Letter to Ethan
bwme...@toast.net
Ethan;
Jean told me that you are embarking on some sort of "read the
Bible through" program.
I don't know if anyone has replied to you on this, but please
consider: that is a horrible mistake!
It's not the way God tells us to take in His Word; it will be mostly
hours of wasted time, boredom, and decreasing interest in and respect
for the Holy Scriptures, in your heart, contributing ultimately
actually to unbelief, the opposite of what the Scriptures are given
for.
"Every Scripture (word, jot, and tittle) is profitable" -2 Timothy 3:
15. But you will not get that profit by "reading the Bible through."
Take a look at 1 Chronicles 1:1-10. Read it through. Wasn't that a
blessing!? The honest answer is something more than just "no!"
Did you learn a thing from it? The honest answer is "no," isn't it?
Did you please God by reading those verses? "Thou has magnified Thy
Word above Thy Name" --- Psalm 138:2. When we trample the Jewels of
His perfect Word in the mud as we walk over them, without the
slightest notion of what it is that we are walking on, that is the
same thing that the Lord was referring to when He said "cast not thy
pearls before the swine . . ." "God hath no pleasure in fools" - --
Ecc. 5:4.
I'm not meaning to insult you, Ethan: I have done the same thing (or
at least started to), and so have more than one of the men whom I
consider the greatest pastors I ever had. But it's a BAD mistake,
even if a common one. It will actually HINDER you from getting into
the Word almost as much as going after the pleasures of sin (and
doing this certainly isn't pleasure, at all! Like reading the
"education" books I had to read to get my minor degree, and right
now, my flight instructor renewal) will.
When you're getting the Word, as God intends for you to do, you will
exclaim "OH, HOW I LOVE THY WORD! --- It is my MEDITATION day and
night!" Psalm 119:97.
But did you know that every word in those 10 verses above is of great
value? A Jewel of Knowledge, that is profitable and necessary to
know? That is what 2 Timothy 3:15 tells us; and I believe it. The
thing is that you are missing out on every last bit of that value by
merely reading over it.
Vss. 1-5 are essential knowledge proving that Evolution being taught
in our schools is atheism and stupid. Many, many church "pastors"
don't know that.
Vs. 5 is essential knowledge to understand Ezekiel 38, one of the key
and central passages of all Bible Prophecy, whose fulfilment is just
around the corner, today.
I had to sit and listen to a "pastor" (this has happened to me twice)
giving a sermon on Nehemiah 2. It was all "homiletic" (an
abomination to me --- glorifying man, and missing the point of
Scripture) --- eulogizing the character of Nehemiah. Not once did
he mention (because he was obviously oblivious to what is really in
that chapter) that this chapter is the key to understanding the
"Prophecy of the 70 Weeks," probably the most spectacular and
beautiful Prophecy in all the Bible, and the most central to
understanding ALL Bible Prophecy. I wanted to scream! But of course,
I couldn't, in a typical "church," where fellowship and sharing
Spiritual knowledge in the Word are forbidden.
Is a dictionary of value? It certainly is, TO A SCHOLAR. Not nearly
the value of the Bible, of course. How does that scholar get any
value out of a dictionary? Does he start with "A" and commence
reading it through? It's true that many "scholars" are stupid (as
one soon learns when he studies the Bible, and reads how "scholars"
handle passages), but NONE of them are that stupid.
What he does is to SEARCH it for items of knowledge he comes across
needing to look up, in his various other studies. "SEARCH the
Scriptures, "the Lord said. "But these [Berean Jews] were more
NOBLE than those Jews of Thessalonika, in that they received the
teaching of Paul with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED the
Scriptures every day, whether those things were so." --- Acts 17:11-
12. "Therefore, many of the Berean Jews Believed!!" [Incidentally,
this passage ought to give any hyper-calvinist some real problems.
It's one of the reasons I'm only 99.9% calvinist!]
THAT is how to study the Bible!
It is to be studied TOPICALLY. A book, here, is needed to stress,
and make clear that point.
What TOPICS are of prime importance to study?
