|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 5, 2007 4:10:28 GMT -5
Very bad idea...
Why would you classify a formal debate situation in which both a professing person and a non-professing person could clearly lay out theological and biblical arguments for their views?
It would be the first of its kind in the history of this sectarian divide and might help promote understanding - just as watching a debate between a Baptist Theologian and John Dominic Crossan helped me to understand the arguments for and against the liberal interpretation of the "historic Jesus".
Why would you classify a presentation of this kind as "a very bad idea"? Note, not merely a "bad idea", but a "very bad idea"! I wonder if you could answer this question, as I would be sincerely interested in your perspective here.
To the point of denying the Holy Spirit's work in the lives of those who do not attend and partake in your church fellowship group.
I would dispute that anyone living since the time of Christ has denied the work of the Holy Spirit - i.e. committed blasphemy of the Holy Ghost - but even if you were correct, you would still have significant problems with the denominational matrix called Christendom. When you get to the heart of it, denominations are still quite suspicious of each other - indeed, many Lutherans still today maintain theirs is the purest form of worship, just as the first Lutherans considered their's the true church and Roman Catholicism and Calvin's Protestantism to be errors.
I have also made the point in the past that when maintaining that this is the position of the Fellowship (a blanket statement which later in this post you assert could not exist because "there is no uniform position" among the Friends) you would, by extension, deny that the Holy Spirit could work in say, the Mormon religion. Or the Muslim religion.
Just as the demand in your fellowship that all preachers be homeless, unmarried, and go out in pairs... talk about unnecessary additions...
No, this is an evasion from the point in view. A formal debate, Bryan, sticks to the topic. One side attempts to prove it, the other to refute it. A debate does not wander all over one's various (and frequently unsubstantiated) opinions. It is "focussed discussion".
However, you said later on in this post that there is no uniform position among the Friends on anything (apparently), so how is it that you can speak as though there is a uniform position on, for instance, the form of ministry? Is this not a doctrinal position? And is it not practiced throughout the Church all over the globe? Does this not then lend itself to the conclusion that there ARE uniform positions? H'mm... food for thought.
Trivial and not worth serious effort... just like arguing over workers having cell phones...
I'd agree. But I did not simply pluck these topics out of the air at random. I thought about all the issues raised by the exes and placed them into a debate proposal form.
How on earth could you ever present the "Friend's position" since no formal position has ever existed on any topic/subject/idea?
No formal position on ANY concept or idea at all! It depends on what you mean by formal position. If it's the same as "official position" which we agree to as matter of principle and doctrine, then I would say there are a great many positions which all the Friend's agree upon.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 5, 2007 4:24:32 GMT -5
Just as the demand in your fellowship that all preachers be homeless, unmarried, and go out in pairs... talk about unnecessary additions...
I've got to revisit this one, because it seems as though Bryan is saying that his preferred form of ministry as practiced at his megachurch, is the only one that does not mix "unnecessary additions" to its form.
Yet, the Apostle Paul said: "I wish that all men were even as myself (celibate and unmarried)... I do all things for the sake of the gospel".
It is undeniable that Paul was speaking about his celibate condition here, and suggesting it as the best way to serve God - anyone who would claim otherwise does not know what he is speaking about on this issue. The context makes it clear; my conservative Church of England New Bible Commentary on this passage makes it clear; my NIV study Bible makes this clear.
Bryan, because being unmarried is an unnecessary addition, how would you explain Paul's recommendation of celibacy as being good for the gospel? Would you interpret this passage to mean that Paul was speaking in his capacity as a fallible human being, as consequently, wrote a verse in which advises the application of a wholly unnecessary practice?
Or, Jesus, when speaking of marriage to his disciples: "Some are made celibate at the hands of men, others are celibate from birth, and still others are celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake". When Jesus describes men abstaining from sex for three principle reasons: castration, natural impotence, and for the sake of the Kingdom, would you suggest that the last group were behaving in a way wholly unnecessary, even though Jesus was himself celibate?
