Trump Calls Jerusalem Plan Step Toward Peace

[3fan4life]

For what it is worth The Message is a paraphrase, a very bad translation, heavily influenced by Eugene Peterson's personal, and in my opinion, misguided theology.  

Interesting.

I haven't read The Message, I have read some from The Voice translation.

While I don't think that it is good for a serious study of scripture.

I do think that it is very easy to read and could be helpful resource for anyone that has trouble reading or understanding the traditional scripture/verse format.

[Gryphon Rider]

I am assuming all this talk of legalistic Christians is referring to me, and what I said earlier:

Just because you HATE the man doesn't mean that he might not be doing God's will.

You're quite mistaken; I don't hate Trump. I love God, I love truth, and I love righteousness. I would be delighted if Trump would repent, deny himself, put his faith entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, willingly bow before Him, and receive eternal life.

If I am "legalistic" in this, then I suppose Jesus Christ was "legalistic" too.

Matthew 4:17 (ESV) - From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Matthew 8:3 (Amplified version, because Vaquero likes it) -  “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless you repent [that is, change your inner self—your old way of thinking, live changed lives] and become like children [trusting, humble, and forgiving], you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 13:3 (ESV) - No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Mark 8:34 (ESV) - If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 14:33 (ESV) - So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

If I am "legalistic" because I seek to know and understand the Word of God, and quote it when self-proclaimed Christians publicly contradict it, proclaiming a distorted view of the Christian faith, then I'll let God judge me for that, and chastise me if He sees fit.

If I am "judgemental" when I name the proudly-declared actions or attitudes of public leaders as sin, when other self-proclaimed Christians are willing to sweep them under the rug, or worse still, declare those actions or attitudes to be virtuous, or when I ask someone to back up what they assert to be true with a citation or other evidence, then when they can't, call them on it, then I'll submit to God's correction or commendation as he sees fit.
Proverbs 8:13 (ESV) - The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.
Psalm 97:10 (ESV) - O you who love the Lord, hate evil!
Psalm 119:104 (ESV) - Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
According to 1 Timothy 2:14 (ESV), Christians, "the church of the living God, [are to be] a pillar and buttress of the truth."

Some things that I have observed over and over with my discussions on this board with the most vocal three self-proclaimed Christians (SPCs):
1.  When I make a point using Scripture that contradicts their previously-stated view, they never concede the point and seldom even counter it, but rather deflect by bringing up some other issue.  It's like playing paintball with someone who never admits they're hit.
2.  Whenever the SPCs judge me, they won't out-and-out say they are criticizing me, but will sideways reference me as being part of a group, such as "Christians that are too legalistic," or if they do address me specifically, instead of addressing how I am wrong, lob a verse bomb at me, citing many verses, but without any explanation of how they apply to me, leaving it up to me to guess what specifically they are trying to say.  I suppose all this is to avoid technically judging me, "lest they be judged."  If I am reading correctly the message that Robert has been sending me with a couple of different verse bombs, he doesn't think I am truly Christian; without explanation, I can't know this for sure.

Through a very brief Google search, I found this excellent article about the Matthew 7:1-2 passage about judging.  I know nothing about the author, but his analysis is spot-on.
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/

[98valk]

[/quote]
Through a very brief Google search, I found this excellent article about the Matthew 7:1-2 passage about judging.  I know nothing about the author, but his analysis is spot-on.
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/
[/quote]

to make it simple which that link does not and actually adds other scripture to it making it more complicated.

simple version, we are allowed to judge the sin/s according to the Word, however we are not allowed to judge the person, for we do not know what they are going though, their heart, etc., for only God knows man's heart.

[3fan4life]

I am assuming all this talk of legalistic Christians is referring to me, and what I said earlier:

Just because you HATE the man doesn't mean that he might not be doing God's will.

You're quite mistaken; I don't hate Trump. I love God, I love truth, and I love righteousness. I would be delighted if Trump would repent, deny himself, put his faith entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, willingly bow before Him, and receive eternal life.

If I am "legalistic" in this, then I suppose Jesus Christ was "legalistic" too.