The first, and all important topic is to know we are SAVED: that is,
that we have Eternal Life. Which means, the place to start, for an
unbeliever, is probably the Gospel of John, rather than Genesis,
because God has told us, "Many other things Jesus did, WHICH ARE NOT
WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK (and there's an important reason, following:)
But these are [selected] that ye might BELIEVE, and believing, have
Eternal Life." --- John 20:30-31.
And, for Believers (John is the only Book specifically addressed to
unbelievers), God tells us of three utmost important TOPICS in
Romans 16: 25 ---
1. The Gospel (the doctrine of how God saves men). 2. The Mystery
(the things God formerly kept secret, but has now revealed.) 3. The
Prophetic Writings (the things that God formerly revealed).
And we might include another all important Topic --- what we call
"that Blessed Hope" [Titus 2:11], which God tells all of us to
thereby exhort one another --- 1 Thessalonians 4:18.
These topics are basic and essential to "living the Christian Life,"
today, and having a good outcome before the Judgment Seat of Christ
when we appear before Him and before the Father. 1 Thess. 3:13; 1
Cor. 6, Romans 16:25.
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
theologynut
On Oct 2, 7:14=A0am, bwmey...@toast.net wrote:
> Ethan;
>
> Jean told me that you are embarking on some sort of "read the
> Bible through" program.
>
> I don't know if anyone has replied to you on this, but please
> consider: that is a horrible mistake!
>
> It's not the way God tells us to take in His Word; it will be mostly
> hours of wasted time, boredom, and decreasing interest in and respect
> for the Holy Scriptures, in your heart, contributing ultimately
> actually to unbelief, the opposite of what the Scriptures are given
>
> "Every Scripture (word, jot, and tittle) is profitable" -2 Timothy 3:
> 15. But you will not get that profit by "reading the Bible through."
>
> blessing!? The honest answer is something more than just "no!"
>
> Did you learn a thing from it? The honest answer is "no," isn't it?
>
> Did you please God by reading those verses? "Thou has magnified Thy
> His perfect Word in the mud as we walk over them, without the
> slightest notion of what it is that we are walking on, that is the
> same thing that the Lord was referring to when He said "cast not thy
> pearls before the swine . . ." "God hath no pleasure in fools" - --
> Ecc. 5:4.
>
> I'm not meaning to insult you, Ethan: I have done the same thing (or
> at least started to), and so have more than one of the men whom I
> even if a common one. =A0It will actually HINDER you from getting into
> the Word almost as much as going after the pleasures of sin (and
> doing this certainly isn't pleasure, at all! Like reading the
> "education" books I had to read to get my minor degree, and right
>
> When you're getting the Word, as God intends for you to do, you will
> exclaim "OH, HOW I LOVE THY WORD! --- It is my MEDITATION day and
> night!" Psalm 119:97.
>
> But did you know that every word in those 10 verses above is of great
> value? A Jewel of Knowledge, that is profitable and necessary to
> know? That is what 2 Timothy 3:15 tells us; and I believe it. The
> thing is that you are missing out on every last bit of that value by
> merely reading over it.
>
> Vss. 1-5 are essential knowledge proving that Evolution being taught
> don't know that.
>
> Vs. 5 is essential knowledge to understand Ezekiel 38, one of the key
> and central passages of all Bible Prophecy, whose fulfilment is just
> around the corner, today.
>
> I had to sit and listen to a "pastor" (this has happened to me twice)
> giving a sermon on Nehemiah 2. It was all "homiletic" (an
> abomination to me --- glorifying man, and missing the point of
> he mention (because he was obviously oblivious to what is really in
> that chapter) that this chapter is the key to understanding the
> "Prophecy of the 70 Weeks," probably the most spectacular and
> beautiful Prophecy in all the Bible, and the most central to
> I couldn't, in a typical "church," where fellowship and sharing
> Spiritual knowledge in the Word are forbidden.
>
> the value of the Bible, of course. How does that scholar get any
> value out of a dictionary? Does he start with "A" and commence
> reading it through? It's true that many "scholars" are stupid (as
> one soon learns when he studies the Bible, and reads how "scholars"
> handle passages), but NONE of them are that stupid.