Jesus was a celibate and unmarried man. Is following the example of Jesus in this regards an unnecessary addition to the Christian faith? Are there any aspects of Jesus example (his "way of life") unnecessary for us to cohere to? I would be interested in your answers to these questions!
The "demand" that preachers be homeless and go forth in pairs is due to the example of the Apostles in scripture. Is it an unnecessary addition to Christian faith to follow the example of the Apostles? Is it unnecessary, and therefore irrelevant, to do things as described in the Bible?
I just find it interesting that you classify biblical practices - practices instituted and exampled by Jesus himself - as "unnecessary additions".
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Oct 5, 2007 4:30:21 GMT -5
i've just realized I have no desire to be on this forum anymore...
jason, hold fast to your legalism if that's where you find comfort...
bye
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 5, 2007 9:16:13 GMT -5
i've just realized I have no desire to be on this forum anymore...
This is why debate is a good thing. It's easy to live in an ivory tower in which one's look down on the poor pharisaical plebs and make sweeping condemnations and assertions which one expects to be taken as ex cathedra declarations (self-evidently true), but when someone starts asking the tough questions - to really burrow into the statements of opposition at it were, often it's found to be a bit vacuous.
I find it hypocritical - yes, the "H" word - when in the past you literally used to demand answers to your questions (and let's be absolutely clear on this point, you would ask questions by the dozen - sometimes entire replies were strings of questions), and you would chase people about wanting answers and "reminding" them over and over that you expected a response. Yet now that the shoe is on the other foot, you bail.
That's fine, and all. I'm glad you've discovered better things to do than hang around the TMB. Perhaps one day soon I too will find myself gradually withdrawing. Whatever happens, I hope you enjoy your next set of online activities.
jason, hold fast to your legalism if that's where you find comfort...
This is the sort of statement I find frustrating beyond belief. Its emptiness and rhetorical sillyness speaks for itself!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 5, 2007 9:44:14 GMT -5
GIT: You could always go to your own board and do what it is you are suggesting. Why don't you?
|
|
|
Post by what GIT wants on Oct 5, 2007 9:58:14 GMT -5
What GIT wants is just another place to stand on a soapbox so he can bask in the glory he thinks he deserves. Then from his place of elevation, he can continue to beat down anyone who dares attempt to approach him (this thread is a perfect example of that!) and bully them into spiritual resignation.
And GIT will crawl down from his perch at the end of the day, muttering under his breath the only mantra of faith he follows: "one true church, one true church, one true church..."
The end result is that he once again feels puffed up with pride. But the benefit goes to everyone else who witnessed it, for they learn what 2x2ism is about just by watching GIT's display of spiritual bullying.
GIT teaches us more about 2x2ism than he ever intended. And for that, we owe him our gratitude. Every word he stamps on these pages shows us yet again the messed up mindset from which we escaped, hopefully intact. Watch and learn, folks. This is the real truth about 2x2ism. Puffed up pride and an air of spiritual superiority, because they are the "one true church."
Meanwhile, Jesus wept.
|
|
|
Post by Get real on Oct 5, 2007 11:13:14 GMT -5
GIT: You could always go to your own board and do what it is you are suggesting. Why don't you? Now thats a very GOOD idea!Does anyone actually come on the internet to learn about the 2x2 point of view? I'm thinking everyone here knows of a REAL Worker they can talk with, whether they want questions answered or just to engage in debate.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 5, 2007 19:15:31 GMT -5
I observe that no one has yet put themselves forward for serious, fair, and absolutely objective debate on the real issues - theology and biblical consistency of the Church. I find it disappointing, but not unexpected. I am striving toward a "scholarly approach" (apologies to those on this forum for whom the word "scholarly" offends). I want to discuss the issues, rather than the mindless grind of personal abuse.
