are you yelling at Jeff? Who are these FOLKS that ARE mocking, backstabbing, and gossiping?
This seems like an angry and aggressive way to start a "civil" discussion.
who are the "mocking, backstabbing, gossiping folks that you refer to?
i have seen no one at the greasespot exhibit any of these behaviors... nor have i seen anyone advocate the "mocking, backstabbing, or gossiping" of homosexuals...
so it seems like a straw man argument to me...
personally, i believe that homosexuals should be treated the same as everyone else... i'm not the one who is putting them into some special category that requires special treatment... seems to me that the bias belongs to those who list specific treatements for homosexuals... although most folks didn't take the bait and simply stated that homosexuals should be treated the same as everyone else (instead of singling them out for special treatment)...
Ask a homosexual out to lunch and YOU pay the tab. There! Now you've treated that homosexual.
PS - I think too much is being assumed regarding Jeff's "anger." Here's a hint - instead of assuming he's angry, ask him if he's angry. Sometimes caps are just emphasis.
God loves us all even my HOMOSEXUALS and heterosexual friends
people talk about doctrines
but how about
1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. ...............
even if I walk by the lettle of what doctrine reads without the love of God I have no truth
think about where Wayish teaching hate of things they did not like and then asked yourself where is the love of God in that
The love of God comes when we see that we are a sinner too or we do not do everything right either
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
the first words of doctrine if you do all doctrines right cast the first condemnation agaist another
then we see HOMOSEXUALS and heterosexual are both humans with errors in their life by what we think is right
than we know just because we think something is right that does not matter it so
doctrines are just doctrins otherwise nothing but love is everything
I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread. I posted my bit on the doctrinal--I don't think you can divorce doctrine from practice--though it is all so much cleaner and neater when you wrangle greek words instead of actual human lives.
The doctrinal forum used to have some lively discussions from different views, seems those days are over.
I agree that the lively discussions with different views are limited now, but I disagree
as to the REASON those are limited now. Seems that even disagreeing civilly is beyond
reach-the other POV has to be labelled, tarred and feathered now.
(Compare this with discussions with myself and Oakspear in the past-
we disagree doctrinally on most things, but we can do so civilly, and also keep the
discussions on whatever topic they're supposedly on. And neither of us suffered
internal injuries doing so.)
================
I see little reason for me to get into this topic, for reasons I will make clear.
However, I DO feel a need to set the record straight on something.
I THOUGHT I communicated clearly enough the FIRST time, but perhaps I did not.
Here's what Bramble said here:
"I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread."
That sounds like there was some sort of PUBLIC OUTCRY that she posted at all on
a thread on doctrine. Is that what happened?
Here's part of the opening post on that thread:
"With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says (as I have done with many things since leaving TWI) from my new perspective. I was somewhat surprised with what I read.
So, what are your views of homosexuality and what are the verses you use to back up that view?"
It seemed to me to be a pretty straightforward purpose of a thread-
the question was "What does the Bible actually say/mean concerning homosexuality?"
It said "I thought I'd go back to the Bible and see what it says", and "what are the verses you use",
so it seems to me that the stated purpose is to discuss what it actually says, and means BY
what it says. There's room for disagreement, mostly in specifically what it says, and by what
that means. Many fine points can be debated just on one key phrase.
So, I expected posters to at least ATTEMPT to stay on that topic.
Bramble made a point of not doing that.
She began with:
"Whether homosexuality is a sin in the Christian doctrinal world or not matters very little to me."
In other words, she had little interest in what the Bible says and little interest in the
verses used, which, to me, means she had little interest in the thread's purpose.
That's fine. Generally, though, when someone is disinterested in the stated topic of a thread,
that means they find some other thread that interests them, and discusses THAT.
Instead, she expounded on her own views. She's entitled to her own views, and her own
doctrines, and this IS the doctrinal forum. That having been said, I thought this was the
wrong THREAD to discuss DOCTRINES if those DOCTRINES had no interest in the BIBLE or VERSES.
Seemed straightforward to me.
Getting back to Bramble's specific complaint in this thread, then....
"I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread."
So I was the ONLY person who made a comment about that. I'm ONE person.
That changed to "all the Bibilical researchers".
Did I complain she posted on the doctrinal thread? No, only that she posted off-topic
on that thread. If it was a doctrinal thread that asked about doctrines specifically from
other books and EXCLUDING the Bible, and I had come on and kept posting about the
Bible on it, I would have expected the equivalent response.
I said as much:
"Congratulations.
Why, then, participate in a discussion about THE BIBLE, whose purpose was to ask
"WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ON THIS?"
I mean, how many posts does it take to say
"I'm posting on this thread to say I don't care about its subject".
(That's effectively what you said. Lindy asked "what does it say" and you posted "I don't care.")
If it was a discussion, say, of Starhawk's books and I had no interest in it, it would be unlikely
I'd even spend ONE post saying "I'm disinterested in this subject"-I'd let those who wanted
to discuss her Doctrine continue to do so without distraction."
I made a SINGLE post about it.
Was it a HOSTILE, INFLAMMATORY post? I just pasted the relevant part-you judge.
I can't find the "pi$$ off" part, neither word-for-word nor in effect.
I thought it was a reasonable comment.
I also bowed out of the discussion in that very post. This meant Bramble's next post
allowed her to have the last word on the subject.
She said:
"I think that discussing how a doctrine helps or hinders real people in the real world is a valid point of discussion, WW. As far as the Bible doctrine--there will be no definitive answer, there never is. Christian doctrine is all over the map and all based on the Bible. This discussion will end up in 'camps' like thay all do. But maybe some people will read it and think."
Now, I disagree, but I left it at that. We stated our disagreement, and that was it.
I thought that was civil if nothing else.
When someone else brought up-to a different poster- that the stated purpose of the
threat was "what does the Bible say" and we STILL had discussed everything BUT that,
Bramble chose to reply:
"You have your Bible verses. How's that all working in the real world?
Oh, wait, I forgot, that doesn't matter in a doctrinal discussion."
That looks to me like BRAMBLE dragged the subject back out, and NOT in a civil fashion,
more with a barbed post. The immediate reply addressed that:
"No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of application or practice ..."
That response was "in kind" and answered hers. I STILL don't see anyone getting
"pi$$ed off".
=================
Why did I bother all the reposting?
Simply this:
I object to the dishonesty and unfairness that turned simple disagreement into some PERSONAL
issue where someone supposedly suffered PERSECUTION.
(The word "persecution" was not used, but she's suggesting she was attacked just for posting,
or for having a different opinion, or for posting a different opinion.)
I expect to see that sort of thing in politics, and on messageboards where teenagers play
foolish, histrionic games with each other. I DON'T expect it here-I expect intelligent, civil
discussion. Did this forum now get to the point where disagreeing with someone allows
them to claim they were attacked? Is the next step
"we shall censor the posters who kept bringing up that hateful Bible thing"?
Bizarre to even suggest it- but I think it's bizarre we even got THIS far.
After this morning, I expect to be out of this discussion as well. I don't see room for my
point of view. This looks like it's going to be a continuation of the previous discussion
where, despite the stated purpose of "let's see what the Bible says" it's more of
"let's see what the Bible SHOULD say, and WOULD say if it was as enlightened as we are."
For those who are wondering, I'm bearing no ill will nor emotion towards any posts here,
nor any posters, so you can save time wondering if I am.
I've been around and around on the pike with doctrinal discussions concerning homosexuality. Often times they end up turning into discussions that are no better than, "I'm right and you are wrong, dipstick."
Some folks here have been around and around on this topic many times too. It sounds to me that they are bored with the straight doctrinal discussions also.
I say we didn't even HAVE a straight doctrinal discussion on it, no pun intended.
But I agree we won't be having one now, either.
Eyesopen has put in a lot of work on the topic and I'm looking forward to getting her book when I can.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
This verse is talking about a lot more than just homosexuality as we relate to it. It is talking about hatred, being unmerciful, disobedient to parents, etc. etc. etc. JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE END OF CH.1 FOLKS.
IF ANY OF YOU CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALS OUT OF HAND I SAY TO YOU THAT YOU ARE GUILTY OF BEHAVIOR THAT IS WORTHY OF THE SAME JUDGEMENT, DUHHHHHHHH! PREPARE TO BE JUDGED YOURSELF.