>
> What he does is to SEARCH it for items of knowledge he comes across
> Scriptures, "the Lord said. =A0"But these [Berean Jews] were more
> NOBLE than those Jews of Thessalonika, in that they received the
> teaching of Paul with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED the
> Scriptures every day, whether those things were so." --- Acts 17:11-
> this passage ought to give any hyper-calvinist some real problems.
> It's one of the reasons I'm only 99.9% calvinist!]
>
> THAT is how to study the Bible!
>
> and make clear that point.
>
> What TOPICS are of prime importance to study?
>
> The first, and all important topic is to know we are SAVED: that is,
> unbeliever, is probably the Gospel of John, rather than Genesis,
> because God has told us, "Many other things Jesus did, WHICH ARE NOT
> WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK (and there's an important reason, following:)
> But these are [selected] that ye might BELIEVE, and believing, have
> Eternal Life." --- John 20:30-31.
>
> And, for Believers (John is the only Book specifically addressed to
> unbelievers), God tells us of three utmost important TOPICS in
> Romans 16: 25 ---
>
> (the things God formerly kept secret, but has now revealed.) 3. The
> Prophetic Writings (the things that God formerly revealed).
>
> And we might include another all important Topic --- what we call
> "that Blessed Hope" [Titus 2:11], which God tells all of us to
> thereby exhort one another --- 1 Thessalonians 4:18.
>
> These topics are basic and essential to "living the Christian Life,"
> today, and having a good outcome before the Judgment Seat of Christ
> when we appear before Him and before the Father. 1 Thess. 3:13; 1
> Cor. 6, Romans 16:25.
>
> Bob
> Christ Died to Save You
>
tor. )))
> ((( =A0 Readhttp://srcbs.orgfor details about this group BEFORE you post.=
=A0 )))
It's crucial, when approaching the Bible for the first time, to know
what is important and what is not. But don't take just anyone's word
for what IS important. There are many guidebooks out there to
facilitate your understanding, and as many points of view.
Soteriology or theology about salvation is a late 18th century Pietist
concern. The meaning of salvation will vary according to the teller--
it could mean participation in ritual, church attendance, morality, or
simply belief. The Bible has a number of theologies about salvation.
John 3:16 would only require belief, the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke) advocate "seek first the kingdom AND its righteousness," the
book of James insists that "faith without works is dead." James also
goes on to say that 'true religion is helping the widow and the
orphan," whereas many insist that one must undergo certain rituals.
That so many fundamentalists prioritize Biblical verses related to
creation and evolution is a recent religio-political controversy.
They are of the debatable opinion that creationism cannot be
reconciled with evolution. Bart Ehramn has edited a fantastic book
about the Bible called "The Bible Through the Ages". It gives you
short illustrated descriptions of each Bible book and why it was
chosen as a standard or "canon" of what was most edifying and
profitable. Some Bible books that were included in the canon were not
without a little controversy. Many debated the moral value of "Song
of Solomon" and "Revelation". The former was thought to be too erotic
and the latter too violent. The book also touches on the main
theological theories about the origin and authors of Biblical books,
as well as books that were contemporaneous but apocryphal (not canon
but edifying). There are beautiful illustrations of hand-scripted
illuminated Bibles from the Middle Ages as well as a history of the
Torah and Talmud. Remember, more than half of the Bible is also the
sacred literature of the Jews. Getting a feel for the historical
timeline of Bible books and translations is crucial. In the Old
Testament, the books of the law are followed by the major and minor
prophets, and last of all, come the writings. Paul's letters precede
the gospels historically and the pastoral letters (Titus and Timothy)
are believed to have been written after a certain period of church
development. All of the books of the New Testament were written by
Greek Jews who quoted from the Greek Septuagint. The Septuagint was
the translation of Hebrew scriptures that the Jews living outside of
Judea read. Josephus maintains that 1/10th of the population of the
roman empire was Jewish and every major metropolis had its
synahgogue. Rome had many synagogues. It's important to remember:
Absolutely no one can tell you how to interpret a verse. That is a
subjective judgment for you alone to make.