Matthew 4:17 (ESV) - From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Matthew 8:3 (Amplified version, because Vaquero likes it) -  “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless you repent [that is, change your inner self—your old way of thinking, live changed lives] and become like children [trusting, humble, and forgiving], you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 13:3 (ESV) - No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Mark 8:34 (ESV) - If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 14:33 (ESV) - So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

If I am "legalistic" because I seek to know and understand the Word of God, and quote it when self-proclaimed Christians publicly contradict it, proclaiming a distorted view of the Christian faith, then I'll let God judge me for that, and chastise me if He sees fit.

If I am "judgemental" when I name the proudly-declared actions or attitudes of public leaders as sin, when other self-proclaimed Christians are willing to sweep them under the rug, or worse still, declare those actions or attitudes to be virtuous, or when I ask someone to back up what they assert to be true with a citation or other evidence, then when they can't, call them on it, then I'll submit to God's correction or commendation as he sees fit.
Proverbs 8:13 (ESV) - The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.
Psalm 97:10 (ESV) - O you who love the Lord, hate evil!
Psalm 119:104 (ESV) - Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
According to 1 Timothy 2:14 (ESV), Christians, "the church of the living God, [are to be] a pillar and buttress of the truth."

Some things that I have observed over and over with my discussions on this board with the most vocal three self-proclaimed Christians (SPCs):
1.  When I make a point using Scripture that contradicts their previously-stated view, they never concede the point and seldom even counter it, but rather deflect by bringing up some other issue.  It's like playing paintball with someone who never admits they're hit.
2.  Whenever the SPCs judge me, they won't out-and-out say they are criticizing me, but will sideways reference me as being part of a group, such as "Christians that are too legalistic," or if they do address me specifically, instead of addressing how I am wrong, lob a verse bomb at me, citing many verses, but without any explanation of how they apply to me, leaving it up to me to guess what specifically they are trying to say.  I suppose all this is to avoid technically judging me, "lest they be judged."  If I am reading correctly the message that Robert has been sending me with a couple of different verse bombs, he doesn't think I am truly Christian; without explanation, I can't know this for sure.

Through a very brief Google search, I found this excellent article about the Matthew 7:1-2 passage about judging.  I know nothing about the author, but his analysis is spot-on.
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/

I don't know about in Canada but here in The US we have a saying about what happens when you ASSUME.

It makes an ASS out of U and ME.

While it is true that in another thread I pointed out that I felt your views were more Legalistic than mine.

YOU were NOT being referenced by me in this thread.

My comments were about Christians in "General" that are too legalistic and by doing so endanger the salvation of others.

I had no one particular person in mind.


We in the South have another saying about, "the dawg that gets hit with the rock barking the loudest".

If you felt that you were being hit by a rock in this thread, maybe you should examine yourself and make any changes that you deem necessary.


The "only" theological question that believers should allow themselves to argue about is one that endangers the salvation of another.

It is my belief that strong legalistic views imposed upon non-believers and those that are still "Babes" in Christ do this.

If they are scolded and scorned they will most likey turn away from The Cross or Never Accept Jesus.



There seems to be two prevailing theories as to how to get people to accept salvation:

1) Make them scared of going to Hell.

2) Convince of God's Love and Grace.   

Most Christians with extreme legalistic views seem to prefer #1.

I prefer the latter.

[Gryphon Rider]

I don't know about in Canada but here in The US we have a saying about what happens when you ASSUME.
It makes an ASS out of U and ME.
While it is true that in another thread I pointed out that I felt your views were more Legalistic than mine.
YOU were NOT being referenced by me in this thread.
My comments were about Christians in "General" that are too legalistic and by doing so endanger the salvation of others.
I had no one particular person in mind.
We in the South have another saying about, "the dawg that gets hit with the rock barking the loudest".
If you felt that you were being hit by a rock in this thread, maybe you should examine yourself and make any changes that you deem necessary.
The "only" theological question that believers should allow themselves to argue about is one that endangers the salvation of another.
It is my belief that strong legalistic views imposed upon non-believers and those that are still "Babes" in Christ do this.
If they are scolded and scorned they will most likey turn away from The Cross or Never Accept Jesus.
There seems to be two prevailing theories as to how to get people to accept salvation:
1) Make them scared of going to Hell.
2) Convince of God's Love and Grace.   
Most Christians with extreme legalistic views seem to prefer #1.
I prefer the latter.

Uhh... 3fan, that was this thread; see below.  I'll let others decide whether my assumption was logical or not.  And keep in mind, not all assumptions are baseless.

While talking about assumptions, you assumed (even declared as fact) that I hate Trump.  It seems Vaquero takes issue with this:

we are not allowed to judge the person, for we do not know what they are going though, their heart, etc., for only God knows man's heart.

Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the secular nation Israel's capital was prophesied in Scripture? Chapter and verse, please.

God used many idol-worshipping kings to serve His purposes concerning Israel, often to punish Israel. He also used pagan Rome to establish the circumstances that allowed the Gospel to be spread far and wide by the first and second-century church. He also used Pilate and Judas through which to accomplish His purpose in Christ Jesus.

Just because you HATE the man doesn't mean that he might not be doing God's will.

Coincidentally, if Judas and Pontius Pilate had not followed God's will You and I would not be saved.

I don't think Pilate nor Judas sought to obediently follow the will of God, but He accomplished His purpose through them and in spite of their intentions.

You're quite mistaken; I don't hate Trump. I love God, I love truth, and I love righteousness. I would be delighted if Trump would repent, deny himself, put his faith entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, willingly bow before Him, and receive eternal life.

Apparently, you are much more legalistic in your Christian views than I.

The problem that I have with legalistic views is that they prevent many non-believers from accepting Jesus.
To quote evangelist Jesse Duplantis: "You're trying to clean the fish before it's in the boat".
Many non-believers refuse to accept Christ because deep down they feel that they aren't "good enough" to be saved.
Legalism propagates this view.
The truth is that NONE of us are "good enough" to be saved.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23-26 (NKJV)

To "run" people away from the gospel for any reason diminishes Jesus Christ, The Church and The Kingdom of God.

If you are not referring to me and my "legalistic" views, then why are you bringing up other legalistic Christians in general as the reason people don't get saved?  How many people have been turned away from God by observing how seemingly legalistic Amish or Hasidic Jews practise their faith?

So tell me, is it my statement, "I would be delighted if Trump would repent, deny himself, put his faith entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, willingly bow before Him, and receive eternal life," that you consider to be legalistic?  After all, directly after quoting those words of mine, you said, "you are much more legalistic in your Christian views than I."  If so, how do you respond to Christ's words that I cited in response to you?

Luke 13:3 (ESV) - No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Mark 8:34 (ESV) - If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 14:33 (ESV) - So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

If not, what legalism are we talking about?

There seems to be two prevailing theories as to how to get people to accept salvation:
1) Make them scared of going to Hell.
2) Convince of God's Love and Grace.   
Most Christians with extreme legalistic views seem to prefer #1.
I prefer the latter.

Both theories 1 and 2 contain truth, but neither are the complete Gospel (not even close).  And, no human can get anyone to accept true salvation; it's entirely the work of God.  He uses us as a means of grace, a conduit through which He delivers the Gospel, but no matter how appealing (full of love and grace and promises of eternal life) we make it, If God hasn't quickened the hearer's spirit, they are not going to be saved.

[bagelboy]

I'm still trying to figure out why the Arab World hates Bikinis! That alone tells me all I need to Know!

[G-Man]

Let's face it, brother,...... not all women should wear bikinis.  Not even all American women!   

[Oss]

oh the horror

Its gonna snow tomorrow

She wont be able to wear her uniform  



Maybe its time for bikini audition threads again, just in time for christmas

[Serk]

Here's some Burkini models to put in the running:

[3fan4life]

I don't know about in Canada but here in The US we have a saying about what happens when you ASSUME.
It makes an ASS out of U and ME.
While it is true that in another thread I pointed out that I felt your views were more Legalistic than mine.
YOU were NOT being referenced by me in this thread.
My comments were about Christians in "General" that are too legalistic and by doing so endanger the salvation of others.
I had no one particular person in mind.
We in the South have another saying about, "the dawg that gets hit with the rock barking the loudest".
If you felt that you were being hit by a rock in this thread, maybe you should examine yourself and make any changes that you deem necessary.
The "only" theological question that believers should allow themselves to argue about is one that endangers the salvation of another.
It is my belief that strong legalistic views imposed upon non-believers and those that are still "Babes" in Christ do this.
If they are scolded and scorned they will most likey turn away from The Cross or Never Accept Jesus.
There seems to be two prevailing theories as to how to get people to accept salvation:
1) Make them scared of going to Hell.
2) Convince of God's Love and Grace.   
Most Christians with extreme legalistic views seem to prefer #1.
I prefer the latter.