Jeff isn't here to speak for himself, so may I suggest everyone keep their assumptions about his tone to themselves. Geez! It just takes just a little tiny bit of self-control and restraint. Didn't we all get enough of twi and it's attitude of "knowing better than you" what you were feeling or thinking?
**********************************
For the record, I think the bigger picture is:
How do you treat someone who makes YOU feel uncomfortable? (caps for emphasis only)
*Shrug* Maybe your pride in your intellect and Biblical research skills needed a prick, Word Wolf. Seems it pained you. Maybe you should explore that--if you dare.
Edited by Bramble
Well, since this thread is already off to a pi$ed off start I doubt I can do it any ruin--
...
I've yet to see any of the 'it is not okay with the Bible to be homosexual' posters explain how their doctrine benefits homosexuals.
I like your first line ...
Those are the kind of questions I figured this thread was about ... probably each should be its own thread maybe.
I don't see why there needs to be any action specifically to benefit homosexuals. That seems to be part of the problem ... "gay rights". Do gays/lesbians get special privileges for some reason?
other than that, the decision is whether it is equal rights, or special privileges. At times it seems the gay lesbian crowd would prefer to put Christians and their "strange beliefs" out of sight, and make them worship in the closet .. so to speak. And there is some movement to make gay/lesbians a protected class, or a special minority ...
I'll speak for myself and assume others are capable of the same ... it is when there is an apparent need to remind those knuckle draggers that they better behave ... that things are off on the wrong foot. We can just ignore bad comments I guess ... do we really need hall monitors?
I hope I'm not derailing this thread too much by talking about what I think doctrinal discussions should be, rather than the topic at hand. But we're already deep into it, so here goes...
As WordWolf stated, it is possible to have a discussion about what the bible says, or what we think it says, without beating each other up. WordWolf brought my name up earlier...we agree on virtually nothing doctrinally...yet we have developed a mutual respect and ability to consider each other's point of view and grow and learn thereby.
There are two extreme positions that I see here fairly often. I'm not painting anyone who has posted on this thread with this very broad brush; these are extremes.
One is the "This is what the bible says, why can't you see it" position. The folks on this extreme view their interpretation, version, slant etc. on the bible as the only "correct" one. What they say is literal can't possibly be interpreted figuratively; what they see as a figure of speech in no way could be looked at literally. Hebrew words mean what they say that they mean and that's that. Posters on this extreme can represent any number of subgroups within Christianity.
The other extreme tells us that the bible as written is wrong. Period. This may come from an atheistic point of view, or from another religious tradition, or maybe from a poster who feels that it's all figurative.
Remember, these are extremes, archetypes if you will. Even the most strident among us fall within the grey in-between.
Most of you know that I am not a Christian and don't believe that the bible is divinely inspired. This doesn't stop me from participating in discussions about what the bible actual says within its pages. I can read. I can formulate logical thoughts. I can make judgements on whether something is illogical or contradictory or if it hangs together perfectly. And I can do it without calling the people I'm debating mindless idiots or superstitious peasants.
On the other hand, sometimes these discussions are not strictly about what the bible says. In those cases, making the whole of your argument "God said it, I believe it" does nothing to foster civil discourse.
Perhaps in some ways I'm like those who engage in Wierwille nostalgia and believe that there was a TWI golden age...I believe that there was a "golden age" of the doctrinal forum. The days when hardly anyone came down here, but those who did were ready for some serious discussion. The days when we could dissect the Blue book, or PFAL session by session and actual get somewhere.
Recommended Posts
Bramble
I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread. I posted my bit on the doctrinal--I don't think you can divorce doctrine from practice--though it is all so much cleaner and neater when you wrangle greek words instead of actual human lives.
The doctrinal forum used to have some lively discussions from different views, seems those days are over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Back in the days when I was of a belief that homosexuality was caused by a devil spirit, as was taught in TWI, I was always very cautious about what I might say in their presence.(Might be talkin' to a devil spirit, dontcha know? Can't ask them for advise on anything because that would be revealing your weaknesses to a devil spirit.)
That was then---This is now.
Why should it be any business of mine what a coworker does in their own bedroom?