Bart Goddard
bwme...@toast.net wrote in news:ACCD4475-C459-618F-BF35-8D9BD0366AA0
@art.srcbs.org:
> I don't know if anyone has replied to you on this, but please
> consider: that is a horrible mistake!
The "horrible mistake" here is the one made by all flavors
of the American National Religion: The deluded attempt to
control the use of the Word.
1. God doesn't need your help massaging His message and
making it palitable.
2. Scripture is not deficient in some fashion that it
needs to be spooned out by a college of cardinals or
carefully watered down and edited by neo-evangelical
nutjobs who think they know better than the Holy Spirit.
3. People aren't as dumb you think they are.
So your attitude here insults God, His Word and His
listeners all in one fell swoop.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Bart Goddard
theologynut <sharonkath...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:63E5F072-51BC-
5AF0-9AA4-3...@art.srcbs.org:
> It's crucial, when approaching the Bible for the first time, to know
> what is important and what is not. But don't take just anyone's word
> for what IS important. There are many guidebooks out there to
> facilitate your understanding,
This has to be your silliest post yet. "Don't take just anyone's word"
and yet "Get a guidebook." That blatant self-contradiction ought to
convince any stragglers who were not yet sure of whether you have
anything sensible to say. I don't think I've ever seen anyone
nail himself in his own coffin so efficiently.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Michael Rhodes
> The meaning of salvation will vary according to the teller--
>it could mean participation in ritual, church attendance, morality, or
>simply belief.
According to the teller?
It means submission to the will of God and keeping your robes clean,
and enduring to the end. Those with character (the kind of people one
would want as neighbors) will have no difficulty accepting this as
truth, while knowing the difficulty would be in the doing. Christ
suffered, and warned us of persecution. Repentance, changing one's
ways of doing things, can be a real war; with demons and those around
you.
The Pauline principle of 'grace thru faith' (told to us really, really
hard, 'cause it's obviously such nonsense) would want to free us from
that need of character. The notion of being judged by grace (faith
alone) is overt insanity. But it seems to have 'massaged' the word of
God to something more palatable to those like Goddard.
There are some commandments some refuse to obey, as did Paul. So they
must have 'grace'. The will have it, at any cost; including
misrepresenting the argument.
Have I misrepresented the argument?
--
Michael
bwme...@toast.net
>The "horrible mistake" here is the one made by all flavors
>of the American National Religion:
I am not a member of the American National Religion. I don't even
know what it is -- and neither do you. Whatever it is has nothing
whatsoever to do with my post. Proverbs 18:13.
>The deluded attempt to
>control the use of the Word.
No; it is very obvious, if you read my post, that what I am attempting
to do is help a young Christian to get the most out of God's Word. And
what I gave him was based mainly on God's Word, not my own. Proverbs
18:13.
What I wrote had nothing whatsoever with attempting to control the use
of the Word, which you, as in this present case, almost never refer
to. And you repeatedly attack everyone who does.
>1. God doesn't need your help massaging His message and
>making it palitable.
I never said He did. That is another of your proud blasphemies
against His Children (Matthew 5:11). But as a matter of fact, God
DOES say 2 Tim. 4:1-4, Jonah 3:2, Romans 10:14-15, Jude 3-,
Why do you not obey these things? Oh, you DO rightly --- and strongly
--- emphasize salvation by grace alone, and the Deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ. But that's about it: everything else that you give
seems to be human philosophy, religion, pride, and blasphemy of God's
Children. And the associated denial of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9).
The fact that God gives us these instructions to obey does not imply
that He NEEDS us to obey them. Why don't YOU obey them?
And He says that all who so much as desire to obey Him will be the
targets of blasphemy and persecution. By "religious" people who don't
really know Him --- Matthew 5:11, John 16:1-4, Mt. 10:25 --- as you
did to Frank,
Bart, this is serious. I think you really ought to consider what camp
you are really in. "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith"
--- 2 Cor. 13:5. "Ye are not My sheep --- My sheep HEAR MY VOICE"
"If they speak not according to this Word, is is because there is no
light in them." "Six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are
abomination to Him: a proud look . . ." "But to this man will I look:
even to him that is of a contrite spirit and trembleth at My Word."
If you really believe the doctrines I commended you for above, then
you are really saved, because no unbeliever does. But the things in
the last paragraph bring that into question.
All the rest of your post is irrelevant-to-my-post-blasphemy in the
same ilk and mentality level as when called me a JW.
Proverbs 18:13.
>Bart
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
bwme...@toast.net
>It's crucial, when approaching the Bible for the first time, to know
>what is important and what is not.
1. But God, the Author of the Bible [!!!] tells us that every
Scripture is profitable.
2. So how would we know, beforehand, "what is not?"
This would assume that before we even read it we wouldn't need to read
it, since we already "know what's there" before we read it.
> But don't take just anyone's word
>for what IS important. There are many guidebooks out there to
>facilitate your understanding, and as many points of view.
The use of all which, obviously, is "taking just anyone's word for
what IS important."
And pre-deciding "what is the best point of view," out of the many.
>Soteriology or theology about salvation is a late 18th century Pietist
>concern.
John and Paul wrote THOROUGHLY on it, taken from the OT and the Words
of the Lord Jesus, as well as from the Mystery revealed to Paul.
Your admired authors like to claim "a late date" for everything in the
Bible, but pushing it to the "late 18th century" should be a little
much, even for you!
>The meaning of salvation will vary according to the teller--
I like John 5:24 and 3:16, amongst all the "tellers." Revelation 20:15
isn't bad, either.
>it could mean participation in ritual, church attendance, morality, or
>simply belief.
God, and He should know, says simply belief.
>The Bible has a number of theologies about salvation.
>John 3:16 would only require belief, the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and
>Luke) advocate "seek first the kingdom AND its righteousness,"
All of these have the same Author; and therefore to claim they are
teaching contradictions to one another is not only an intellectual
blunder, but far worse, blasphemy of that Author.
> the
>book of James insists that "faith without works is dead."
As above. So much like error is to assume that all these passages are
talking about how to be saved. There is only one Book in the Bible
that states that as its objective; and it is important to realize that
many other passages are not speaking of that subject, but are
exhortations given to those who ARE saved.
SCRIPTURE CANNOT, AND DOES NOT, CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. If John 5:24
says that any person who believes, as does John 3:16, IS SAVED, then
any passage you point to that seems to say otherwise is a passage you
are not understanding, in the slightest.
>That so many fundamentalists prioritize Biblical verses related to
>creation and evolution is a recent religio-political controversy.
You should read "The Long War Agains God" by Dr. Henry Morris.
>They are of the debatable opinion that creationism cannot be
>reconciled with evolution.
Exodus 20:11 --- for in six days God made the Heavens and the Earth
and all that is therein . . ."
NO EVOLUTIONIST BELIEVES THAT.
And, "If they HEAR not Moses and the Prophets" (which NO evolutionist
does), "they will not believe . . ." With the result that they will
suffer the same fate (damnation) that the rich man's brothers are
headed for, by the context.
> Many debated the moral value of "Song
>of Solomon" and "Revelation". The former was thought to be too erotic
>and the latter too violent.
I confess to utter ignorance about the value of Song of Solomon, so
far (that it DOES HAVE value, I'm not ignorant of --- 2 Tim. 3:16).
But Song of Solomon would be another point of mine, along with the
rest of my post, to a young Christian, as with 1 Chronicles 1-9. I
don't mean he should avoid the Book, as I was misunderstood as
sayingl.
But you seem to be confusing value with authenticity, here.
The historical objections to Revelation stemmed from, as they do
today, the failure to recognize that Revelation is PROPHECY.
For example, critics claimed Revelation could not be canonical, since
It refers to a "church at Thyatira," where the ancients objected that
there was never any such church at the time of John's writings.
But, as one of the Believers stated, in effect, "Yes, there never was!
But there is going to be, at the time the Lord is telling of, in
Revelation."
