The Sound of Freedom

[Arthur Brain]

Again, the claim was:



Arguing that certain kinds of rudeness are bad is a different discussion.



Supra.



Reminder: "dog" was a derogatory term for Gentiles.

Jesus didn't even use that. He used the diminutive form of the word, basically "doggette," which is even more insulting!

Bearing false witness and making unsubstantiated claims that posters are "child molesting queers" are indefensible JR. That goes beyond "rudeness" and if you were doing what one of your duties is as a moderator on here then you'd have kicked Nick M into touch over that before Sherman did. You've banned me for stuff that I haven't even done if you recall? Forum stalking? Never happened as you now well know after Sherman overturned your silly ban.

Frankly, if you still can't understand that Jesus wasn't flinging puerile insults at the Canaanite woman then it's utterly bemusing. What, was Jesus surprised by her answer and only then did her the biggest possible favour He could have by healing her daughter?! Heck, was the parable of the good Samaritan not enough to clue you in?

If you want to excuse childish and pathetic behaviour then do so as you will. Stop trying to use the Bible to justify it though cos that aint gonna work.

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Bearing false witness and making unsubstantiated claims that posters are "child molesting queers" are indefensible JR.

Again, that's not what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the following.

Christianity has no room for rudeness.

This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated from scripture.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, that's not what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the following.



This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated from scripture.

Well it should be when supposed Christians have well gone beyond rudeness to pathetic accusations that could never hold up or make excuses for those that have.

Pointless looking to the Bible for defence for or enabling pathetic and childish immaturity either as outlined in my previous. Again:

Frankly, if you still can't understand that Jesus wasn't flinging puerile insults at the Canaanite woman then it's utterly bemusing. What, was Jesus surprised by her answer and only then did her the biggest possible favour He could have by healing her daughter?! Heck, was the parable of the good Samaritan not enough to clue you in?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well it should be

Start a new thread then.

Pointless looking to the Bible for defence for or enabling pathetic and childish immaturity either as outlined in my previous.

No one has advocated for that. But we know you don't pay attention to what people are saying.

Again, that's NOT what the current discussion is about.

if you still can't understand that Jesus wasn't flinging puerile insults at the Canaanite woman

Straw man.

No one has said that Jesus was flinging "puerile insults."

What I said was that Jesus seriously insulted the woman by using the diminutive form of a derogatory term for Gentiles.

What, was Jesus surprised by her answer and only then did her the biggest possible favour He could have by healing her daughter?! Heck, was the parable of the good Samaritan not enough to clue you in?

I will not cast pearls before swine by answering this.

 

[7djengo7]

Being insulting for insulting's sake is way outside the bounds of Christian behavior.

By saying that, you just bulldozed what you were trying to build on.

Are you now changing your argument to "Christianity has no room for 'insulting for insulting's sake'"? If so, then I fully agree!

But that wasn't what we were discussing.

Back to the drawing board for @Gary K.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Start a new thread then.



No one has advocated for that. But we know you don't pay attention to what people are saying.

Again, that's NOT what the current discussion is about.



Straw man.

No one has said that Jesus was flinging "puerile insults."

What I said was that Jesus seriously insulted the woman by using the diminutive form of a derogatory term for Gentiles.



I will not cast pearls before swine by answering this.

So, you think that Jesus insulted a woman in the most egregious fashion based on her being a gentile? That's all she was, not a human being? Then He went on to do her the biggest favour afterwards because of her persistent faith? Doesn't occur to you that there might be a lesson to be learned with that event and not just for the disciples who continually tried to shoo her away but a modern audience as well?

The parable of the good Samaritan should really have clued you up. Don't judge a book by its cover. A priest and a Levite left a helpless man by the side of a road and one who would be treat with hostility and suspicion showed human kindness by coming to his aid.

 

[Gary K]

By saying that, you just bulldozed what you were trying to build on.


Back to the drawing board for @Gary K.

You mind explaining all of that to me?

 

[Gary K]

Again, that's not what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the following.



This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated from scripture.

Sorry, JR, but you have not demonstrated that from scripture. I don't think there is any way to demonstrate it from scipture except to a dispensationalist; They are the only ones I know of who reas scripture with your paradigm. Anf trjat paradign only goes back to the 1830s or so from John Darby. It's recent theological paradigm that none of the Reformers of the Reformation would have believed. I recently read a 1400 page multi volume tome written by a Frechman who devoted most his life to writing it He started in 1827 and finished it in 1872. He includes many quotes from Luther, Calvin, Knox. Melancthon and Zwingli. He quotes them enough to say with assurance what they would believe and what they wouldn't. If you're interested in reading it you can download it from Project Gutenberg. The authors name is D'Abigne. It's a very interesting book.

 

[Gary K]

Again, the claim was:



Arguing that certain kinds of rudeness are bad is a different discussion.



Supra.



Reminder: "dog" was a derogatory term for Gentiles.

Jesus didn't even use that. He used the diminutive form of the word, basically "doggette," which is even more insulting!

Hmm. I don't think you understand scripture as well as you think you do, The Jews were the most bigoted people on the face of the earth. Look at their hatred of the Samaritans and other Gentiles. Jesus was teaching His disciples a lesson for when He would no longer be on earth about how they were to take the gospel to the Gentile world.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, you think that Jesus insulted a woman in the most egregious fashion based on her being a gentile?

What I think has nothing to do with it.

Jesus did, in fact, insult her.

That's all she was, not a human being?

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

Then He went on to do her the biggest favour afterwards because of her persistent faith?

I will not cast pearls before swine by trying to explain it to you.

Doesn't occur to you that there might be a lesson to be learned with that event and not just for the disciples who continually tried to shoo her away but a modern audience as well?

Of course there's a lesson to be learned.

But it's not one I'm going to explain to you, for that would be casting pearls before swine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry, JR, but you have not demonstrated that from scripture.

I DID, in fact, demonstrate Jesus being rude, offensive, even, therefore your claim:

Christianity has no room for rudeness.

Is false, because it shows that being rude is acceptable in some cases, because Jesus was rude and offensive, and He is even called "the Rock of Offense."

I don't think there is any way to demonstrate it from scripture

Except that I just did, which proves you wrong, yet again.

except to a dispensationalist;

Dispensationalism has literally nothing to do with this.

They are the only ones I know of who reas scripture with your paradigm. Anf trjat paradign only goes back to the 1830s or so from John Darby. It's recent theological paradigm that none of the Reformers of the Reformation would have believed. I recently read a 1400 page multi volume tome written by a Frechman who devoted most his life to writing it He started in 1827 and finished it in 1872. He includes many quotes from Luther, Calvin, Knox. Melancthon and Zwingli. He quotes them enough to say with assurance what they would believe and what they wouldn't. If you're interested in reading it you can download it from Project Gutenberg. The authors name is D'Abigne. It's a very interesting book.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Also, please spell check before you post... Or at the very least, slow down when you type...

 

[Tambora]

Again, that's not what is being discussed.

There has been plenty of discussion about that in this thread, including yourself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Tambora I'm tagging you here so you can be notified, since this post addresses your post #332.

You mind explaining all of that to me?

This:

Christianity has no room for rudeness.

is not the same topic as this:

"Christianity has no room for 'insulting for insulting's sake'"

It's a matter of a false dichotomy you have in your head.

You seem to believe that there are only two options, A) that rudeness, being offensive, insulting, etc., is always bad; or B) that rudeness, being offensive, insulting, etc., is always good; and you have attributed position B to me, and are arguing against position B as though that's the position I am taking, when it's not (which is a straw man).

My position is: C) that rudeness, being offensive, insulting, etc., is SOMETIMES good, and SOMETIMES bad, and that the context (like in most situations) should determine when you should be or use or do those things.

With your former, above, that "Christianity has no room for rudeness," you take position A.

I have shown !A (the "!" means "not" here, thus, "!A" = "not A"), because I showed that Jesus was rude. You've been trying to say, using "insulting for insulting's sake," that my position therefore implies B. But that's not the case. My position is C, which agrees that "insulting for insulting's sake" is bad, but also asserts and demonstrates that sometimes rudeness is good, such as when Jesus was offensive.

My position is both !A AND !B.

If you want to argue against position C, then you need to take the stance of either A or B. I have demonstrated that A is false in post #294. I have agreed with you that B is false, because I have agreed that "insulting for insulting's sake" is bad.

If you can, would you please show me what other options there are? Or if there are none, please retract this claim:

Christianity has no room for rudeness.

 

[Gary K]

I DID, in fact, demonstrate Jesus being rude, offensive, even, therefore your claim:



Is false, because it shows that being rude is acceptable in some cases, because Jesus was rude and offensive, and He is even called "the Rock of Offense."



Except that I just did, which proves you wrong, yet again.



Dispensationalism has literally nothing to do with this.



Irrelevant to this discussion.

Also, please spell check before you post... Or at the very least, slow down when you type...

I beg to differ with you. Jesus said:

Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The old testament tells us the following.

Isa 54:8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

Now what is eternal life? Knowing God. Nothing more and nothing less. Salvation is relational not theological. And who is God? A person who displays everlasting kindness.

I have no clue if you're married but did your wife when you first me her begin your aquaintance by insulting and mocking you? Is that what caused you to fall in love with her? Or would that have turned you completely off? The same goes for everyone we mock and/or insult. So does God draw people to Himself by mocking and insulting those He desires to save?

I'd say say love is the greatest motivating power in the universe.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I beg to differ with you. Jesus said:

Indeed He did.

The old testament tells us the following.

Indeed it does.

Now what is eternal life? Knowing God. Nothing more and nothing less. Salvation is relational not theological. And who is God? A person who displays everlasting kindness.

You're forgetting something:

When does God show mercy?

Answer: When someone repents.

If they have not repented, then no mercy can be shown, and thus, that "everlasting kindness" does not come into play.

I have no clue if you're married

Sadly, I'm not.

but did your wife when you first me her begin your aquaintence by insulting and mocking you? Is that what caused you to fall in love with her? Or would that have turned you completely off? The same goes for everyone we mock and/or insult. So does God draw people to Himself by mocking and insulting those He desires to save?

This begs the question that all mocking is unloving.

Which is what we've been discussing.

To answer your question:

If I met a woman who liked me, but criticized me for something that I do, even mocked me for it, that is wrong or unbecoming, I would be over the moon! Because it tells me that she has a good head on her shoulders.

I probably wouldn't like it, but if what I was doing that she mocked me for was harmful or detrimental in some way, and her mocking me made me aware of that fact, that I would change my behavior, then yes, such actions WOULD, in fact, make me fall in love with her.

Have you just never heard of the term "tough love"?

It's when you have to enforce certain, usually painful, conditions upon someone you love for their wellbeing.

Love is the commitment to the good of someone.

If you truly love someone, you are going to do everything you can to promote their wellbeing, even if that means doing something that would normally be considered unpleasant.

For example, in order to discipline their son, who has constantly disobeyed them to such a degree that it's becoming difficult for him to remain in the home, the parents might choose to establish an ultimatum: Either follow the rules of this house, or we're going to kick you out onto the street, and change the locks on our doors. "We love you, but we cannot have you disrupting the rest of the family with your behavior."

Spanking is another example of tough love, and in this discussion, would me more analogous to being rude than the above.

God chastises those whom He loves. (Hebrews 12:6)

If He didn't love the Pharisees, then He wouldn't have chastised them, let alone publicly.

If He ONLY loved the Pharisees, then He wouldn't have rebuked anyone else, but He even condemned three entire cities, because they were the cities in which He did the most miracles, yet they still didn't repent and follow Him.

I'd say say love is the greatest motivating power in the universe.

I'd argue that hunger ranks up there as well, but that's a topic for a different discussion...

Scripture says "the blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil."

It's speaking about spanking, particularly, but this can apply figuratively to rebuke.

Love is definitely a strong motivator, especially to use harsh language, in love.

 

[Gary K]

Indeed He did.



Indeed it does.



You're forgetting something:

When does God show mercy?

Answer: When someone repents.

If they have not repented, then no mercy can be shown, and thus, that "everlasting kindness" does not come into play.



Sadly, I'm not.



This begs the question that all mocking is unloving.

Which is what we've been discussing.

To answer your question:

If I met a woman who liked me, but criticized me for something that I do, even mocked me for it, that is wrong or unbecoming, I would be over the moon! Because it tells me that she has a good head on her shoulders.

I probably wouldn't like it, but if what I was doing that she mocked me for was harmful or detrimental in some way, and her mocking me made me aware of that fact, that I would change my behavior, then yes, such actions WOULD, in fact, make me fall in love with her.

Have you just never heard of the term "tough love"?

It's when you have to enforce certain, usually painful, conditions upon someone you love for their wellbeing.

Love is the commitment to the good of someone.

If you truly love someone, you are going to do everything you can to promote their wellbeing, even if that means doing something that would normally be considered unpleasant.

For example, in order to discipline their son, who has constantly disobeyed them to such a degree that it's becoming difficult for him to remain in the home, the parents might choose to establish an ultimatum: Either follow the rules of this house, or we're going to kick you out onto the street, and change the locks on our doors. "We love you, but we cannot have you disrupting the rest of the family with your behavior."

Spanking is another example of tough love, and in this discussion, would me more analogous to being rude than the above.

God chastises those whom He loves. (Hebrews 12:6)

If He didn't love the Pharisees, then He wouldn't have chastised them, let alone publicly.

If He ONLY loved the Pharisees, then He wouldn't have rebuked anyone else, but He even condemned three entire cities, because they were the cities in which He did the most miracles, yet they still didn't repent and follow Him.



I'd argue that hunger ranks up there as well, but that's a topic for a different discussion...

Scripture says "the blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil."

It's speaking about spanking, particularly, but this can apply figuratively to rebuke.

Love is definitely a strong motivator, especially to use harsh language, in love.

So you actually think mocking the non Christians here will convert them? How's that going for you? Some of them have been around for quite a few years. Converted any of them yet?

 

[Gary K]

Indeed He did.



Indeed it does.



You're forgetting something:

When does God show mercy?

Answer: When someone repents.

If they have not repented, then no mercy can be shown, and thus, that "everlasting kindness" does not come into play.



Sadly, I'm not.



This begs the question that all mocking is unloving.

Which is what we've been discussing.

To answer your question:

If I met a woman who liked me, but criticized me for something that I do, even mocked me for it, that is wrong or unbecoming, I would be over the moon! Because it tells me that she has a good head on her shoulders.

I probably wouldn't like it, but if what I was doing that she mocked me for was harmful or detrimental in some way, and her mocking me made me aware of that fact, that I would change my behavior, then yes, such actions WOULD, in fact, make me fall in love with her.

Have you just never heard of the term "tough love"?

It's when you have to enforce certain, usually painful, conditions upon someone you love for their wellbeing.

Love is the commitment to the good of someone.

If you truly love someone, you are going to do everything you can to promote their wellbeing, even if that means doing something that would normally be considered unpleasant.

For example, in order to discipline their son, who has constantly disobeyed them to such a degree that it's becoming difficult for him to remain in the home, the parents might choose to establish an ultimatum: Either follow the rules of this house, or we're going to kick you out onto the street, and change the locks on our doors. "We love you, but we cannot have you disrupting the rest of the family with your behavior."

Spanking is another example of tough love, and in this discussion, would me more analogous to being rude than the above.

God chastises those whom He loves. (Hebrews 12:6)

If He didn't love the Pharisees, then He wouldn't have chastised them, let alone publicly.

If He ONLY loved the Pharisees, then He wouldn't have rebuked anyone else, but He even condemned three entire cities, because they were the cities in which He did the most miracles, yet they still didn't repent and follow Him.



I'd argue that hunger ranks up there as well, but that's a topic for a different discussion...

Scripture says "the blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil."

It's speaking about spanking, particularly, but this can apply figuratively to rebuke.

Love is definitely a strong motivator, especially to use harsh language, in love.

If you will remember the Israelites/Jews were continually rebelling against God. Here's what God says to them.

Jer 31:2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.
Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

 

[7djengo7]

So you actually think mocking the non Christians here will convert them?

It doesn't look as though he thinks that--not from anything he's written here.

How's that going for you? Some of them have been around for quite a few years. Converted any of them yet?

So you actually think a Christian can convert a non-Christian? One of the dumbest things you can think is that you can control someone else's mind. If you want to tell us you've converted one or more non-Christians to being Christians, by all means tell us exactly of what you imagine your act of "converting" them consists. Not sorry to burst your bubble, but contrary to what you may imagine, you've never caused even one, single, solitary non-Christian to will against his/her will and become a believer. No Christian has ever done so. Christians are to preach the truth to non-Christians; Christians have no call nor ability to cause those to whom they preach the truth to believe that truth.

 

[Gary K]

It doesn't look as though he thinks that--not from anything he's written here.

So you actually think a Christian can convert a non-Christian? One of the dumbest things you can think is that you can control someone else's mind. If you want to tell us you've converted one or more non-Christians to being Christians, by all means tell us exactly of what you imagine your act of "converting" them consists. Not sorry to burst your bubble, but contrary to what you may imagine, you've never caused even one, single, solitary non-Christian to will against his/her will and become a believer. No Christian has ever done so. Christians are to preach the truth to non-Christians; Christians have no call nor ability to cause those to whom they preach the truth to believe that truth.

Actually I have brought non Christians to Christ. It's not that hard if you are kind and loving to them and ask the Holy Spirit to work on their hearts. True not every person will accept Christ as their Savior but at the very least you will have made a friend and none of us have too many friends. There is always room for one more.

 

[ok doser]

Actually I have brought non Christians to Christ. It's not that hard if you are kind and loving to them and ask the Holy Spirit to work on their hearts. True not every person will accept Christ as their Savior but at the very least you will have made a friend and none of us have too many friends. There is always room for one more.

I don't want friends who defend child trafficking

I don't want friends who are child molesting queers