(I say coworker because so many of us spend more time with our coworkers than our family members or aquaintances in general)
So to answer your question, why should I treat a homosexual any differently than a heterosexual?
Follow "The Golden Rule" and things seem to go a lot smoother in this old life.
Every belief system seems to have a version of it. It shouldn't be hard to find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hmmm...from a doctrinal point of view, I agree that one cannot separate doctrinal from practical. Doctrine is supposed to be a guildline. It seems to me that the example that we see in Jesus Christ woud be a good place to start. No I'm not talking about the fact that the Bible as we have it today does not record him talking about the subject. That is a different subject. I'm talking about how he treated people in general. I bring this up because he was the one that showed everyone how the doctrinal was to be put into the practical in all things from the Sabbath to teaching. So how did Jesus treat people?
As I recall he treated the vast majority with compassion, understanding and love. He looked upon the intent of the man/womans heart and not necessarily on their actions or sins. Look at Mary Magdalene for example. Certainly her sin was great and yet he chastised the other people in the city stronger than he did her...why? Because of her heart. She ended up becoming a very influential leader in the early church and if the record in the Bible is correct the first person to see the resurrected Jesus.
The people that Jesus treated harshly were those that had 'hardened their hearts' against God or His people. It seems to me that he was hardest on those that knowingly and deliberately blasphemed God. For example the money changers that did their buisness in the Temple. This was not an unknown custom. The Temple in ancient times was also the bank. So why did Jesus get so angry at them? I'm not certain but it could be because they broke God's commandment that He had written in Ezekiel concerning the loaning of money and the amount of interest that you can charge. They intentionally swindled the people of God and used His Temple with which to add credence to their 'company'.
How would I treat a homosexual? With compassion, understanding, love and acceptance, just as I believe my Savior would have done. You cannot redeem someone to the household if you are railing against them. Jesus is my example so I guess I would follow him.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You treat anyone as you treat yourself.
That's just the way it is it seems.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
It's always the case no matter who you are talking about.
Doctrine/Practical that cannot be escaped.
It's not seen in ourselves by our own looking sometimes.
I think/believe/know that this is the case.
So as we change in treating ourself or others,
the change is an exact match to the other or yourself.
How would you treat yourself if you were homosexual?
That's a long shot question, maybe.
But if it's given some thought. there may be a view not considered before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I play nice ... but you seem to be starting off with a lot of yelling ... and some threats about being judged ...
The folks that seem to say that homosexual acts are "doctrinally fine" ... seem to assume that those folks that believe the Bible says otherwise are going out and beating up gays, or screaming at lesbians ... I would think that is rather insulting. They seem rational and charitable to me.
Is there no room for people that believe the Bible clearly says homosexual acts are "wrong" ... but that certainly don't think that means to go out and beat them up?
It seems the assumption by those that disagree is that some that believe the bible, are haters and out to harm homosexuals. I just shake my head when I see this sort of attack ... as what seems to be the start of this thread.
The thread starts with yelling and accusations and threats ... which to me, seems a rather large problem ... a lot like condemnation ....
Who are you yelling at Jeff? Who are these FOLKS that ARE mocking, backstabbing, and gossiping?
This seems like an angry and aggressive way to start a "civil" discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
well, i have the same question as rhino...
who are the "mocking, backstabbing, gossiping folks that you refer to?
i have seen no one at the greasespot exhibit any of these behaviors... nor have i seen anyone advocate the "mocking, backstabbing, or gossiping" of homosexuals...
so it seems like a straw man argument to me...
personally, i believe that homosexuals should be treated the same as everyone else... i'm not the one who is putting them into some special category that requires special treatment... seems to me that the bias belongs to those who list specific treatements for homosexuals... although most folks didn't take the bait and simply stated that homosexuals should be treated the same as everyone else (instead of singling them out for special treatment)...
but what are you so mad about, jeff??
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
How to treat a homosexual?
*rolls eyes* Must we go over this again?
Ask a homosexual out to lunch and YOU pay the tab. There! Now you've treated that homosexual.