I would have thought that people who really believe what they say they believe - and are passionate about what they believe - would jump at the chance to lay out their perspective in open format. I find it especially ironic because, on this very forum no less, the Friends have been accused of "brainwashed" status, being essentially mindless morons, who are simplistic followers of the Dark Force Lords, otherwise known as Workers.
What GIT wants is just another place to stand on a soapbox so he can bask in the glory he thinks he deserves.
A classic example of the sort of comments we need to move beyond. This personalised invective has continued for years on this forum to no purpose. We have literally thousands, I would guess, of these kinds of nasty remarks in the achieves of the TMB. Yet, by the same token, you cannot turn around and point to a really, really good thread in which two people really laid it all on the line, bared their soul, and put their beliefs into black and white (or, on this forum it would be black and pale yellow, but same difference!)
Then from his place of elevation, he can continue to beat down anyone who dares attempt to approach him (this thread is a perfect example of that!) and bully them into spiritual resignation.
What I hear is: "I do not have a solid foundation for my beliefs, but I refuse to change them. Debate is a dangerous enterprise because it might demonstrate the vacuity of my entire worldview, predicated on hostility toward the Friends and Workers. Moreover, I percieve debate as a species of self-glorification because I cannot possibly imagine what it would be like for a person to be passionate about their faith, and wish to demonstrate its consistency in front of others."
I also hear: "We'd lose!" ;D
And GIT will crawl down from his perch at the end of the day, muttering under his breath the only mantra of faith he follows: "one true church, one true church, one true church..."
You see folks, when you can't bring yourself to even represent another person's faith accurately, and when you have to resort to distortions about their beliefs to make a point, and when you need to mock an inaccurate picture of their faith, what does that demonstrate?
It demonstrates absolute emptiness on every level: theological, spiritual, moral and perhaps even beyond.
The end result is that he once again feels puffed up with pride. But the benefit goes to everyone else who witnessed it, for they learn what 2x2ism is about just by watching GIT's display of spiritual bullying.
I hear, "You have a point which you tend to express convincingly, and because no one cares to counterpoint and answer the argument, we'll just describe it as "spiritual bullying"!"
GIT teaches us more about 2x2ism than he ever intended. And for that, we owe him our gratitude. Every word he stamps on these pages shows us yet again the messed up mindset from which we escaped, hopefully intact. Watch and learn, folks. This is the real truth about 2x2ism. Puffed up pride and an air of spiritual superiority, because they are the "one true church."
When your faith is founded on a distortion, and when the basis - the actual basis for what you do and how you do it - is adversarialism toward the Friends; when you define yourself by that which you negate, and when you cannot interact with the opposing viewpoint, it proves that you've lost the argument.
Meanwhile, Jesus wept.
It is not wise, or right to so irreverently treat the Lord as to use him as fodder to further a personal attack. Enough said on that issue. Let's leave it here and not see a repeat of it!
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Oct 5, 2007 20:00:40 GMT -5
I observe that no one has yet put themselves forward for serious, fair, and absolutely objective debate on the real issues - theology and biblical consistency of the ChurchOk Let's debate. What makes one church the only way?Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." nitro
|
|
|
Post by good question on Oct 5, 2007 20:40:51 GMT -5
You see folks, when you can't bring yourself to even represent another person's faith accurately, and when you have to resort to distortions about their beliefs to make a point, and when you need to mock an inaccurate picture of their faith, what does that demonstrate? That is a very good question, GIT. This describes perfectly what you do on a daily basis. Perhaps you should apply your own argument to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by impressive on Oct 5, 2007 21:17:29 GMT -5
I observe that no one has yet put themselves forward for serious, fair, and absolutely objective debate on the real issues - theology and biblical consistency of the ChurchIt would seem that you are the Master-debator here, hands down!
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Oct 5, 2007 21:26:30 GMT -5
I think this could be quite an interesting experience. What would make it even more interesting would be to have GIT debate as an ex would, and have an ex debate FOR the 2x2's side. After all, in a real debate, you don't always get to pick which side you're on, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 5, 2007 21:27:48 GMT -5
I have an idea for ya'all! We used to do it in our American government class.
I vote that GIT and bert debate each other. Nitro or Scott can pick the subject. HOWEVER, one of them has to defend of the side of the exes and debate the other on the side of the F & W.
Then the next subject, chosen by Cherie or Selah, will be debated with the two switching sides.
After they have exhausted the subject OR four days have passed, we can all jump in and speak our minds, but absolutely NOT before that!
Sound interesting?
Best! Edy
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Oct 5, 2007 21:28:47 GMT -5
That does sound interesting Edy!
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 5, 2007 21:30:05 GMT -5
Actually I would like to see MrApples and GIT have a debate on the existence of God... GIT once said that he liked to debate with Atheist. This would be interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 5, 2007 21:31:48 GMT -5
That does sound interesting Edy! I chuckling that it seems you and I had similar ideas at the same time! Look at the times we posted! 6:26, 6:27, 6:28 !!!! E HEY RANMAN! You've been soooooo good!! Can you last until Oct. 31 when you can haunt all you want?! Edy
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Oct 5, 2007 21:32:38 GMT -5
That would be a good one too ithascome!!
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Oct 5, 2007 21:33:01 GMT -5
LOL, Edy. Maybe it was esp.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 5, 2007 21:42:06 GMT -5
Actually I would like to see MrApples and GIT have a debate on the existence of God... GIT once said that he liked to debate with Atheist. This would be interesting to watch. I second that!!!
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 21:46:21 GMT -5
Actually I would like to see MrApples and GIT have a debate on the existence of God... GIT once said that he liked to debate with Atheist. This would be interesting to watch. I would be very interested in seeing that as well. Did anyone see the debate on TV between the Rev. Al Sharpton and the atheist/author of "God is Not Great"?
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Oct 5, 2007 21:49:54 GMT -5
I missed it. Was it a good debate?
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 5, 2007 22:14:53 GMT -5
I missed it. Was it a good debate? I was hoping it would be a bit more animated on the part of the Rev. but he was rather subdued for once!
You can watch it here in it's entirety:
www.fora.tv/2007/05/07/Al_Sharpton_and_Christopher_HitchensI read the book first, so it was interesting to see it debated IRL
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Oct 5, 2007 22:47:48 GMT -5
GIT
A self-righteous religious person is self-justified. Their salvation is really dependent upon "their" works. They may mouth "saved by grace through faith," but they are empty words. A self-righteous person will always have people they can look down upon. After all, some people work harder for the Lord than others. While they may not voice it openly, those deemed to be outside the "saved" camp become secretly despised. Since God is going to deal with them in very cruel ways, the self-righteous person feels justified in copying their God of wrath. This self-righteousness then becomes a mountain of people under their feet, so to speak, a mass of people to look down upon as despised, forsaken, despicable. This mass of people can be compose of other denominations, people with other doctrinesand creeds, entire nations, various personal preferences, or a host of other reasons to place these people in the "not saved" or "unjustified" camp.
To me, self-righteousness, is the number one cause of failure in a Christian's life. This sin causes one to be cut off from grace, not because God takes it away from them, but because they substitute their own works in the place of grace. They cut themselves off the vine which has the very life blood we need to manifest the life of Christ. Most Christians have heard the words "saved by grace through faith, it is a gift, not of works lest anyone should boast." But very few embrace these words with all their hearts. A person who has placed these words deep in their hearts will never sing, "I have decided to follow Jesus," yet this song is almost the battle cry of Christendom. It may seem like we decided, but as we grow spiritually, we learn "no man comes to the Father unless the Father draws him." (John 6:44) This word "draws" is the same word used to describe the fish Peter caught with his net. When we truly discover "grace through faith, a gift" then we realize we never "decided" to follow anyone. Our Father even provided the "so-called" decision for us. He decided for us. If you are on the road which started with "your" decision to follow Jesus, you are on a road which will surely lead to SELF-righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 5, 2007 23:02:40 GMT -5
GIT in regards to having a debate with you... I have responded to many things that you have posted in the past... you usually do not respond to my post... Or if you do and I give you a rebuttal you ignore it. Why should I believe that you would respond now?
Here is one of my post that you flat ignored.. It has to do with a topic that you wish to debate The Church has a vital function in the application of Salvation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this if we are in agreement that the true church is not a particular local church. It is obviously true that an individual may be saved and not be a member of a local organized church. In fact all of us who are trusting in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior are members of the true church of Christ. We are members of His body. We have experienced the forgiveness of our sins, according to the riches of His grace. “We are accepted in the Beloved,” and we are “redeemed through His blood.”
Again I agree with you if you are talking about the true church as discussed in the above.
Here is where I disagree with you GIT. None of us know who Christ has extended His grace to... so we are not in the position to refuse anyone. God reached out to us in love by sending His Son. Jesus reached out to us in love by laying His life on the line for us. We, too, must reach out to others in Christian love.
GIT Think back to your early childhood. Did you have a favorite teddy bear, security blanket that you clutched tightly when you slept? Did that inanimate object have any ability to love you back? No. But did that stop you from loving it just as much? No. You loved that lifeless object that your parents gave you. So can't you love some person, however wayward, because your heavenly Father created him?
That person even has a soul.
Your teddy bear did not.
|
|
sms
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by sms on Oct 5, 2007 23:28:31 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing the pics, Scott! I think in the one with you and your wife on the bike, you look just a bit like Hugh Laurie.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Oct 6, 2007 11:14:30 GMT -5
Politely I know what you mean LOL
Here's a poam I like and have post before. Just to remind me of who God would want me to be.
Good poam hope you enjoy
The Guy In The Glass Dale Wimbrow © 1934 a.k.a The Man in The Mirror & The Man in The Glass
This poem, we original believed was written by an anonymous prisoner. We have since located the true owner and author of the poem which we incorrectly titled, like so many others, The Man In The Mirror. We have also corrected what we believed to be a spelling mistake in the word pelf to self. The original had the word pelf which is an informal word for money or wealth etc. We have corrected our mistake and replaced self with the correct pelf. We have also included another paragraph which we were not aware of, in the original.
The son of the author has a website if you want more info. Click here
Our father, Peter "Dale" Wimbrow Sr. wrote the poem "The Guy in the Glass in 1934. It was published in the American magazine at that time and the copyright was assigned to our father. The poem has become also known, incorrectly, as "The Man in the Glass" or sometimes, "The Man in the Mirror", but the thought is the same, the message clear...'you can fool the whole world down the pathway of years, but you can't fool the guy staring back from the glass'
Peter Dale Wimbrow, Jr.
When you get all you want and you struggle for pelf,
and the world makes you king for a day,
then go to the mirror and look at yourself
and see what that man has to say.
For it isn't your mother, your father or wife
whose judgment upon you must pass,
but the man, whose verdict counts most in your life
is the one staring back from the glass.
He's the fellow to please,
never mind all the rest.
For he's with you right to the end,
and you've passed your most difficult test
if the man in the glass is your friend.
You may be like Jack Horner and "chisel" a plum,
And think you're a wonderful guy,
But the man in the glass says you're only a bum
If you can't look him straight in the eye.
You can fool the whole world,
down the highway of years,
and take pats on the back as you pass.
But your final reward will be heartache and tears
if you've cheated the man in the glass.
|
|
|
Post by Do we have a Judge on Oct 6, 2007 13:04:53 GMT -5
I vote for GIT and Apples to be in the debating chamber. I suggest we dont have to read pages of text at a time from one side. Maybe limit the paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 6, 2007 14:42:35 GMT -5
Nitro,
Your two posts here today were wonderful! The poem is certainly a keeper and the letter was right on target.
Best! Edy
|
|