Uhh... 3fan, that was this thread; see below.  I'll let others decide whether my assumption was logical or not.  And keep in mind, not all assumptions are baseless.

While talking about assumptions, you assumed (even declared as fact) that I hate Trump.  It seems Vaquero takes issue with this:

we are not allowed to judge the person, for we do not know what they are going though, their heart, etc., for only God knows man's heart.

Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the secular nation Israel's capital was prophesied in Scripture? Chapter and verse, please.

God used many idol-worshipping kings to serve His purposes concerning Israel, often to punish Israel. He also used pagan Rome to establish the circumstances that allowed the Gospel to be spread far and wide by the first and second-century church. He also used Pilate and Judas through which to accomplish His purpose in Christ Jesus.

Just because you HATE the man doesn't mean that he might not be doing God's will.

Coincidentally, if Judas and Pontius Pilate had not followed God's will You and I would not be saved.

I don't think Pilate nor Judas sought to obediently follow the will of God, but He accomplished His purpose through them and in spite of their intentions.

You're quite mistaken; I don't hate Trump. I love God, I love truth, and I love righteousness. I would be delighted if Trump would repent, deny himself, put his faith entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, willingly bow before Him, and receive eternal life.

Apparently, you are much more legalistic in your Christian views than I.

The problem that I have with legalistic views is that they prevent many non-believers from accepting Jesus.
To quote evangelist Jesse Duplantis: "You're trying to clean the fish before it's in the boat".
Many non-believers refuse to accept Christ because deep down they feel that they aren't "good enough" to be saved.
Legalism propagates this view.
The truth is that NONE of us are "good enough" to be saved.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23-26 (NKJV)

To "run" people away from the gospel for any reason diminishes Jesus Christ, The Church and The Kingdom of God.

If you are not referring to me and my "legalistic" views, then why are you bringing up other legalistic Christians in general as the reason people don't get saved?  How many people have been turned away from God by observing how seemingly legalistic Amish or Hasidic Jews practise their faith?

So tell me, is it my statement, "I would be delighted if Trump would repent, deny himself, put his faith entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, willingly bow before Him, and receive eternal life," that you consider to be legalistic?  After all, directly after quoting those words of mine, you said, "you are much more legalistic in your Christian views than I."  If so, how do you respond to Christ's words that I cited in response to you?

Luke 13:3 (ESV) - No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Mark 8:34 (ESV) - If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 14:33 (ESV) - So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

If not, what legalism are we talking about?

There seems to be two prevailing theories as to how to get people to accept salvation:
1) Make them scared of going to Hell.
2) Convince of God's Love and Grace.   
Most Christians with extreme legalistic views seem to prefer #1.
I prefer the latter.

Both theories 1 and 2 contain truth, but neither are the complete Gospel (not even close).  And, no human can get anyone to accept true salvation; it's entirely the work of God.  He uses us as a means of grace, a conduit through which He delivers the Gospel, but no matter how appealing (full of love and grace and promises of eternal life) we make it, If God hasn't quickened the hearer's spirit, they are not going to be saved.

Me thinks that thou dost protest too much.

Again, if I wanted to "CALL" you out, I wouldn't do it back handed.

I would call you out DIRECTLY.

What I did say to you directly is that, "I believe your views are more legalistic than mine."

I believe that to be a correct statement.


I don't have time at the moment to address all of your points.

I will take the time to say this........

Just maybe the reason that you feel that the "Rock" was thrown at you personally is that part of you fears that you are too legalistic .


I don't know you.

So, I don't know what's in your heart and I really am not trying to judge you.

I do know this, No-one has ever been sucessfully led to the Cross by being beaten over the head with the Bible.

[Oss]

they called it the Inquisition

[3fan4life]

Here's some Burkini models to put in the running:

I'll pass.

The only woman that I would like to see in a Burka is Rosie O'Donnell

[Serk]

The only woman that I would like to see in a Burka is Rosie O'Donnell

I'll never understand some of the things some folks wanna see, but I'm not here to judge... You ask, we provide!

[MP]

Religious / Biblical statements aside - if Trump wanted to inflame the Middle East, he could not have picked a better method (short of dropping bombs / invading). I hope this doesn't come back to bite us.

The last three presidents called for this action. In 1995 Congress, including most Democrats, voted for it too.

[Robert]

If anyone when quoted scripture cannot apply it or see how it fits in their lives then it does little to explain it.

Scripture is inspired by God written down by men through the Holy Spirit. The ability to meditate and apply scripture is a spiritual matter in a persons life. If scripture doesn't actually speak to you and you quote the words then I would have to question your relationship with the Lord. That is legalistic, you can apply the commands without the compassion.

 I can follow every command given about words, life styles but does that mean I know Jesus and the Father. In fact it could even call into question my salvation. Religion tries to clean the man by words, a relationship with the Father cleans the man by love and allows compassion and love to draw him into change. Its not by strict adherence to laws that we are saved but by the grace, compassion and love of the Father poured out in our lives.

If He the author of our faith does not condemn us then who is any man to condemn us. We can listen to God by words from man sometimes, because God does use men and situations to speak to us but we have to understand what is being said and from whom. Without that we can get lost and confused and our walk becomes nothing more than more commands. That is also a gift of the spirit to hear the words spoken by God through someone else.

I am not perfect and will never be in this life, but through grace I am saved through faith which is the the gift of God. I cannot work or perform hard enough for it and if I could then someone could do better and take my place. It would imply favoritism by God on those who could do the most for Him.

 Just like parables that were given so the one who could discern them would and the ones who were not spiritual could not. As witnessed the Apostles before and after the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. They before had no clue what Jesus was talking about but after the upper room became mighty men of God understanding and rightly dividing and using the word of God.

Man cannot explain the words of God without this.

As satan quoted scripture to Jesus wrongly and Jesus correctly rebutted with scripture we have a model of what true discernment of scripture is.

The ones that call out the brothers the most in being wrong are the ones who are religious. Just as in Jesus time it was the religious leaders that prosecuted Him. As it was when America was created, it was done to get away from religious persecution, so it is today. There is a spirit of religion that mocks the truth of scripture. Its demonic and just like satan the great impersonator to mimic the truth of God. For everything that God creates satan has a counterfeit. Satan the father of all lies and there is no truth in him. The woman who cried in the streets behind the apostles for days shouting these men are the chosen of God only to  have the apostles cast out the demon and the girls owner put them in prison since she could no longer tell fortunes and make money.

God uses untrained men as well as learned men and all serve the purpose of God. It maybe why they were created and certainly many of the Apostoles were unlearned men and probably crude since some were uneducated fishermen. But the education of the world only speaks to the world, that is why Saul was used to speak to the educated but his words did not come from what he learned but from how the spirit used him. The power of his teaching came from the Holy Spirit, the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. We all, who are Christians have this power living on the inside of us if we have the baptism of the spirit. It is one of the more awesome gifts of God to those who ask and desire a closer walk with Him. One that is not religious but relational, one that in our hearts makes us desire the things of God and know the things of God. We become more and more like Christ.

God said be of good cheer since the Kingdom of God has come.

This was not because God took the world He crated over, but because His creation, man, in him, God ratified the covenant with man and put the Holy Spirit in him and man became the true kingdom of God in this world. We have the power inside us to do the things Jesus did. That is something religion will not tell you and removes the desire in men to get closer to God to have these gifts.

Remember we are now just a little lower than angels but will one day be the judges and rulers in the Kingdom of God. This is to say we rightly need to be able to judge, since we will fall to all calamities if we cannot.

1Co 6:3  Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. 

1Co 5:12  It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 
1Co 5:13  God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.” 

[Gryphon Rider]

Robert, how much of that was specifically addressed to me, rather than just preaching to the VRCC world in general? This is often the problem when you (presumably) respond to me; you throw a bunch of scriptures on the screen, and I understand them (by the illumination of the Holy Spirit) and agree with them, but I sense that you mean them as a rebuke to me.

[Oss]

In the spirit of peace in the family and risking your collective and individual ire, why dont the three of you (Robert/GryphonRider and 3fan) use a  really neat feature called the PM or private message for this topic and other religious stuff?

I have used it with all of you to good effect and there can be no confusion as to whom the message is directed.

Its snowing here, finally, in NY and so I'm gonna go out and split some more firewood and then enjoy watching the fire channel with Bonnie

[Robert]

In the spirit of peace in the family and risking your collective and individual ire, why dont the three of you (Robert/GryphonRider and 3fan) use a  really neat feature called the PM or private message for this topic and other religious stuff?

many have said and read it and the back and forth as long as its not arguing is actually a good thing. So that is why these posts. If it gets heated then a pm is a good idea.

Gryphon
 Some of it is with you in mind, but its also general, as some may benefit for a deeper discussion about the Bible but its not a rebuke. I know you know the bible and a rebuke would mean that all decorum is gone something that these discussions should never get to. I would pm you if there were something I strongly felt that I needed to address with you.

We can talk and agree or disagree on scripture. Then if I am helped or someone else so be it. 

Pro 27:17  As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Robert, how much of that was specifically addressed to me, rather than just preaching to the VRCC world in general? This is often the problem when you (presumably) respond to me; you throw a bunch of scriptures on the screen, and I understand them (by the illumination of the Holy Spirit) and agree with them, but I sense that you mean them as a rebuke to me.

I sense along with being a rebuke towards you, it makes him feel holier than thou to throw out a gob of scriptures every day.

[Robert]

I sense along with being a rebuke towards you, it makes him feel holier than thou to throw out a gob of scriptures every day.

Mat 15:18  But the words you speak come from the heart—that’s what defiles you.
Mat 15:19  For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.
Mat 15:20  These are what defile you. Eating with unwashed hands will never defile you.”

Thank you for providing the best example of scripture in a negative way.

[Gryphon Rider]

I sense along with being a rebuke towards you, it makes him feel holier than thou to throw out a gob of scriptures every day.

Mat 15:18  But the words you speak come from the heart—that’s what defiles you.
Mat 15:19  For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.
Mat 15:20  These are what defile you. Eating with unwashed hands will never defile you.”

Thank you for providing the best example of scripture in a negative way.

Meathead: I'm not sure whether this is supposed to mean that you are being defiled for suggesting Robert feels holier-than-thou, or that he's saying you're right, his words have defiled him, and here are the scriptures to back you up, or maybe simply that since you are talking about a sinful attitude, whether or not he's guilty of it, here is a passage about sinful attitudes. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I sense along with being a rebuke towards you, it makes him feel holier than thou to throw out a gob of scriptures every day.

Mat 15:18  But the words you speak come from the heart—that’s what defiles you.
Mat 15:19  For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.
Mat 15:20  These are what defile you. Eating with unwashed hands will never defile you.”

Thank you for providing the best example of scripture in a negative way.

Meathead: I'm not sure whether this is supposed to mean that you are being defiled for suggesting Robert feels holier-than-thou, or that he's saying you're right, his words have defiled him, and here are the scriptures to back you up, or maybe simply that since you are talking about a sinful attitude, whether or not he's guilty of it, here is a passage about sinful attitudes. 

I will assume the best of him and go with the second option. 

[Robert]

Meathead: I'm not sure whether this is supposed to mean that you are being defiled for suggesting Robert feels holier-than-thou, or that he's saying you're right, his words have defiled him, and here are the scriptures to back you up, or maybe simply that since you are talking about a sinful attitude, whether or not he's guilty of it, here is a passage about sinful attitudes. 

I would be interested in the scriptures and the interpretation

Thank you for proving my point.