Similarly that the Bible teaches that today, God recognizes no
differenct between Jew and Gentile. But He is going to, according to
Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, as well as in all other Prophecy, as well.
>It's important to remember:
>Absolutely no one can tell you how to interpret a verse. That is a
>subjective judgment for you alone to make.
God disagrees, again, with you:
1 Corinthians 2:14 --- " . . . for THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED"
and "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."
--- Romans 8:9
As I've said before, in every reply to you: your problem is that you
see everything humanistically; the Bible is of men; not the Revelation
of God. This is atheism; and atheism has no comprehension of the the
things of God:
John 1:5 And the light shines in darkness; AND THE DARKNESS
COMPREHENDED IT NOT.
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
Bart Goddard
Michael Rhodes <no...@here.net> wrote in
news:057FA677-192A-16E7...@art.srcbs.org:
> It means submission to the will of God and keeping your robes clean,
> and enduring to the end. Those with character (the kind of people one
> would want as neighbors) will have no difficulty accepting this as
> truth, while knowing the difficulty would be in the doing.
Jesus said "My yoke is light." So we wonder where you get
your theology (not really.)
> The Pauline principle of 'grace thru faith' (told to us really, really
> hard, 'cause it's obviously such nonsense)
The Gospel is a stumbling block....
> There are some commandments some refuse to obey, as did Paul. So they
> must have 'grace'. The will have it, at any cost; including
> misrepresenting the argument.
>
> Have I misrepresented the argument?
Yes.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Bart Goddard
bwme...@toast.net wrote in
news:070C4E13-7C9B-8D03...@art.srcbs.org:
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 06:54:44 -0500 (CDT), Bart Goddard
> <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>The "horrible mistake" here is the one made by all flavors
>>of the American National Religion:
>
> I am not a member of the American National Religion. I don't even
> know what it is -- and neither do you.
Of course you are and of course I do. Oprah hosted a big gathering
of it just after 9/11 in Yankee Stadium. ELCA just declared
altar fellowship with the United Methodists, in spite of the
fact that it ought to be impossible by definition.
And what unites these people? A firm belief in the tenets
of the American National Religion: 1. All religions are
equally valid, 2. It's man's job to save man. 3. Recognizing
sin is "hate."
>>The deluded attempt to
>>control the use of the Word.
>
> No; it is very obvious, if you read my post, that what I am attempting
> to do is help a young Christian to get the most out of God's Word.
By telling him not to read the Bible....
> What I wrote had nothing whatsoever with attempting to control the use
> of the Word,
By telling him that he was doing it wrong? Of course you're
trying to control it. You set yourself up as judge of
Scriptures.
>>1. God doesn't need your help massaging His message and
>>making it palitable.
>
> I never said He did. That is another of your proud blasphemies
> against His Children (Matthew 5:11).
You're the blasphemer. You're the one who can't trust the
Holy Spirit, and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is
unforgivable.
> Oh, you DO rightly --- and strongly
> --- emphasize salvation by grace alone, and the Deity of the Lord
> Jesus Christ. But that's about it:
That's how we can tell you're a Pharisee. The Gospel is
"about it" to you, all the works you list later is what's
really important to you.
> The fact that God gives us these instructions to obey does not imply
> that He NEEDS us to obey them. Why don't YOU obey them?
Same reason you don't. Regardless, it's irrelevant. But this
is what Satan always does when the argument goes against him,
he starts accusing. Guilt can be a great motivator, but it
won't work too well against a confessional Lutheran.
> And He says that all who so much as desire to obey Him will be the
> targets of blasphemy and persecution.
We call this the "error of the converse" in logic. It's a very
bad, very elementary error.
> Bart, this is serious. I think you really ought to consider what camp
> you are really in. "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith"
More of the same. Bottom line: It began in Eden, with "Did God
really say...?" and it continues today "Don't read the Bible like
that!" Satan's only strategy is to obfuscate the Word. You maybe
you ought to examine yourself and see which camp YOU'RE in.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
bwme...@toast.net
>> I am not a member of the American National Religion. I don't even
>> know what it is -- and neither do you.