PS - I think too much is being assumed regarding Jeff's "anger." Here's a hint - instead of assuming he's angry, ask him if he's angry. Sometimes caps are just emphasis.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved JeffSjo and others
God loves us all even my HOMOSEXUALS and heterosexual friends
people talk about doctrines
but how about
1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. ...............
even if I walk by the lettle of what doctrine reads without the love of God I have no truth
think about where Wayish teaching hate of things they did not like and then asked yourself where is the love of God in that
The love of God comes when we see that we are a sinner too or we do not do everything right either
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
the first words of doctrine if you do all doctrines right cast the first condemnation agaist another
then we see HOMOSEXUALS and heterosexual are both humans with errors in their life by what we think is right
than we know just because we think something is right that does not matter it so
doctrines are just doctrins otherwise nothing but love is everything
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree that the lively discussions with different views are limited now, but I disagree
as to the REASON those are limited now. Seems that even disagreeing civilly is beyond
reach-the other POV has to be labelled, tarred and feathered now.
(Compare this with discussions with myself and Oakspear in the past-
we disagree doctrinally on most things, but we can do so civilly, and also keep the
discussions on whatever topic they're supposedly on. And neither of us suffered
internal injuries doing so.)
================
I see little reason for me to get into this topic, for reasons I will make clear.
However, I DO feel a need to set the record straight on something.
I THOUGHT I communicated clearly enough the FIRST time, but perhaps I did not.
Here's what Bramble said here:
"I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread."
That sounds like there was some sort of PUBLIC OUTCRY that she posted at all on
a thread on doctrine. Is that what happened?
Here's part of the opening post on that thread:
"With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says (as I have done with many things since leaving TWI) from my new perspective. I was somewhat surprised with what I read.
So, what are your views of homosexuality and what are the verses you use to back up that view?"
It seemed to me to be a pretty straightforward purpose of a thread-
the question was "What does the Bible actually say/mean concerning homosexuality?"
It said "I thought I'd go back to the Bible and see what it says", and "what are the verses you use",
so it seems to me that the stated purpose is to discuss what it actually says, and means BY
what it says. There's room for disagreement, mostly in specifically what it says, and by what
that means. Many fine points can be debated just on one key phrase.
So, I expected posters to at least ATTEMPT to stay on that topic.
Bramble made a point of not doing that.
She began with:
"Whether homosexuality is a sin in the Christian doctrinal world or not matters very little to me."
In other words, she had little interest in what the Bible says and little interest in the
verses used, which, to me, means she had little interest in the thread's purpose.
That's fine. Generally, though, when someone is disinterested in the stated topic of a thread,
that means they find some other thread that interests them, and discusses THAT.
Instead, she expounded on her own views. She's entitled to her own views, and her own
doctrines, and this IS the doctrinal forum. That having been said, I thought this was the
wrong THREAD to discuss DOCTRINES if those DOCTRINES had no interest in the BIBLE or VERSES.
Seemed straightforward to me.
Getting back to Bramble's specific complaint in this thread, then....
"I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread."
So I was the ONLY person who made a comment about that. I'm ONE person.
That changed to "all the Bibilical researchers".
Did I complain she posted on the doctrinal thread? No, only that she posted off-topic
on that thread. If it was a doctrinal thread that asked about doctrines specifically from
other books and EXCLUDING the Bible, and I had come on and kept posting about the
Bible on it, I would have expected the equivalent response.
I said as much:
"Congratulations.
Why, then, participate in a discussion about THE BIBLE, whose purpose was to ask
"WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ON THIS?"
I mean, how many posts does it take to say
"I'm posting on this thread to say I don't care about its subject".
(That's effectively what you said. Lindy asked "what does it say" and you posted "I don't care.")
If it was a discussion, say, of Starhawk's books and I had no interest in it, it would be unlikely
I'd even spend ONE post saying "I'm disinterested in this subject"-I'd let those who wanted
to discuss her Doctrine continue to do so without distraction."
I made a SINGLE post about it.
Was it a HOSTILE, INFLAMMATORY post? I just pasted the relevant part-you judge.
I can't find the "pi$$ off" part, neither word-for-word nor in effect.
I thought it was a reasonable comment.
I also bowed out of the discussion in that very post. This meant Bramble's next post
allowed her to have the last word on the subject.
