Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Important!

To ALL:

1) I said the Bible is binding insofar as it is applied properly and in context. I did NOT endorse a literal application of each and every verse and passage. Migisi seems to be erecting a straw man here - as she is attacking my points as if THAT is what I said. It is not. She either misunderstood me or she is being disingenious. I'll let her say which it is.

2) Paper Turtle, I NEVER said that my interpretation of the Scripture was binding on Christians. Yet you keep pressing me on that as if I said it. Are you trying to score points against me? Or do you really think I said that? If the latter, where did I say it? Let me be clear....my interpretation of the Bible is NOT binding on anyone. What matters is the Bible's actual, inherent meaning - the principles that God wants us to apply. THOSE are binding. It is our job to uncover the Truth.

» Migisi - Red herring

In response to Red herring posted by BrianTubbs:
.
We are not under the Old Testament law.
.
If that's so, then you must be more specific in declaring what authority you're under, Brian. When you say 'the Bible', that means the whole book... the New Testament AND the Old Testament.
.
Any serious student of the Bible understands this.
.
Insinuating that I must not be a 'serious' student - therefore my comments should be discounted / ignored.
.
Don't just fling inflammatory statements around, okay?... She either misunderstood me or she is being disingenious.
.
Don't just fling denigrating statements around, okay?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Brian

In response to Red herring posted by Migisi:
.
Brian, I think you have to admit that you--sometimes--present yourself in such a way so as to put others off. Most likely, we all do that from time to time.
.
And, when we come back acting like we don't do that; but, the other does? That's when we get to be at odds.
.
We labor here under a certain limitation in our gestures; so, we have to give others the benefit of the doubt.
.
In the end, this is a place where we're exchanging ideas. We, necessarily, take different stands on different issues. Maybe we change our position in our next post and maybe not.
.
We have to give each other some slack.
.
I'm probably as guilty as anyone.
.
I hope you all forgive me as I forgive you. (I read that someplace in someone's prayer.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Loaded language

In response to Brian posted by pink101:

.
I believe Paper Turtle made some good points on 'loaded language' in her posts 2 and 3 in the "Bias and Fairness" thread. http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus...

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - What frustrates me...

In response to Red herring posted by Migisi:

Maybe I do the same sometimes, and if so, I do apologize. But what frustrates me, Migisi, is that you often seize on certain phrases or statements that I make - and go after them w/o respect to any clarifications, caveats, disclaimers, etc. that I've also made.

Case in point...I said the Bible -- properly understood and in context and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (all these points were clear if you read everything I wrote) - was binding on us today. What's more, I made clear that this is only in the context of the "City of God" or "Kingdom of God" and not in civil society.

YOU ignored (apparently) ALL of that and instead attacked my position as if I were endorsing the "stoning" (and other forms of execution) of people like you. That was a very inflammatory thing to say, Migisi. Surely, you can see that.

» paper_turtle - Important!

In response to Important! posted by BrianTubbs:

Brian wrote:
Paper Turtle, I NEVER said that my interpretation of the Scripture was binding on Christians. Yet you keep pressing me on that as if I said it. Are you trying to score points against me? Or do you really think I said that? If the latter, where did I say it? Let me be clear....my interpretation of the Bible is NOT binding on anyone. What matters is the Bible's actual, inherent meaning - the principles that God wants us to apply. THOSE are binding. It is our job to uncover the Truth.
.
From an earlier posting:
Brian wrote:
Interestingly, if the three of you (Migisi, Phil, and Paper Turtle) discredit Paul and/or challenge that he speaks for Christian doctrine, then YOU are merely fueling my point that opposition to the death penalty involves reducing the Bible's influence or authority on the issue
.
I responded:
We all disagree with your ****interpretation**** of a passage in the Bible and therefore we are challenging the Bible's authority? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash.
.
This entire discussion began because I believed you were accusing Tutu of not accepting the Bible as authoritative on the basis of your interpretation--of the Bible and Tutu.
.
Now, you say that you do not expect all Christians to be bound by your intrepretation, but if that is so, then (as I see it) this should also imply that one cannot judge another on the basis of what is binding for oneself but not necessarily the other. And forgive me, Brian, but you tend to present your view as the only orthodox one. It IS so for you and the people of your denomination, but not for all.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - What frustrates ME...

In response to What frustrates me... posted by BrianTubbs:

Let me tell you a little story.
.
When I was a teen, I would spend all day cleaning my room. I would thoroughly clean every surface, make the bed to perfection, put every book and record in order. I'd even scrub the floor on my hands and knees (after thoroughly vacuuming it). Then I'd call my father in to inspect what I'd done.
.
He would walk around the room, checking here and there for things I'd missed, and saying "Ayeah" every once in a while. When he was finished, his only comment was almost always something like this, "That picture isn't hung straight."
.
Well, I often feel the same sort of frustration here. I devote considerable time, attention, and energy to framing a response only to find that the only thing anyone notices is the one picture which (in the eye of the perceiver) is a millimeter out of line.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
.

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - In other words

In response to Important! posted by paper_turtle:
I wrote:
Now, you say that you do not expect all Christians to be bound by your intrepretation, but if that is so, then (as I see it) this should also imply that one cannot judge another on the basis of what is binding for oneself but not necessarily the other.
.
Lets assume that you are a resident of East Overshoe, Maine. In the town of **East** Overshoe, it is legal to eat doughnuts, but in **West** Overshoe it is not. A resident of West Overshoe comes to East Overshoe, sees you eating a doughnut, and reports you to the police. The policeman/woman informs the West Overshoean that you have broken no law--to which the West Overshoean replies, "Well, then, the citizens of East Overshoe have no respect for/understanding of the laws of America."
.
In other words, in your blog re Tutu's position on the death penalty, you appeared to be referring to Tutu as an East Overshoean. Even though he was breaking no law in his town, he was breaking the law in your town, and therefore abrogated his right to have a valid opinion.
.
Hence, by logical extension, you appeared to be using your definitions/interpretations as a standard by which to negatively judge the validity of the opinion of another (and by further logical extesnsion all others).
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brian Tubbs - Point taken

In response to What frustrates ME... posted by paper_turtle:

Very true, PT. And great illustration. That IS a lesson on communications, and one I know from my experience in public relations and politics (my life before ministry). I guess I have higher expectations here, since we all "know" each other. But, it can happen anywhere. So, point taken.

» Brian Tubbs - My way or the...

In response to In other words posted by paper_turtle:

It's my way or the....

Okay, not really.

Seriously, I don't believe I'm right on everything. But I also don't like surrendering to what I see as moral relativism - "I'm okay...you're okay," "you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want..." I categorically reject relativistic "truth." I believe in absolute truth.

The danger is that I don't have a monopoly on absolute truth, and so I need to be loving and humble in my journey to discover it - and in my efforts to exhort others. But, I still believe in binding truths.