Well I’ve confused A.D. again (see:Hrrrrm). I don’t see this as a debate. Because this is the type of conversation where neither of us is going to “win” without total rejection of our identities. I’ve always seen this as an opportunity to simply be better understood. So many times evangelical Christians are seen as hateful hypocrites. In time, even with people who don’t agree with me, they see I am sincerely concerned with their eternal soul and operate from pure intent. And then there’s always the hope that something I write will be used by the Holy Spirit to bring someone to repentance and faith in Christ. With AD, I don’t seem to be any closer than when he first stopped by. In his latest post AD seems to still misunderstand me, my intentions or both.
- I
do notcan not condemn anyone to hell. Only God can do that. I am only pointing out what the Bible says God will do, in the hope it may be help someone to receive the righteousness needed to enter Heaven. - I am no paragon of virtue. I maintain I am a depraved man in need of a Savior.
- The Bible is true. Are there parts that are hard to understand? Sure. But that doesn’t make it less true. Can each verse be plucked out and stood alone as a directive? Not always. Sure, some sections are literal, others are contextual, prophetic, poetic, allegorical, etc. For the most part, it’s not that difficult to discover which categories the scripture falls into. Emotions and feelings are subjective and while they do have value - its obviously not wise to use them solely as reason for forming opinion.
- I don’t have to see Brokeback Mountain to know what scripture says.
- The Bible does not ignore lesbianism.
- Yes. Sex has other uses besides procreation. Scripture points out it is proper only within the man-woman marriage relationship.
- “Even Jesus realized that” [scripture should not be taken literally] he says. Are His standards something you are willing to work within?
- Christ condemned divorce. He called it adultery. He also said lust was adultery. Surely you don’t think divorce is an added benefit to society? No matter how normal is it. Is there a difference between sexual sins? I don’t see where one sin is any more condemning than another. Our lying or blasphemy or fornication or lust or whatever all leaves us guilty before a holy God.
And in what may be the best thing AD has posted thus far:
True, God gave us a Bible. He also gave us hearts, minds, and consciences. It seems not only silly, but also irresponsible, not to use all the tools at our disposal.
God moves us to compassion for others. Our hearts/compassion is often misplaced however by our own desire to not cause even mild pain to another. The truth hurts sometimes. But if it saves someone from death eternal. We should consider it worth the minor sting.
Our mind or intellect should be used. It was with an intellectual approach I researched the prophecies and predictions of the Bible. No other book compares, The messianic prophesies alone are a statistical miracle. Proving to me and countless others for nearly 2000 years that scripture is true and there must be a God.
And AD is right. Our conscience is a gift from God. What does our conscience say? Who can really say they are good enough to go to heaven?
I’m thrilled to know he and I agree that scripture comes from God. I pray he (and any reading this) would be sure and read it daily - and they obey what they read.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Keep on sharing the gospel!
January 5th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Well, of course it’s a debate, you silly person. We’re exchanging and evaluating ideas logically (or, at least one of us is.) Debate is not an activity that often produces a “winner” or a “loser,” as anyone who’s actually engaged in academic debate is likely to tell you. (Ask any college debater if they’ve ever been on the wrong end of a 2-1 split and they’ll happily enlighten you.) But that’s neither here nor there.
Speaking of debate, though, you *are* engaging in a number of logical fallacies, which lie at the heart of our disagreement.
A good example would be the “straw man” fallacy. This is defined as constructing a weaker or inaccurate version of your opponent’s argument, and then attacking that rather than the actual argument. For instance, your assertion that I’ve somewhere called you a “hateful hypocrite.” I have no idea whether or not you’re a hypocrite. I think you’re ignorant, and I think you’re a little too willing to believe what you’re told when your own eyes, heart, and mind are clearly telling you otherwise. But hypocrite? No. Nor do I think that your beliefs are disengenuous or insincere. What’s disengenous is your insistence on being 100% correct, when compared with your skin-deep assertion of humility. Your problem isn’t dishonesty; it’s the masking of your own subjective attitudes as objective. Think on that for a while.
Anpther pertinent example is “begging the question.” What I’m challenging about your assertions is the dogged insistence that they are correct. You reply to my questions not by defending the logical or moral characteristics of those beliefs, but instead by citing more scripture. That’s circular logic. It’s fine if you don’t want to be logical, but you shouldn’t be surprised when people get annoyed or challenge you. I can sit here and proclaim all day that the sky is orange. You ask me why, and I say, “Because my mother told me so.” You argue with me, showing that, given the chemical composition of our atmosphere, there is NO WAY the sky could possibly be orange. I cite my mother again. Theology aside (especially for those you’re “witnessing” who don’t share your mythology), can’t you see how incredibly annoying that is?
On Brokeback Mountain: judging this particular book by its cover is by far the most ludricrous thing you’ve ever done. I don’t understand how you can so categorically condemn something you’ve never even bothered to examine closely. (Actually, that last sentence is the key to this entire conversation.)
The movie’s *not* propoganda. You don’t even have to watch it to figure that out- just read a plot summary and think about it. It’s not a condemnation of homosexuality either. It’s an old fashioned drama about two people who love each other but are kept apart for societal and personal reasons. It’s a universal story which is new only in the sense that it’s not something we’ve seen on screen before.
And what, exactly, is it that you object to? Sin, or the fact that you have a movie where gay people are portrayed as human beings rather than stereotypes? Since I’d be willing to bet you’ve watched plenty of violent movies without kicking up this kind of fuss, logic dictates it’d be the latter. Hm. Maybe after all your talk about following Jesus’ path of love and understanding, that *is* hypocrisy, after all. Not hateful, though. Right?
Look: I’m not disagreeing with you that Bible is true (although I think *literally true* is a different matter, but it looks like you may agree with me there.) But that doesn’t mean it’s the *only* thing that’s true. This is what I meant when I said that God gave us hearts, minds, etc.
You can dredge up a sentence out of a book that says my relationship is wrong. On this, you claim absolute authority. Because you found it in a book.
Then you have me, the person in the relationship, standing here and telling you- there’s nothing wrong with this. Whatever it is you’re reading, it’s wrong. Or at least, you’re not understanding it properly.
Does that make any sense at all?
Or, more simply: if you’re walking along a road with a map, and the map says one thing, and the road another, then the map’s wrong. Insisting otherwise is lunacy.
January 6th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Was the map inspired by the Holy Spirit of God?
Your debate is not with me, but with what scripture says. You can choose to believe the Bible or not. You can choose to believe that what you are doing Matt does not offend God. But scripture says it does - at least that’s what the Bible says. If your conscience doesn’t agree, then there is certainly nothing more I can say.