Protestantism

» pink101 - Adamant

In response to Scripture posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I give up.
.
You are unreasonably adamant--not willing to even consider another point of view. What the heck are you afraid of?
..
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Adamant

In response to Adamant posted by pink101:

Pink, you are ASSUMING that I should back down and abandon my beliefs. In your mind, my position is unreasonable and untenable. And so, you're frustrated that I'm just rolling over and saying: "Wow, what profound wisdom! I guess I've been all wrong. What I preach every week is wrong. Thanks for setting me straight." If that's what your demand is of me, then we are miles apart. I don't agree with your claims about Paul and his use of the word "Scripture." Why must I agree with your claims?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - His own Scripture

In response to His own Scripture posted by Migisi:

You're stretching Paul's words beyond what he meant. Yes, as an apostle, he believed that he received revelation from God. But when he wrote "my gospel," he simply meant "This is the revelation that God has given me, which I'm now passing onto you." That's Paul's apostolic authority.

Oh, and read I Corithians 15. Paul acknowledged Peter and the other apostles. He didn't diss them in any way, as you imply. He did have a disagreement with them over circumcision, but people (including Christians) disagree. THat's the nature of the human race.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Adamant

In response to Adamant posted by BrianTubbs:

.
How does considering what another person has to say have anything to do with backing down and abandoning your beliefs?
.
I can consider what you have to post without having a fit.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - His own Scripture

In response to His own Scripture posted by BrianTubbs:
.
He didn't diss them in any way, as you imply.
.
Writing about the apostles and circumcision, Paul says
"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Philippians 3:2
.
In Galatians 5, Paul was disturbed that circumcision was being preached, and he says "12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" Yeah, Peter, James, and John ... go castrate yourselves! Don't forget... Jesus was among the circumcized too.
.
Paul called Peter (and James and Barnabas) hypocrites, and bragged about how he told Peter off "before them all", in Galatians 2.
.
He goes on with his tirade in Galatians 6:12 - "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh." He insulted the apostles here - saying that THEY were braggarts and all about appearances, they were law-breakers, and were merely trying to avoid persecution (remember, PAUL himself was a persecutor!).
.
Paul belittled the importance of the REAL apostles James, Cephas (Peter), and John in Galatians 2:6-9.
.
Paul implied that the apostles avoided the Gentiles for Jewish law and prejudicial reasons. Since Paul had never known Jesus, he would not have known that JESUS himself told the apostles to avoid them! "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6)
.
If these examples are not dissing, I don't know what dissing is.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - a fit?

In response to Adamant posted by pink101:

I didn't have a fit.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - a fit?

In response to a fit? posted by BrianTubbs:
.

.
THIS:
Pink, you are ASSUMING that I should back down and abandon my beliefs. In your mind, my position is unreasonable and untenable. And so, you're frustrated that I'm just rolling over and saying: "Wow, what profound wisdom! I guess I've been all wrong. What I preach every week is wrong. Thanks for setting me straight." If that's what your demand is of me, then we are miles apart. I don't agree with your claims about Paul and his use of the word "Scripture." Why must I agree with your claims?
.
Sounds a little like a fit to me.
.

.
I never asked nor did I assume anything one way or the other. I suppose I look for discourse on different ideas. And, you don't seem to be able to even accept the fact that some ideas are even laid on the table. It is as though you blind yourself to the possibility that there might be another idea out there that might not jibe with what you propose something is. It's pretty bad when it is unacceptable to accept the fact that there are other ideas out there that can be inspected and talked about. That's one of the major criticisms of dogmatism--fear of the unknown.
.
All this hassle over the fact that Paul was referring to something already in existence before the time when he was doing his writing. How can we speak of the present time as though it were in the past?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Discussions

In response to a fit? posted by pink101:

Pink, I promise I wasn't exasperated or throwing a fit or anything. I was a little 'beside myself' (if that's the right phrase) in trying to figure out where you were coming from in your characterizations of my 'closed-mindedness.'

Responding to some of your points specifically...

I suppose I look for discourse on different ideas. And, you don't seem to be able to even accept the fact that some ideas are even laid on the table.

I think that's both unfair and untrue. I could've (from the get-go) put the word out that only professing Protestant Christians are welcome here and that we will restrict our conversations to the context of intra-Protestant discussions. Or I could've narrowed it down even more by saying only evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians. Or whatever. But that's not my desire. I welcome the diversity of opinion that's here.

It is as though you blind yourself to the possibility that there might be another idea out there that might not jibe with what you propose something is.

I've decided to accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. And I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I see no reason to revisit those decisions.

Please believe me when I say that I have (during two periods of my adult life) engaged in deep soul-searching where I tested my faith and really put much of what I believe under the microscope. Each time, I came out affirming my Christian faith.

So, I'm moving forward. I see no need or reason to ever look back. Now, when it comes to the outer edges of my theology or some of the related issues...sure...I'll trade ideas, talk over things, etc.

And when it comes to politics, I'm very open. In the last 6-8 years, I've gone from being a pretty strong right-wing Republican to more or less a moderate.

It's pretty bad when it is unacceptable to accept the fact that there are other ideas out there that can be inspected and talked about.

Just because I don't jump in and "oooh" and "ahhhh" at the alternative ideas being discussed here doesn't mean I disapprove of there being talked about.

But, Pink, you're not going to change me on the deity of Jesus Christ, for example. You and Migisi and/or whoever can talk all you want about it. Be my guest. But I'm not abandoning my firm conviction that Jesus Christ is God.

That's just one example. I think we all have some core convictions that we don't plan on abandoning. And that's fine.

That's one of the major criticisms of dogmatism--fear of the unknown.

Fear is not the issue for me. You keep trying to put me in that category. I assure you that I'm not afraid of confronting the unknown. The fact is that I'm supremely confident in the core tenets of Christianity. Confidence does not equate to fear. In fact, it's the opposite of fear.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Discussions

In response to Discussions posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Just because I don't jump in and "oooh" and "ahhhh" at the alternative ideas being discussed here doesn't mean I disapprove of there being talked about.
.
That reads like an insult.
.
It's not all about me and neither is it all about you.
.
Participants interact and exchange ideas for the purpose of gaining understanding about each other as well as alternative ways of thinking. A letter in the alphabet can be positioned next to another letter and mixed with it in a variety of ways without becoming a different letter. Ideas--as well as people--compliment each other.
.
THIS is a discussion forum where people come to read different ideas and to either participate or stay incommunicado. In any event, lively discussion builds readership.
.
The 'Net represents a "new" media--it is a democratic form of communication.
.
If you're going to stand there and others are going to sit in their own little corner of the room or wherever they are, there really isn't much reason to interact now, is there?
.
Somethings are important to understand deeply.
.
It has been said that there are three different kinds of posts in discussion boards; 1. informative, 2. social, 3. performative. That's something to think about. If you want to know more about that, go to http://conchobar.org/IC/oconnor-IC_ethno... and scroll down to page 8.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Discussions

In response to Discussions posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I could've put the word out that only professing Protestant Christians are welcome here ... or... only evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians.
.
I'm sure there are/were some "evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians" who believe that you shouldn't have 'yoked' your topic with wicked unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14 - "...what fellowship can light have with darkness?")
.
I welcome the diversity of opinion that's here.
.
Me too.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds