Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 126
  1. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    That's a lot to unpack in a thread about supporting immigrants. Happy to have it (no bubble or guilt), just not sure what you're goal is. We could talk in circles for another dozen pages and not get anywhere. So instead I have a question for you. In your response to JTF, you suggest he is wrong in reading the Bible "in context with the culture of the day". In other responses, you seem to take a more literal interpretation. (Unless I'm missing reading your posts). So what's your take on the context of the Bible? Is it a period document (written by and to those of the era) that has universal truths for today, or do you take a more literal interpretation?
    No, I don't take a strictly literal interpretation there. The women of that day were simply not educated, almost none of them. Notice that Paul said "I don't put women in leadership" he didn't propose to speak for God. What was paramount to Paul was that nothing was going to get in the way of the efficient spreading of the Gospel during that critical period after Christ's resurrection and the beginning of the Christian church. What I do take literally is that God made roles that we should cherish. We men have downgraded the true role of women and abused it to the point where women wanted to be doing something else than in the nurturing role that most are made for. They were not honored for the role they had and that is the fault of men. There are core truths in the Bible that are universal for today and there are cultural lessons and we have to test passages against the whole body of the Bible. You are correct, it is a huge discussion. In short I believe that the progressive ideology is man's effort to correct man's mistakes in man's way. It is good intentioned, but the result is that it steers away from effectively following God's word.


  2. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    It's unrealistic to push abstinence-only in today's world. PP operates in within that messiness. I'm not really sure where to take you last part, other than to agree? That's why we should be working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, right? Which PP does.
    If we just give up and say we are going to be a mess so we just have to abort and teach "safe sex" then the problem is never solved and it gets worse 20 years from now. Obviously teaching kids how to have sex without getting pregnant ain't workin' and in the process we are teaching them that it just isn't that important to wait, it isn't that important to be monogamous and in fact it just isn't that important to get married and stay married. Everything becomes optional. So here we are with a pretty darned confused society that is having a lot of sex but is not really happy.

  3. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    It's respectful. He responded to a good question by doing what leftist posters do- he avoided it. There are many times where I don't like to hear things because I know there is some truth to it and it creates a guilt response. It's just true of all of us.
    I agree that Nokomis is a good poster as are the other two. However, when they give those types of responses they should be willing to accept some return as part of the deal. I sure he can handle it.
    Eliminate things like "it pops your bubble" which come off as arrogant and dismissive. "Your complicity" isn't respectful. You know this, change your tone. There are plenty who deserve those types of responses, and some that don't.

  4. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    KGF wasn't interested in a conversation. He was interested in gotcha points. Personally, I would never want someone get an abortion. But I also accept that it's the law of the land. As such, I think we should do all we can to stop unwanted pregnancies. That's why I support PP. Yes, they are pro-choice, but they also work to prevent women from having to make that choice in the first place.
    You don’t know me. You don’t know that that was a “gotcha” response. I think it’s a legitimate response to the ‘holier than thou’ beginning that the OP was trying to claim on this thread.

    I was pointing out that there is a very obvious conflict in the left’s claim that their views are closer to God. I’m open to anyone that wants to dispute that obvious conflict.

    My wife’s family is Catholic. They deplore abortion, especially late term abortion, as an abomination. Yet they vote Democrat without any consideration. That takes some major rationalization to square that with their faith.

    I’m Lutheran, and fall much closer to your view than the Catholic Church’s view, with the exception that I don’t believe that PP is about ‘women’s health’ and planning parenthood as it is just about doing abortions under any and all circumstances. I wouldn’t trust them to advise about parenthood anymore than you’d likely trust the Pro-Life Action League to advise about abortions.

  5. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Eliminate things like "it pops your bubble" which come off as arrogant and dismissive. "Your complicity" isn't respectful. You know this, change your tone. There are plenty who deserve those types of responses, and some that don't.
    With all due respect, Nokomis wasn’t being respectful to me either.

  6. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Eliminate things like "it pops your bubble" which come off as arrogant and dismissive. "Your complicity" isn't respectful. You know this, change your tone. There are plenty who deserve those types of responses, and some that don't.
    You are going a little Jake here on me, but okay, coaching accepted. I sorry.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    No, I don't take a strictly literal interpretation there. The women of that day were simply not educated, almost none of them. Notice that Paul said "I don't put women in leadership" he didn't propose to speak for God. What was paramount to Paul was that nothing was going to get in the way of the efficient spreading of the Gospel during that critical period after Christ's resurrection and the beginning of the Christian church. What I do take literally is that God made roles that we should cherish. We men have downgraded the true role of women and abused it to the point where women wanted to be doing something else than in the nurturing role that most are made for. They were not honored for the role they had and that is the fault of men. There are core truths in the Bible that are universal for today and there are cultural lessons and we have to test passages against the whole body of the Bible. You are correct, it is a huge discussion. In short I believe that the progressive ideology is man's effort to correct man's mistakes in man's way. It is good intentioned, but the result is that it steers away from effectively following God's word.
    And there's the rub. We just fall on different points of the literal interpretation - universal truth spectrum. Your note about Paul not proposing to speak for God nails it on the head for me. I prefer to go with more inclusion and less litmus tests. Love is love.
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

  8. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    It's unrealistic to push abstinence-only in today's world. PP operates in within that messiness. I'm not really sure where to take you last part, other than to agree? That's why we should be working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, right? Which PP does.
    PP prevents unwanted babies. Unwanted pregnancies, not so much. By providing a work around to proper behavior they encourage improper behavior. Then in a lot of cases the work around is not employed in the heat of passion so they move to plan B- kill the baby. PP is like a fireman who goes out and starts fires and then claims to be heroic when they are first on the spot to put it out.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    If we just give up and say we are going to be a mess so we just have to abort and teach "safe sex" then the problem is never solved and it gets worse 20 years from now. Obviously teaching kids how to have sex without getting pregnant ain't workin' and in the process we are teaching them that it just isn't that important to wait, it isn't that important to be monogamous and in fact it just isn't that important to get married and stay married. Everything becomes optional. So here we are with a pretty darned confused society that is having a lot of sex but is not really happy.
    It's all about balance, my brother. We have to balance the ideal with the practical. Abstinence-only doesn't work. That doesn't mean we completely abandon the marriage-only ideal.
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    You don’t know me. You don’t know that that was a “gotcha” response. I think it’s a legitimate response to the ‘holier than thou’ beginning that the OP was trying to claim on this thread.

    I was pointing out that there is a very obvious conflict in the left’s claim that their views are closer to God. I’m open to anyone that wants to dispute that obvious conflict.

    My wife’s family is Catholic. They deplore abortion, especially late term abortion, as an abomination. Yet they vote Democrat without any consideration. That takes some major rationalization to square that with their faith.

    I’m Lutheran, and fall much closer to your view than the Catholic Church’s view, with the exception that I don’t believe that PP is about ‘women’s health’ and planning parenthood as it is just about doing abortions under any and all circumstances. I wouldn’t trust them to advise about parenthood anymore than you’d likely trust the Pro-Life Action League to advise about abortions.
    Sounds like they aren't single-issue voters!
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

  11. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    And there's the rub. We just fall on different points of the literal interpretation - universal truth spectrum. Your note about Paul not proposing to speak for God nails it on the head for me. I prefer to go with more inclusion and less litmus tests. Love is love.
    The Bible speaks clearly on progressive issues where inclusion of the BEHAVIOR does not work. There is no wiggle room there. However, the Bible and specifically Jesus was very inclusive regarding sinners (since we all are). Jesus would address the problem, and even heal them. But he would also say- "go and sin no more". He clearly asks for a turning and repentance from the behavior. Taking homosexuality for example, it is no different than heterosexual sex outside of marriage. If you believe the Bible- it's a sin plain and simple because it is outside of God's design. However, since Christ died for the sins of all mankind, it is obvious that the Church's doors should be open to all sinners and we should help and love all sinners. It is equally obvious that we should teach that the behavior is unacceptable. Should a pastor tell a man who cheats on his wife that this is acceptable behavior? No way. Should he kick the man out of the church? No way. There is a huge difference between inclusiveness of people and acceptance of unrepentant sin.

  12. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    It's all about balance, my brother. We have to balance the ideal with the practical. Abstinence-only doesn't work. That doesn't mean we completely abandon the marriage-only ideal.
    If we don't preach what we want to practice then the practice is going to move to the lowest level. That's what we have after decades of gradually accepting and accommodating lower standards for morality. Man becomes first, God second. Thta's progressive ideology in a nutshell. Ditch the plan, accept the convenient and call it good.

    By the way, thanks for the excellent discussion, sorry I started badly, I appreciate your responses and reasoned disagreement!

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    You are going a little Jake here on me, but okay, coaching accepted. I sorry.
    I like S2. Certainly more than some on "my team". Nice to know he has my back.

    This may sound a little "Jake", but I remember a time when S2 was the most ridiculous poster on this board. Either he's softened or the board has really gone off the rails. Probably the latter.
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

  14. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    The Bible speaks clearly on progressive issues where inclusion of the BEHAVIOR does not work. There is no wiggle room there. However, the Bible and specifically Jesus was very inclusive regarding sinners (since we all are). Jesus would address the problem, and even heal them. But he would also say- "go and sin no more". He clearly asks for a turning and repentance from the behavior. Taking homosexuality for example, it is no different than heterosexual sex outside of marriage. If you believe the Bible- it's a sin plain and simple because it is outside of God's design. However, since Christ died for the sins of all mankind, it is obvious that the Church's doors should be open to all sinners and we should help and love all sinners. It is equally obvious that we should teach that the behavior is unacceptable. Should a pastor tell a man who cheats on his wife that this is acceptable behavior? No way. Should he kick the man out of the church? No way. There is a huge difference between inclusiveness of people and acceptance of unrepentant sin.
    The Bible also speaks clearly on the role of women in education, but because your modern-day values don't reconcile with those teachings, you choose to believe that those words were only relevant in the contemporary context. Nothing wrong with that, but you also seem to want to define where that line should be drawn for everyone.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    The Bible speaks clearly on progressive issues where inclusion of the BEHAVIOR does not work. There is no wiggle room there. However, the Bible and specifically Jesus was very inclusive regarding sinners (since we all are). Jesus would address the problem, and even heal them. But he would also say- "go and sin no more". He clearly asks for a turning and repentance from the behavior. Taking homosexuality for example, it is no different than heterosexual sex outside of marriage. If you believe the Bible- it's a sin plain and simple because it is outside of God's design. However, since Christ died for the sins of all mankind, it is obvious that the Church's doors should be open to all sinners and we should help and love all sinners. It is equally obvious that we should teach that the behavior is unacceptable. Should a pastor tell a man who cheats on his wife that this is acceptable behavior? No way. Should he kick the man out of the church? No way. There is a huge difference between inclusiveness of people and acceptance of unrepentant sin.
    Ah man...I knew you were going to hit me with the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin BS. You're looking at the Bible as binary, which I think you would agree, and that's fine. I see it as more nuanced. I like the way one theologian put it: The Bible should start a conversation, not end it.
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •