Where are the TruthSmackers in Fighting the Enemy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
:doh:

No! But the way you present it, wanting it to mean what you think it means, then it would mean that you are guilty of homosexuality. Wouldn't it?
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Lighthouse said:
You're retarded, aren't you?

As I said to Doc, the only thing that Ad Hominem rmarks prove is just how close people are to running out of things to say.

I do not "pass judgment" on homosexuals for "breaking the law." And, beside, God has already judged them, and they have condemned themselves for not believing on God's Son.

You condemn homosexuals for acting in such a manner--OK, that's at least in accord with your scripture. Your use of hateful speech is not, however, in accord with Col 4:6.

Also, I may have broken the law, but I am no longer under the law, and can therefore no longer break it.

Excuse me? James certainly says it is still possible to sin, and uses the Law to illustrate it. You are no longer under the condemnation of the Law ... but that does nothing for how you are supposed to live.

That is, unless you're disagreeing with your friend Bob Enyart...?

And I am no longer a sinner, for I have been freed from sin, by the blood of Jesus Christ!

If Christians were no longer sinners, then Paul would not have called himself the "chief" sinner.

Justin
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Lighthouse said:
:doh:

No! But the way you present it, wanting it to mean what you think it means, then it would mean that you are guilty of homosexuality. Wouldn't it?

No. It would mean solely and simply that I am a lawbreaker. :D

Justin
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Justin (Wiccan) said:
As I said to Doc, the only thing that Ad Hominem rmarks prove is just how close people are to running out of things to say.
Well, seeing as how I had more to say in the rest of my post, you just made yourself out ot be a fool.


You condemn homosexuals for acting in such a manner--OK, that's at least in accord with your scripture. Your use of hateful speech is not, however, in accord with Col 4:6.
Hateful speech? What hateful speech?


Excuse me? James certainly says it is still possible to sin, and uses the Law to illustrate it. You are no longer under the condemnation of the Law ... but that does nothing for how you are supposed to live.

That is, unless you're disagreeing with your friend Bob Enyart...?
1] I've met Bo once. I'd hardly say that we were friends.
2] Have you read 1 John 3:1-10? How about Romans 7:20? Sin is in the flesh, and the flesh is not redeemed. That which is redeemed does not sin.:nono:


If Christians were no longer sinners, then Paul would not have called himself the "chief" sinner.

Justin
See above.
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Lighthouse said:
Well, seeing as how I had more to say in the rest of my post, you just made yourself out ot be a fool.

Again with the ad hominems?

Hateful speech? What hateful speech?

Calling a homosexual a homosexual is clinically accurate, and allows you to tell them that their actions are condemned by scripture. Calling a homosexual a faggot is hateful speech, in that it is a word that only causes pain and rejection of the speaker, because it indicates that the speaker has already rejected the listener.

1] I've met Bo once. I'd hardly say that we were friends.

For someone who does not claim friendship, you sure agree with a lot of his teachings....

2] Have you read 1 John 3:1-10? How about Romans 7:20? Sin is in the flesh, and the flesh is not redeemed. That which is redeemed does not sin.:nono:

So in other words, your flesh is still capable of sin, correct?

Justin
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Again with the ad hominems?
Paraphrase: "If you don't want to be treated like a foll, don't act like one."


Calling a homosexual a homosexual is clinically accurate, and allows you to tell them that their actions are condemned by scripture. Calling a homosexual a faggot is hateful speech, in that it is a word that only causes pain and rejection of the speaker, because it indicates that the speaker has already rejected the listener.
I reserve that word for people who refuse to listen. People who are defiant, and proud of their sin.


For someone who does not claim friendship, you sure agree with a lot of his teachings....
And? I've read a couple of his books, and I agree with things he believes. But he didn't make any of them up. In fact, one of the things I agree with him on was something I started thinking about before I even knew who Bob was.


So in other words, your flesh is still capable of sin, correct?
Yeah. So?
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Lighthouse said:
Paraphrase: "If you don't want to be treated like a foll, don't act like one."

Accurate paraphrase: "If someone disagrees with Lighthouse, he calls them names like "idiot" and "troll." ;)

I reserve that word for people who refuse to listen. People who are defiant, and proud of their sin.

Lighthouse, there is a certain logic in that ... and I don't argue that this logic makes sense at first glance, or to the "worldly." My whole point is that this "logic" is not consistant with Biblical principles--indeed, if I were to couch my argument in Christian terms, I would say that this logic is of the flesh, and of the world.

And? I've read a couple of his books, and I agree with things he believes. But he didn't make any of them up. In fact, one of the things I agree with him on was something I started thinking about before I even knew who Bob was.

My purpose in calling Bob Enyart your friend was to illustrate the similarity of ideas, not to state that you two are close chums or anything of the sort.

So in other words, your flesh is still capable of sin, correct?
Yeah. So?

Lighthouse, it is my assertion--quite a serious assertion, one that leaves behind the back-and-forth jabs we've been amusing ourselves with--that such behavior as calling homosexuals "faggots" is contrary to your scriptures. Such behavior is contrary to Christian principles ... even if the Bible does not explicitly cover the use of that word.

If you want to win homosexuals to Christ, I feel that you will find a much better example in Paul's decision to be "all things to all men." That certainly does not mean that you have to approve of homosexuality if you want to win homosexuals to Christ ... but you do have to speak to them as though they were people with whom you want to have an amicable relationship, not one that is defined by the names that each calls the other.

It's the same with Wicca. I am a member of the Ex-Witch.org Forums, a Christian forum dedicated to evangelizing Wiccans, Pagans, and Occultists, and providing support for new Christians coming out of these groups. They do not go around screaming that Wiccans are worthy of death--though they do note that Wicca is condemned by the Scriptures, and they clearly state that in their beliefs unrepentant Wiccans will wind up in hell. They do not go around calling Wiccans nasty names--indeed, while not compromising their witness, they have repeatedly defended me and other Wiccans from folks who wanted to do nothing but call names.

I am saying this, Lighthouse: calling homosexuals "faggots" is hiding your lamp under the bushel of animosity. It is a violation of Col 4:6, and is therefore direct disobedience to your scriptures, but it is also an act that grossly impairs your witness. A term like that is the end of any constructive conversation with a homosexual--and if you cannot converse with him, then you cannot speak of Christ to him.

Justin
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Accurate paraphrase: "If someone disagrees with Lighthouse, he calls them names like "idiot" and "troll." ;)
I never called you a troll. I had a typo on the word "fool."


Lighthouse, there is a certain logic in that ... and I don't argue that this logic makes sense at first glance, or to the "worldly." My whole point is that this "logic" is not consistant with Biblical principles--indeed, if I were to couch my argument in Christian terms, I would say that this logic is of the flesh, and of the world.
What would you know about Christianity? You left it, because you did not agree with it. And you did not agree, because you did not understand it.


My purpose in calling Bob Enyart your friend was to illustrate the similarity of ideas, not to state that you two are close chums or anything of the sort.
And what ideas would these be?

Yes, I do respect Bob. Very much. I do not want to misrepresent how I feel about him. But I will say that when I joined TOL my feelings towards Bob were much different. You can see for yourself if you search my posts.


Lighthouse, it is my assertion--quite a serious assertion, one that leaves behind the back-and-forth jabs we've been amusing ourselves with--that such behavior as calling homosexuals "faggots" is contrary to your scriptures. Such behavior is contrary to Christian principles ... even if the Bible does not explicitly cover the use of that word.

If you want to win homosexuals to Christ, I feel that you will find a much better example in Paul's decision to be "all things to all men." That certainly does not mean that you have to approve of homosexuality if you want to win homosexuals to Christ ... but you do have to speak to them as though they were people with whom you want to have an amicable relationship, not one that is defined by the names that each calls the other.

It's the same with Wicca. I am a member of the Ex-Witch.org Forums, a Christian forum dedicated to evangelizing Wiccans, Pagans, and Occultists, and providing support for new Christians coming out of these groups. They do not go around screaming that Wiccans are worthy of death--though they do note that Wicca is condemned by the Scriptures, and they clearly state that in their beliefs unrepentant Wiccans will wind up in hell. They do not go around calling Wiccans nasty names--indeed, while not compromising their witness, they have repeatedly defended me and other Wiccans from folks who wanted to do nothing but call names.

