Moderation Questions

I retract the bolded with apologies to Crossnerd.

That said, I still affirm the remainder of my post.

Right... you just use contemptuous language toward groups out of love and are doing them a solid, but they just can't see it because they are not saved. I get it.

Your old man jokes and faux self-deprecating commentary is yawn-inducing for anyone under the age of about 85.

Right... you denounce their methods but embrace the same beliefs.

Right. “Heathens” like Paul who publicly confronted Peter over his bigoted treatment of gentiles and the hypocrisy of refusing to sit at the same table with supposed brothers in christ who did not keep kosher laws. Ironic that literally the oldest Christian documents we have even according to christians are from the guy credited with writing nearly half of the new testament confronting “biblical bigotry”! Perhaps you’re better than Peter who witnessed the sermon on the mount and whom Jesus thought highly enough of to name and James, Jesus’s own brother. Or maybe more humility is warranted on your part in interpreting what is right?

Glad you now understand my perspective. (Of course, I disagree with your claim that my language toward them is 'contemptuous.')

Not sure you can speak for others on that point, but thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings on the matter.

I haven't read their doctrinal statement (if they have one), but I suspect I share most of their theological beliefs given they identify themselves as 'Baptists.' I certainly denounce their methods.

Christians are commanded to show charity toward all. None of us meet that standard perfectly, even saints like Peter (especially a dum-dum like me). But we are to strive to always speak in love and truth. Love and Truth must always go hand-in-hand.

So why have you decided to disobey this commandment?

Now understand...? Lol, people have understood this "perspective" for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Of course you don't think your language is contemptuous - that would make you a bad person so you delude yourself into thinking your language is something it is not.

I can't speak for others, but I can certainly observe their reactions and I think I nailed it.

Exactly. You're just like them but use different methods - methods that made you eat a perma.

Yet you feel it’s ok to call people heathens for simply following Paul’s example in Galatians. Why not be honest and say you can’t possibly know what sexual purity laws matter given people as great as Peter and James were greatly mistaken and erred in purity laws?

There are two kinds of people in the world: Sinners who are forgiven and sinners who are not forgiven.

It goes without saying that I often fall short, and like everyone else I am a 'work in progress.'

I have a long way to go, but I think I've improved in that regard since my 'Lagtight' days.

Conversely, you're the same insufferable troll you've always been! 😀

It's also apparently perfectly okay to be casually insulting and say disrespectful things like "The Leftist Mob of Pea Brains," despite God's direct commandment to be charitable and kind toward your fellow man. Sort of gives the game away that the whole Christianity thing is for lagtight an exercise in tribalism and not a sincere belief.

There's no forgiveness without contrition and there's no contrition when you repeat the same sin over and over casually.

It goes without saying that there's no "gee, I'm trying really hard" or "gee, I've really improved" exception to God's commandments. Of course, you don't believe a lick of any of that nonsense, and so you carry on with your insults and hubris.

Thanks, buddy, be seeing you hell.

Please read more carefully. I said: 'I suspect I share most of their theologically beliefs.' As I said, I haven't read their doctrinal statement/Statement of Faith.

"Leftist Mob of Pea Brains" is obviously a comical away of referencing a group that I have significant disagreements with. 'Mob of Pea Brains' is funny, and you know it!

I suppose I could call them 'a brood of vipers', an expression that Jesus himself used. Maybe I'll start using that instead.

Your mind-reading is off again.

The good news for you is that being an insufferable troll is not the unpardonable sin.

So you haven't read their statement, yet you suspect you don't share all of their theological beliefs?

Well, for example, I've heard them talk about gays and I've heard you talk about gays. I see no difference in either of your beliefs, and the chit's not nuanced.

I have been warned by a moderator not to discuss that topic in this forum.

We can take it to RGT if you want.

Anyone “thrilled and delighted” to discuss sexual purity laws is a blinding red flag that is both hilarious and deeply disturbing.

😀

One of my favorite catch-phrases is "thrilled and delighted."

I've used it several times in this forum.

Another one of my favorite catch-phrases I use in this forum is "thank for you sharing your thoughts and feelings."

Gross.

It's clearly not funny nor intended in a charitable spirit. But you don't give a **** about any of that because you're a fake Christian.

You were banned because you wouldn't stop insulting gay people despite being politely asked not to. BTW: it's absolutely wild how you treat form rules with more respect than God's own commandments.

I’m not asking you to discuss your views on sexual purity. I’m saying if you believe Paul’s letters you must accept that Bible bigotry is a real thing and church fathers were guilty of it. Yet you view anyone that calls out biblical bigotry a heathen and leftist pea brain. It seems that according to Acts, Peter and James saw the error in their biblical bigotry. You should try to follow their example example.

Granted Acts is hugely problematic and the whole agreement between Peter and Paul likely made up by Luke to make sure gentiles can easily join the movement. But you can’t believe that unless you think the Bible got major stuff wrong.

I think that Paul was mad because they were trying to go by the old covenant, not because he thought they were being bigoted. Famously he said that he hoped the circumcisers would chop off their own dick while circumcising themselves.

I only point this out because Paul is kind of a dick in general so I think the reading of him as being anti-bigotry is overly charitable.

Well... up to a point.

Matthew 10:34-36. I'm not sure what it means, and nor is anyone else, but it doesn't mean Kumbayah. Mind, it's unlikely that setting daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law would require divine intervention.

I have no delusions about Paul being a “good” person. It’s just clear he was culturally tolerant of gentile practices in a way James and Peter were not. This was of course heavily self serving as Jewish Christians would rather follow Peter who was one of the 12 and James who was related to Jesus. Where as Paul never met Jesus but was able to write fairly well in Greek which looked to be rare among early Christians and was crucial in spreading the message to non Jews.

I always think it’s funny when people claim Paul going from anti Christian to pro is evidence for the truth of the religion. He talked quite a bit about how much he actually enjoyed torturing christians to the maximum allowed by law then converted after a vision and declared himself to speak directly for god. Like maybe Christianity isn’t true and Paul was just a power hungry psycho the entire time?

The parts of the Gospel that are impossible are self-evidently not true. The rest may be and, given the memorable and epigrammatic character of the Lord's sayings, and the importance of memory in a society where written text was expensive (as with Homer, whose epics are believed to have come from oral tradition), it is at least possible that some of those sayings were recorded and handed down perhaps imperfectly but not altogether incorrectly.

I suspect most people know that.

What's there to discuss?

Right - that's what I said earlier. You unitards misconstrue Biblical text. Did it even occur to you to read those three verses in context?

It's symbolic. The sword represents spiritual division. All it would have taken for you to figure it out would be to have read the next three verses.