 |
No, He didn't. Have you always had this terrible habit of just making things up and then putting it in quotes?Quote:
Jesus told her,"I love you in spite of everything and want you to make a better life for yourself."
Yes, it is called for. It's exactly what Jesus said. The subject "you" is understood. "You go and sin no more." Couldn't be plainer.Quote:
Nope, "you" is never called for in situations like that. That's just more shaming and has nothing to do with "backbone".
That's what "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" means, "I love you." He didn't ask us to shape up before He died on the cross for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Let's unravel this. Jesus was a Jew and knew only the Law. There was no Gospel yet. Thus, there was no love, only rules.Quote:
Yes, it is called for. It's exactly what Jesus said. The subject "you" is understood. "You go and sin no more." Couldn't be plainer.
Yeah. Right. There was no gospel. I suppose you think that now that there's a gospel, then Jesus would say, "Go and sin a whole lot." Come on. Don't be ridiculous. You are quoting fantasies.
She sure did.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc...topia-not-soon
...but not anytime soonAbsolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You are trying to mind read and failing miserably. Your conclusion is totally bonkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So much for unraveling. Remind me not to try to have a fruitful discussion with you again.
Do not try to have a fruitful discussion with me again, especially concerning why you "disagree" with abortion, or how the gospel was not here even when Jesus was here, or why we should tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors.
I'll add this. I tell the guys at the rehab center that if they are smart, they will have two or three people who love them enough to tell them when they are messing up. In the story of David and Bathsheba, one of David's men tried to tell him in a soft sort of way. What he really needed was someone who smack him upside his head and tell him to find something else to do. It is hard to overestimate the importance of those kind of people. Forget this psycho quackery. "You are doing something stupid! Stop!"
LOL, preachers (Or clergy, church officials) have no problem identifying sins and Jesus was a sinner according to the religion he was raised in, so while there was a gospel it was Jewish gospel, not Jesus's gospel. That came later.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Some respond differently to different approaches so one sizes doesn't fit all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I disagree with abortion but abortion only for myself -- unless my OB has a very valid reason it must be done. My right to swing my fist, especially about abortion, ends where another's nose begins.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No one in Israel during Jesus' time on Earth had any idea of "Gospel". All was Law. Jesus condensed the ten "shalt not" commandments into the two greatest commandments of love.
There's a more effective, God-pleasing way to "tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors" than getting into their faces and preaching at them.
But why?Quote:
I disagree with abortion
Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.Quote:
There's a more effective, God-pleasing way to "tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors" than getting into their faces and preaching at them.
What do you think of this? "3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and [d]I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh; so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
There are a number of plain, clear rebukes in the NT.
You go to the rehab centre, now that is no surprise, I was wondering what dope you have been smokin
Always no. No nose punching.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I agree with Matthew Henry:Quote:
What do you think of this? "3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and [d]I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh; so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
There are a number of plain, clear rebukes in the NT.
"[Christians] should walk circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice."
OK. I agree with Jesus and Paul. Look up the rebuke Jesus gave to Peter, and then look up the rebuke that Paul gave to Peter.
And that all has what to do with us?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He is talking about not being too religiously minded
It illustrates that your idea of never confronting people does not come from the Bible. The Bible is filled with confrontation which is frequently a very good thing. Not shouting and yelling or finger pointing, but a willingness to confront a person with the foolishness of his or her ways. To be silent or cream-puff soft is sometimes neither loving nor kind. Your views in that regard do not reflect the teaching of the Bible.Quote:
And that all has what to do with us?
To be clear, I'm not ridiculing your beliefs. You are certainly entitled to them and I accept that. I'm simply saying that when you say we should never confront people and have those "you" conversations, you are not being consistent with the Bible.
This is 2020. Shouting and yelling and finger pointing are three of the very best ways to turn people off to the Gospel. Of course, silence and cream-puffery don't accomplish anything either. Gee, I wonder if you can guess what works. Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
1. Haven't suggested shouting, yelling, or finger-pointing. Stop making things up.Quote:
Shouting and yelling and finger pointing are three of the very best ways to turn people off to the Gospel.
2. I'm not talking about the Gospel. I'm talking about people who are engaging in foolish behavior like the very action that started this exchange which was having multiple children out of wedlock.
Making things up? Please reread what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And my question stands -- I wonder what would work to convince them to change this or any other behavior.Quote:
2. I'm not talking about the Gospel. I'm talking about people who are engaging in foolish behavior like the very action that started this exchange which was having multiple children out of wedlock.
I would hope you have more approaches than just confrontation, to go with your backbone that you imply only you have.Quote:
2. I'm not talking about the Gospel. I'm talking about people who are engaging in foolish behavior like the very action that started this exchange which was having multiple children out of wedlock.
A lot of people have backbone. I've never implied otherwise.
What's your solution? Do you even consider it to be a problem?
I asked you first: "What would work best to convince them to change this or any other behavior?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I assume you are talking about out of wedlock births. A few comments.Quote:
I asked you first: "What would work best to convince them to change this or any other behavior?"
1. Maybe we should look at what worked sixty years ago. There was a general public opinion, reinforced by most people of influence, that becoming pregnant outside of marriage was a really bad idea. In most circles it was even considered to be immoral. And please don't come back with your anecdotal accounts of your teenage years. I don't care about stories. Numbers speak. Data speak.
2. What is our approach to rolling back racism, or smoking, or underage drinking, or DUI, or any one of a number of other moral issues? Is it not a prevailing public opinion that those things are either morally wrong or counterproductive?
3. It's going to take a lot of doing. We must first become settled as a culture that it is not a good decision. We've got to stop defending and even glorifying it.
4. Women need to begin defending themselves. Give a man what he wants outside of marriage which is there, in large part, to defend women??? Hxll no! Women should respect themselves more than that. Let the man step up and do his part by marrying the prospective mother of his child.
5. Men who father children out of wedlock and then do not at least support the mother and child should be held up to great disapproval by the public. Their behavior should be viewed as unspeakably scummy.
6. Women who sleep around should be viewed as immoral. Movies that glorify that behavior in men or women should be viewed as scummy.
See what I mean? It would take rolling back what has tragically happened the past fifty years. It won't be easy.
How do you propose that gets done?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It starts with me raising my voice. It could continue with you raising your voice. We could try and sway public opinion. That's where this kind of thing always starts.
That doesn't work! You know darn well it only turns people off. Example: Are you listening to the protesters and asking them to give you more input as to how you can help?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You know how that works as many voices have already been raised on many issues, and still continue to weigh in. I don't think going back 50 years is a great idea personally, but as the founders have written forming a more perfect society starts with equality.
I agree. Our independence started with a protest and some died, yet the protests continued and grew to an armed war for liberty, and we moved to a civil war for freedom and equality, and the struggle continues for freedom, justice and more equality.
So no, I'm not going back because evolution and solution requires we go forward. Love support and education is my solution to how we treat the elderly, handicapped, children, and poor for whatever reason, and redress for past sins in recognition of the the struggle for promises denied, and cruelty, and atrocities committed.
How we reconcile our obvious differences to get to the solution that works for ALL is the big question.
Of course it does. Great social change always begins with highly committed people raising their voices. You say that because you don't want to raise yours. It's always easier to just let people suffer while the rest of us sit around and drink our coffee.Quote:
That doesn't work! You know darn well it only turns people off. Example: Are you listening to the protesters and asking them to give you more input as to how you can help?
Tal, no one has suggested we go back to fifty years ago, but we can certainly learn from fifty years ago. What is your solution for a catastrophic 74% out of wedlock birth rate?
I agree partially, but voices are raised after some social injustice or catastrophic event that has occurred. Change comes if those voices are listened too, and if that's not the case, then the voices get louder and cannot be ignored. Conflict is resolved in our system of government through the vote, and right now voters of one party are suppressing that vote to preserve power for a growing minority view and Georgia is a prime example of that suppression, and there are many others. The covid19 response is another, along with the voices in the street from police brutality, and injustice, which have reached a new high after years of not addressing the core issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have stated all along that I don't go along with the out of wedlock label at all, that's a religious custom and tradition, and personal choice, but love and support and education are my tools to advance and help people achieve success after the deed is done. Heath care is a great part of that as mind, body, and soul regardless of race, creed, or skin color is a crucial need in underserved communities. That approach more comports with the words and promises of our founding documents and clarifies the goals and solutions contained within them, with a very thoughtful process codified in law.Quote:
Tal, no one has suggested we go back to fifty years ago, but we can certainly learn from fifty years ago. What is your solution for a catastrophic 74% out of wedlock birth rate?
Short version. I will not raise my voice against the incredibly negative practice of out of wedlock births. I mean, someone might confuse me for a conservative!!Quote:
I have stated all along that I don't go along with the out of wedlock label at all, that's a religious custom and tradition, and personal choice, but love and support and education are my tools to advance and help people achieve success after the deed is done. Heath care is a great part of that as mind, body, and soul regardless of race, creed, or skin color is a crucial need in underserved communities. That approach more comports with the words and promises of our founding documents and clarifies the goals and solutions contained within them, with a very thoughtful process codified in law.
Sadly, people like to complain about what others do, and more rarely will address their own practices which, in this case, bears far worse consequences than anything any white racist is doing. It is much easier to simply complain. Oh well. Let's just ignore it and talk about health care. Too bad to see this being swept under the rug.
"Out of wedlock label?" Do you also not go along with the cancer label, or the college graduate label, or the married label, or with the dozens of other "labels" we use to describe what's going on in our culture? It's a simple descriptor.
Fake news.Quote:
Conflict is resolved in our system of government through the vote, and right now voters of one party are suppressing that vote to preserve power for a growing minority view and Georgia is a prime example of that suppression, and there are many others.
Hmm, the usual tap dancing by you. No, I don't raise my voice because I know people turn it off. I have better and more effective ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was watching Fox and heard a commentator very forcefully telling her audience that the upsurge in COVID-19 cases is fake news, so just go out and party. Forget the masks and have fun!
I have explained that I disagree with that tenet of your religious practices, and traditions, custom and dogma, which use to be labeled with the word "bastard" which only hurt the child. I find that cruel myself so do not subscribe to those religious labels and attitudes, nor care if they are considered conservative or liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I just don't think that's true and the dynamics of racism, brutality, cruelty, and other atrocities are for more detrimental when combined with suppression and oppression of minority peoples. That's what's been ignored and swept under the rug here.Quote:
It's what I've said all along. People like to complain about what others do, and only rarely will address their own practices which, in this case, bears far worse consequences than anything any white racist is doing. It is much easier to simply complain. Oh well. Let's just ignore it and talk about health care. Sad to see this being swept under the rug.
I love it when you take a specific and seek to broaden it to unrelated issues. It's a lot going on in our society for sure but not all see it as a religious only subject.Quote:
"Out of wedlock label?" Do you also not go along with the cancer label, or the college graduate label, or the married label, or with the dozens of other "labels" we use to describe what's going on in our culture?
Yeah right.Quote:
Fake news.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...blems-n1230806
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...blems-n1228541
Profound words that highlight the problems, I agree with Clete and the only fake news is by those that seek to ignore, dismiss and sweep it under the rug!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I'm convinced you don't raise your voice because you don't care enough. It might make you look like an evangelical, so you find reasons that make your practice of doing nothing seem more comfortable.Quote:
Hmm, the usual tap dancing by you. No, I don't raise my voice because I know people turn it off. I have better and more effective ways.
I didn't mention religion. I have talked about the welfare of the black community. Perhaps you ignore it because it doesn't fit your political narrative. If true, that is terribly unkind, especially if it's because you are concerned lest you be labeled a conservative.Quote:
I have explained that I disagree with that tenet of your religious practices, and traditions, custom and dogma, which use to be labeled with the word "bastard" which only hurt the child. I find that cruel myself so do not subscribe to those religious labels and attitudes, nor care if they are considered conservative or liberal.
Swept under the rug? You can't turn on the news for two minutes without hearing it. Well, just ignore it. After all, it's much easier to simply complain about racism. That way a person doesn't have to call for self-discipline.Quote:
I just don't think that's true and the dynamics of racism, brutality, cruelty, and other atrocities are for more detrimental when combined with suppression and oppression of minority peoples. That's what's been ignored and swept under the rug here.
As to Clete's comments, you have to be able to explain how such a multitude of black Americans have managed to not only get a good boat, but to get several good boats with their own lake and marina to boot. How did that happen? Where are the black leaders willing to stand up and say, "If those people can be fantastically successful, then so can the rest of us. Let's get to work?" Where are they? If Obama can be elected pres TWICE, then I stop listening to all the nonsense about boats. Read Walter Williams' autobiography, Up from the Projects, and then get back with me with your excuses about boats.
You're convinced it's your way or no way because you cannot fathom another way.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Everything you post is about the authoritative religion you espouse.Quote:
I didn't mention religion. I have talked about the welfare of the black community. Perhaps you ignore it because it doesn't fit your political narrative. If true, that is terribly unkind, especially if it's because you are concerned lest you be labeled a conservative.
To survive and thrive during the unapologetic racist cruelty and atrocities heaped on us for 400 years in this country is a perfect example of self discipline and perseverance whether YOU acknowledge dismiss or ignore it or not!Quote:
Swept under the rug? You can't turn on the news for two minutes without hearing it. Well, just ignore it. After all, it's much easier to simply complain about racism. That way a person doesn't have to call for self-discipline.
Now that's an exaggeration of fake news akin to "one drop of black blood....".Quote:
As to Clete's comments, you have to be able to explain how such a multitude of black Americans have managed to not only get a good boat, but to get several good boats with their own lake and marina to boot. How did that happen? Where are the black leaders willing to stand up and say, "If those people can be fantastically successful, then so can the rest of us. Let's get to work?" Where are they? If Obama can be elected pres TWICE, then I stop listening to all the nonsense about boats. Read Walter Williams' autobiography, Up from the Projects, and then get back with me with your excuses about boats.
Funny! My church body has removed "evangelical" from church names because that word was stolen by the fundies to make them look more, what? reasonable? rational? religious? If you delve into the word's origins and original meaning, it doesn't fit them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As far as not "raising my voice," I use (as I said) more effective ways. And the Internet has given me an even broader reach!
More fake news.Quote:
Everything you post is about the authoritative religion you espouse.
I would agree with that except the silly part at the end about me dismissing or ignoring it.Quote:
To survive and thrive during the unapologetic racist cruelty and atrocities heaped on us for 400 years in this country is a perfect example of self discipline and perseverance whether YOU acknowledge dismiss or ignore it or not!
It's not an exaggeration in any way, but it makes it more convenient for you to be liberal dem if you pretend that is the case. If it's an "exaggeration", then I'm not sure how you explain this, a list which includes a man from a town of about 200 in Mississippi now worth over 500 million dollars. https://www.ranker.com/list/the-20-r...t-people-listsQuote:
Now that's an exaggeration of fake news akin to "one drop of black blood....".
I imagine you did it because you no longer believe in evangelism. You don't raise your voice because, I think, you are afraid to. But I'll say this. If you are saying that you have found a different way to reduce the out of wedlock birth rate, then more power to you. I just suspect that's not what you're saying.Quote:
Funny! My church body has removed "evangelical" from church names
I didn't remove it; my church body is removing it!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you even know what the word means? It definitely doesn't mean to raise one's voice as fundies are wont to do with their bullhorns and shouting into the faces of those they consider lost and doomed to eternal hellfire.
Yep, my way includes -- and is not limited to -- reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate.
Comes from the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news". So evangelism is telling people the good news that they can receive forgiveness of sins, escape judgement for sin, and have a relationship with God through faith in Christ. Kind of like what John 3:16 says.Quote:
Do you even know what the word means?
Never said it did.Quote:
It definitely doesn't mean to raise one's voice as fundies are wont to do with their bullhorns and shouting into the faces of those they consider lost and doomed to eternal hellfire.
Why would you want to do that?Quote:
Yep, my way includes -- and is not limited to -- reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 AM. |