Jump to content


Dealing with rejectors.

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
241 replies to this topic

#241 Annie


    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 11:44 AM

I do however have a bit of a problem with using slavery to build up your economy.

Why do you have a problem with slavery? (Not saying that I don't...just asking why you do.) You have said that "it's [your] own personal opinion, not [your] faith, that brought [you] to this mind set." However, opinions are based on one's core beliefs; they don't just come from nowhere. That's what I'm getting at. Why is it morally wrong (there's a value-judgment term for you) to own a slave? In other words, what standard allows you to judge someone who decides to own a slave? How can you believe and say (using sarcasm, no less) that you are "right," and the slave owner is "wrong?" I could ask the same question about the two other practices you mentioned (coups and slaughter). Can you explain what allows you to make value judgments as you have here?

Edited by Annie, 16 August 2010 - 11:55 AM.

#242 HappyChristian


    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 18,293 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 01:25 PM

This thread started with a false premise, giving the idea that the poster was truly seeking ways to deal with a genuine rejector of the Gospel. As it continued, we saw that in actuality he was not interested in ministering to anyone, but rather browbeating others into acceptance of his heresy, calling those who disagree satanists and heretics. Twisting scripture is a shame for any, and for one who claims to be a "reverend" it is much worse.

To claim that 1 Tim 2:15 is teaching that a woman must bear children in order for her soul to be saved is blasphemy. To claim so on the grounds of the Bible using the word "saved" is ignorance. The word "saved" is used in many places in scripture - and obvioulsy doesn't mean eternal soul salvation.

One example is Acts 27:20

"Now when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest beat on us , all hope that we would be saved was finally given up."

Paul was in a ship that was gettign ready to wreck. And in this verse, we see that there is no hope that they won't wreck. Now, by applying Thomas' "logic" (truly lack thereof), those who were in the ship (including Paul) were now on their way to Hell because the ship was wrecking. That is an utterly ridiculous and totally unscriptural application - just as Thomas' application of 1 Tim 2:15 is.

There are other verses as well, but I have a feeling it would be like casting pearls before swine, so I'll not post them.

That chapter is dealing with church matters - how things are to be done in the church. And it is teaching, not that a woman cannot know and share Bible, but that in the church setting she is not to take the lead in the pastorate, she is not to teach a class of mixed adults, nor is she to teach a doctrinal class to men. It does NOT mean that women can't post on a forum, that women can't point out errors by men on said forum. Skewing scripture to our personal pet little ideologies is sin.

The idea of her being "saved" in childbearing is indicative of Gen. 3, as ambivlion said. Paul could just as well have said that men were "saved" by the sweat of their brow - and the meaning would have been the same.

This thread has gone on too long and should have been locked before. I am going to do so now. Annie and Krista - I hate to break up your discussion, but perhaps you could start a thread in another forum? Thanks.

And, Thomas - be warned. Your heresy will not be tolerated. You will be banned, if necessary, even if I have to stop ironing my husband's socks so to do.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500