Pro 12:1  To learn, you must love discipline; it is stupid to hate correction. 
Pro 12:2  The LORD approves of those who are good, but he condemns those who plan wickedness. 
Pro 12:3  Wickedness never brings stability, but the godly have deep roots. 

[Gryphon Rider]

Meathead: I'm not sure whether this is supposed to mean that you are being defiled for suggesting Robert feels holier-than-thou, or that he's saying you're right, his words have defiled him, and here are the scriptures to back you up, or maybe simply that since you are talking about a sinful attitude, whether or not he's guilty of it, here is a passage about sinful attitudes. 

I would be interested in the scriptures and the interpretation

You provided the scriptures, Matthew 15:18-20

[bagelboy]

Politics and religion, two topics I stay away from. Hey Serk, I like OSS's bikini pics better.

[G-Man]

Politics and religion, two topics I stay away from. Hey Serk, I like OSS's bikini pics better.

And now with identity politics, you can add anything into "Politics and ______"

[Serk]

President Trump is just implementing Hillary's plan in this matter, shouldn't the leftists be applauding him?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/09/senate.2000/hrc.jerusalem/

[The emperor has no clothes]

Boy, you guys are really getting into the Christmas spirit. 

[Wizzard]

Boy, you guys are really getting into the Christmas spirit. 

LOL  I think some take this as not a debate but as a point of contention.
Never met Robert and have met Gryphon and would trust him with anything of mine.
I appreciate you both. Interesting opinions. As a believer I have my own too, and would tell you in person.
Carry on 

[RP#62]

I've been trying to figure out if this is good natured theological debate or if you fellers are trying to out-Christian each other.  I'm trying to be open minded and though and will assume the former.

-RP

[The emperor has no clothes]

Boy, you guys are really getting into the Christmas spirit. 

LOL  I think some take this as not a debate but as a point of contention.
Never met Robert and have met Gryphon and would trust him with anything of mine.
I appreciate you both. Interesting opinions. As a believer I have my own too, and would tell you in person.
Carry on 

I agree with your sentiments towards Robert and GR. I should have been clearer in my statement. As far as religion goes, I can not say I'm sure of much. I'm sure there is a God. Other than that I'm just not sure. I have gained a lot of useful insight from GR's and Willow's thoughts on religion. And I appreciate it. Some of the others, not so much. I hope to some day hear your thoughts. 

[Gryphon Rider]

I've been trying to figure out if this is good natured theological debate or if you fellers are trying to out-Christian each other.  I'm trying to be open minded and though and will assume the former.

-RP

I think the debates between Robert and me, at their core, are about epistemology rather than theology, although they're related.  From my point of view, Robert, Vaquero, and 3fan4life, as Christians, occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support, so I try to write out my point of view in a calm and logical way, without impugning their characters or motivations.  I would love it if it the debate were good-natured and stuck to the disputed points, but what I say often gets under their skin, sometimes even when I think what I am saying is benign.  I suppose I have an undesired talent for that.  

[Robert]

I've been trying to figure out if this is good natured theological debate or if you fellers are trying to out-Christian each other.  I'm trying to be open minded and though and will assume the former.

-RP

I think the debates between Robert and me, at their core, are about epistemology rather than theology, although they're related.  From my point of view, Robert, Vaquero, and 3fan4life, as Christians, occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support, so I try to write out my point of view in a calm and logical way, without impugning their characters or motivations.  I would love it if it the debate were good-natured and stuck to the disputed points, but what I say often gets under their skin, sometimes even when I think what I am saying is benign.  I suppose I have an undesired talent for that. 

The idea that you can say that:

occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support,

You just entered a value judgement based on your understanding of the bible which may not be correct either.

You just put yourself above us as represented authority, personally dont wonder why you get under my skin with comments like that. Your tone has not been all the mild either especially in the tirade of the president. So you are not Lilly white.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I've been trying to figure out if this is good natured theological debate or if you fellers are trying to out-Christian each other.  I'm trying to be open minded and though and will assume the former.

-RP

I think the debates between Robert and me, at their core, are about epistemology rather than theology, although they're related.  From my point of view, Robert, Vaquero, and 3fan4life, as Christians, occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support, so I try to write out my point of view in a calm and logical way, without impugning their characters or motivations.  I would love it if it the debate were good-natured and stuck to the disputed points, but what I say often gets under their skin, sometimes even when I think what I am saying is benign.  I suppose I have an undesired talent for that. 

The idea that you can say that:

occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support,

You just entered a value judgement based on your understanding of the bible which may not be correct either.

You just put yourself above us as represented authority, personally dont wonder why you get under my skin with comments like that. Your tone has not been all the mild either especially in the tirade of the president. So you are not Lilly white.

Robert, instead of attacking GR why not just provide facts to back up your claims ? Tirade ? I don't remember GR's amount of posts, but a rational person would be hard pressed to find one tirade in there.

[Gryphon Rider]

I've been trying to figure out if this is good natured theological debate or if you fellers are trying to out-Christian each other.  I'm trying to be open minded and though and will assume the former.

-RP

I think the debates between Robert and me, at their core, are about epistemology rather than theology, although they're related.  From my point of view, Robert, Vaquero, and 3fan4life, as Christians, occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support, so I try to write out my point of view in a calm and logical way, without impugning their characters or motivations.  I would love it if it the debate were good-natured and stuck to the disputed points, but what I say often gets under their skin, sometimes even when I think what I am saying is benign.  I suppose I have an undesired talent for that. 

The idea that you can say that:

occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support,

You just entered a value judgement based on your understanding of the bible which may not be correct either.

You just put yourself above us as represented authority, personally dont wonder why you get under my skin with comments like that. Your tone has not been all the mild either especially in the tirade of the president. So you are not Lilly white.

Robert, instead of attacking GR why not just provide facts to back up your claims ? Tirade ? I don't remember GR's amount of posts, but a rational person would be hard pressed to find one tirade in there.

I did describe Trump as narcissistic and misogynistic, and even Willow called me out on "misogynistic".  After that I explained why I used that term, but perhaps "sexist" would have been better, considering the varying definitions of misogyny.  Not sure it was a tirade, though.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I've been trying to figure out if this is good natured theological debate or if you fellers are trying to out-Christian each other.  I'm trying to be open minded and though and will assume the former.

-RP

I think the debates between Robert and me, at their core, are about epistemology rather than theology, although they're related.  From my point of view, Robert, Vaquero, and 3fan4life, as Christians, occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support, so I try to write out my point of view in a calm and logical way, without impugning their characters or motivations.  I would love it if it the debate were good-natured and stuck to the disputed points, but what I say often gets under their skin, sometimes even when I think what I am saying is benign.  I suppose I have an undesired talent for that. 

The idea that you can say that:

occasionally say things that that aren't supported by, and sometimes are contradicted by, the Bible.  I don't want others to get the impression that those things are representative of what all Christians believe or support,

You just entered a value judgement based on your understanding of the bible which may not be correct either.

You just put yourself above us as represented authority, personally dont wonder why you get under my skin with comments like that. Your tone has not been all the mild either especially in the tirade of the president. So you are not Lilly white.

Robert, instead of attacking GR why not just provide facts to back up your claims ? Tirade ? I don't remember GR's amount of posts, but a rational person would be hard pressed to find one tirade in there.

I did describe Trump as narcissistic and misogynistic, and even Willow called me out on "misogynistic".  After that I explained why I used that term, but perhaps "sexist" would have been better, considering the varying definitions of misogyny.  Not sure it was a tirade, though.

I read your post and the responses to it. If that was considered a tirade, I fear what they say about me.  I do hope this back and forth with Robert doesn't dissuade you from expressing your views on religion. 

[baldo]

I did describe Trump as narcissistic and misogynistic, and even Willow called me out on "misogynistic".  After that I explained why I used that term, but perhaps "sexist" would have been better, considering the varying definitions of misogyny.  Not sure it was a tirade, though.

Dissing 45 is a big no-no here.....be careful.

[Serk]

Dissing 45 is a big no-no here.....be careful.

I carry a 40 instead of a 45, but a 45 is still very effective.

[Wizzard]

Dissing 45 is a big no-no here.....be careful.

I carry a 40 instead of a 45, but a 45 is still very effective.

I carry a lot of things,, but no grudges