I am saying this, Lighthouse: calling homosexuals "faggots" is hiding your lamp under the bushel of animosity. It is a violation of Col 4:6, and is therefore direct disobedience to your scriptures, but it is also an act that grossly impairs your witness. A term like that is the end of any constructive conversation with a homosexual--and if you cannot converse with him, then you cannot speak of Christ to him.

Justin
Then Jesus was going against Colossians 4:6 when He called people names. When he used spiteful terms, such as; hypocrite, brood of vipers, sons of hell, children of Satan, satan, dog, etc., etc.

But, as we all know, Jesus did not contradict such ideas. For, as you can plainly see above, His speech was quite seasoned with salt.;)

So, if someone wants to spit in the face of God, with no regard for the blood shed on the cross, then they are what they are. And no amount of being nice is going to change a damn thing. So the only thing left is to let them know that they have chosen, and let them be the disgusting wickedness that they are.
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Lighthouse said:
I never called you a troll. I had a typo on the word "fool."

:chuckle: To tell the truth, I didn't know which word you wanted there, but heck, "typos happen."

What would you know about Christianity? You left it, because you did not agree with it. And you did not agree, because you did not understand it.

Lighthouse ... that's a discussion for a different time. Let us simply say that you might be surprised at what I do and do not understand about Christianity.

So, if someone wants to spit in the face of God, with no regard for the blood shed on the cross, then they are what they are. And no amount of being nice is going to change a damn thing. So the only thing left is to let them know that they have chosen, and let them be the disgusting wickedness that they are.

Then we disagree ... and that disagreement is quite fundamental.

However, there will be much we agree on, and much we disagree on. Yes, I feel you are acting contrary to your scriptures, and I know you are acting contrary to my understanding of right and wrong ... but I have made my opinions clear, as have you.

However, I do not "agree to disagree," and I reserve the right to bring this topic up again (as, I assume, you do). ;)

Justin
 

avatar382

New member
Highway to Hell
----------------------------------------------
Living easy, living free
Season ticket on a one-way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
Don't need reason, don't need rhyme
Ain't nothing I would rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too

I'm on the highway to hell

No stop signs, speed limit
Nobody's gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody's gonna mess me round
Hey Satan, payin' my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey Momma, look at me
I'm on my way to the promised land

I'm on the highway to hell
(Don't stop me)

And I'm going down, all the way down
I'm on the highway to hell

:singer: :drum: :guitar: :guitar:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Justin (Wiccan) said:
:chuckle: To tell the truth, I didn't know which word you wanted there, but heck, "typos happen."
It was supposed to be the word "fool."


Lighthouse ... that's a discussion for a different time. Let us simply say that you might be surprised at what I do and do not understand about Christianity.
I believe that you know what you were taught, when you were going to church.


Then we disagree ... and that disagreement is quite fundamental.

However, there will be much we agree on, and much we disagree on. Yes, I feel you are acting contrary to your scriptures, and I know you are acting contrary to my understanding of right and wrong ... but I have made my opinions clear, as have you.

However, I do not "agree to disagree," and I reserve the right to bring this topic up again (as, I assume, you do). ;)

Justin
I agree that I am acting contrary to what you think Scripture states. And you're idea of rigth and wrong aer precisely that, youridea.

As far as the last statement, I say, "quite."
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Agape4Robin said:
Does being a truthsmacker mean that you have to be rude or abrasive?
I think it means you have to be a Christian version of the Rock, and layeth the smacketh down. Or perhaps like Austin. Drive right into the Smackdown hotel, check into room 316, and burn that sum***** to the ground!
 

Agape4Robin

Member
Caledvwlch said:
I think it means you have to be a Christian version of the Rock, and layeth the smacketh down. Or perhaps like Austin. Drive right into the Smackdown hotel, check into room 316, and burn that sum***** to the ground!
Oh yeah....I can smell it! :think: :chuckle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top