She said:
"I think that discussing how a doctrine helps or hinders real people in the real world is a valid point of discussion, WW. As far as the Bible doctrine--there will be no definitive answer, there never is. Christian doctrine is all over the map and all based on the Bible. This discussion will end up in 'camps' like thay all do. But maybe some people will read it and think."
Now, I disagree, but I left it at that. We stated our disagreement, and that was it.
I thought that was civil if nothing else.
When someone else brought up-to a different poster- that the stated purpose of the
threat was "what does the Bible say" and we STILL had discussed everything BUT that,
Bramble chose to reply:
"You have your Bible verses. How's that all working in the real world?
Oh, wait, I forgot, that doesn't matter in a doctrinal discussion."
That looks to me like BRAMBLE dragged the subject back out, and NOT in a civil fashion,
more with a barbed post. The immediate reply addressed that:
"No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of application or practice ..."
That response was "in kind" and answered hers. I STILL don't see anyone getting
"pi$$ed off".
=================
Why did I bother all the reposting?
Simply this:
I object to the dishonesty and unfairness that turned simple disagreement into some PERSONAL
issue where someone supposedly suffered PERSECUTION.
(The word "persecution" was not used, but she's suggesting she was attacked just for posting,
or for having a different opinion, or for posting a different opinion.)
I expect to see that sort of thing in politics, and on messageboards where teenagers play
foolish, histrionic games with each other. I DON'T expect it here-I expect intelligent, civil
discussion. Did this forum now get to the point where disagreeing with someone allows
them to claim they were attacked? Is the next step
"we shall censor the posters who kept bringing up that hateful Bible thing"?
Bizarre to even suggest it- but I think it's bizarre we even got THIS far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
After this morning, I expect to be out of this discussion as well. I don't see room for my
point of view. This looks like it's going to be a continuation of the previous discussion
where, despite the stated purpose of "let's see what the Bible says" it's more of
"let's see what the Bible SHOULD say, and WOULD say if it was as enlightened as we are."
For those who are wondering, I'm bearing no ill will nor emotion towards any posts here,
nor any posters, so you can save time wondering if I am.
I say we didn't even HAVE a straight doctrinal discussion on it, no pun intended.
But I agree we won't be having one now, either.
In my opinion, this is largely a variation of what we already tried, but I'll try this angle before Ileave and spare the participants my further posting..
So do I.
Since I'm not sure what this means, I'm not sure if I do it or not. But note the things I agree to.I do the same, and refrain from the same, respectively.
(Share the gospel when asked, refrain from mocking, refrain from backstabbing and refrain from gossip.)
With the specific comments capitalized, it doesn't look to me like this is EMPHASIS as much as
it IS yelling.
Also, I see a conflation of "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin" with
"you're judging homosexuals and condemning them,
you closeminded, illiterate, inbred peasant!"
PERHAPS he didn't mean that.
After all he did say "please play nice" after all that.
Does "playing nice" include the possibility of saying
"God calls me to love. I treat all people with respect, and understand all sin, but I neither approve
or nor sanction those sins, nor claim God approves or sanctions them,
no matter WHICH sin it is?"
I'm under the impression that this position-which IS my position-is thoroughly (and throughly)
unwelcome in this discussion, so I shall spare you further inflicting of it by myself.
I can't guarantee anyone else will refrain from doing so.
If they asked me, I'd tell them to spare themselves the effort and the rest of you the
unwelcome posts.
Once again, carry on, everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
God deals with people individually personally.
Why are we grouping people again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
very well stated, wordwolf...
and i do believe i share your position! :)
i.e.
"God calls me to love. I treat all people with respect, and understand that all people sin,
but I neither approve of nor sanction those sins, nor claim God approves or sanctions them,
no matter WHICH sin it is?"
peace,
jen-o
edited to add the stated position...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Well, since this thread is already off to a pi$$ed off start I doubt I can do it any ruin--
So, is it love to expect a homosexual to be celibate their entire life(unless they change into a heterosexual)?
Is it love to deny marriage to homosexual couples?
Is it love to expect homosexuals to work on changing their sexuality via change them ministries?
Should homosexuals be denied admittance into the military?
I've yet to see any of the 'it is not okay with the Bible to be homosexual' posters explain how their doctrine benefits homosexuals.
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
There are not many that can handle this subject with wisdom at this time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Jeff isn't here to speak for himself, so may I suggest everyone keep their assumptions about his tone to themselves. Geez! It just takes just a little tiny bit of self-control and restraint. Didn't we all get enough of twi and it's attitude of "knowing better than you" what you were feeling or thinking?
**********************************
For the record, I think the bigger picture is:
How do you treat someone who makes YOU feel uncomfortable? (caps for emphasis only)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I like your first line
...
Those are the kind of questions I figured this thread was about ... probably each should be its own thread maybe.
I don't see why there needs to be any action specifically to benefit homosexuals. That seems to be part of the problem ... "gay rights". Do gays/lesbians get special privileges for some reason?
other than that, the decision is whether it is equal rights, or special privileges. At times it seems the gay lesbian crowd would prefer to put Christians and their "strange beliefs" out of sight, and make them worship in the closet .. so to speak. And there is some movement to make gay/lesbians a protected class, or a special minority ...
I'll speak for myself and assume others are capable of the same ... it is when there is an apparent need to remind those knuckle draggers that they better behave ... that things are off on the wrong foot. We can just ignore bad comments I guess ... do we really need hall monitors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I hope I'm not derailing this thread too much by talking about what I think doctrinal discussions should be, rather than the topic at hand. But we're already deep into it, so here goes...
As WordWolf stated, it is possible to have a discussion about what the bible says, or what we think it says, without beating each other up. WordWolf brought my name up earlier...we agree on virtually nothing doctrinally...yet we have developed a mutual respect and ability to consider each other's point of view and grow and learn thereby.
There are two extreme positions that I see here fairly often. I'm not painting anyone who has posted on this thread with this very broad brush; these are extremes.
One is the "This is what the bible says, why can't you see it" position. The folks on this extreme view their interpretation, version, slant etc. on the bible as the only "correct" one. What they say is literal can't possibly be interpreted figuratively; what they see as a figure of speech in no way could be looked at literally. Hebrew words mean what they say that they mean and that's that. Posters on this extreme can represent any number of subgroups within Christianity.
The other extreme tells us that the bible as written is wrong. Period. This may come from an atheistic point of view, or from another religious tradition, or maybe from a poster who feels that it's all figurative.
Remember, these are extremes, archetypes if you will. Even the most strident among us fall within the grey in-between.
Most of you know that I am not a Christian and don't believe that the bible is divinely inspired. This doesn't stop me from participating in discussions about what the bible actual says within its pages. I can read. I can formulate logical thoughts. I can make judgements on whether something is illogical or contradictory or if it hangs together perfectly. And I can do it without calling the people I'm debating mindless idiots or superstitious peasants.
On the other hand, sometimes these discussions are not strictly about what the bible says. In those cases, making the whole of your argument "God said it, I believe it" does nothing to foster civil discourse.
Perhaps in some ways I'm like those who engage in Wierwille nostalgia and believe that there was a TWI golden age...I believe that there was a "golden age" of the doctrinal forum. The days when hardly anyone came down here, but those who did were ready for some serious discussion. The days when we could dissect the Blue book, or PFAL session by session and actual get somewhere.
Naw...those days probably never existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't believe The Bard spoke via Theopneustos.
In fact, I've never met anyone who did, though I suppose there must be someone, somewhere who does.
Still, people manage to have lengthy, informative and sometimes quite lively discussions of Hamlet and the various meanings of its intricacies.
The same potential exists here for discussions relating to Biblical/Spiritual doctrines.
Bring it to the table and serve it in a pleasing manner.
Proper etiquette dictates a cordial reception and sampling of each course before pronouncing a personal judgment on the meal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Shakespeare did speak on this subject - kinda sorta -
And do as adversaries do in law,—
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
~The Taming of the Shrew. Act i. Sc. 2. ~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Excellent, dooj.!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I guess we should be polite and let these folks go on with the thread.
See ya 'round the boards Waysider. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved all
God loves us all
My replies are not to point fingers neither is my new U-Tube but they are to help us see how to debate with not forgetting we are a sinner too
And I think this tread came out to try to say that
no one is saying homosexual is best but that it is not as bad as we were taught in that lying cult you know which one the Way of Lies
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.