>
>Of course you are and of course I do. Oprah hosted a big gathering
>of it just after 9/11 in Yankee Stadium. ELCA just declared
>altar fellowship with the United Methodists, in spite of the
>fact that it ought to be impossible by definition.
>
>And what unites these people? A firm belief in the tenets
>of the American National Religion: 1. All religions are
>equally valid, 2. It's man's job to save man. 3. Recognizing
>sin is "hate."
Let any interested party note that
1. EVERY accusation in this post is utterly false, as the opening
above typify. I have no part whatsoever with, and despise, all the
above entities and have repeatedly opposed the first 2 of the above
"tenets" in my posts FOR YEARS. I HATE religion, which crucified our
Lord, bans the Bible, murders Jews and Christians, and is typified by
this post. But that doesn't imply the absurd conclusion of #3.
The entire set of accusations in this post is of the same mentality as
when he called me a JW. THAT IS STUPID! As was pointed out by another
of his targets. And it sets the pace of everything else.
2. It is devoid of Scripture, and of reference to Scripture Truth, as
his posts most often are.
BTW, to anyone above the mentality of a moron, and who READS my post
it will be very clear that I didn't tell Ethan "not to read the
Bible." That is either moronic, or "hate," or both. I advised Ethan
TO STUDY THE BIBLE --- TOPICALLY. Which is what Scripture advocates,
as I showed.
I don't want to, and I'm not called to, defend myself against attacks,
even if they were sensible ones. I feel foolish doing so here.
Especially when it's so pointless and needless, really.
It's time to end it with him, because all he does nowadays is attack.
He doesn't present Bible Truth, almost ever. Maybe there's grounds
here for defending Frank's methods, is there not? (Except that those
methods remain disobedient to Peter 3:16).
The Scripture says "blessed are you, when men shall persecute you, and
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for great is your reward
in Heaven."
Praise the Lord! And His Word!
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
bwme...@toast.net
>> The Pauline principle of 'grace thru faith' (told to us really, really
>> hard, 'cause it's obviously such nonsense)
>
>The Gospel is a stumbling block....
Very good!
Bob
Bart Goddard
bwme...@toast.net wrote in
news:DF060342-CA3B-6CF2...@art.srcbs.org:
>>And what unites these people? A firm belief in the tenets
>>of the American National Religion: 1. All religions are
>>equally valid, 2. It's man's job to save man. 3. Recognizing
>>sin is "hate."
>
> Let any interested party note that
>
> 1. EVERY accusation in this post is utterly false,
I don't think of them as "accusations", but just observations.
And they're hardly false:
> I HATE religion,
Symptomatic of the "equally valid" camp. Their "tolerance
and unity" springs from their dispising of anyone who thinks
that one thing is right and another wrong. The insistence on
"tolerance and unity" is a gross belittling of all. You're
one with them, whether you like it or not.
> The entire set of accusations in this post is of the same mentality as
> when he called me a JW. THAT IS STUPID! As was pointed out by another
> of his targets.
I sure wish folks would visit a dictionary before they used
words like "mentality." It'd make communication so much easier.
> 2. It is devoid of Scripture, and of reference to Scripture Truth, as
> his posts most often are.
Now this is a false accusation. Thanks for the example.
It's funny that a person who never quotes actual Scripture,
but only says things like "Luke 12", "Acts 2", is accusing
the guy who quotes the actual words as posting "devoid of
Scripture.
> BTW, to anyone above the mentality of a moron, and who READS my post
> it will be very clear that I didn't tell Ethan "not to read the
> Bible." That is either moronic, or "hate," or both. I advised Ethan
> TO STUDY THE BIBLE --- TOPICALLY.
I'm well above the moron level, and I did read your post.
And your response to Ethans intent to read the Bible
through was "That would be a horrible mistake." You can
try to spin it as more sane than it was, but the words
are there for all to see. It's one of the wonderful things
about USENET.
> I don't want to, and I'm not called to, defend myself against attacks,
> even if they were sensible ones. I feel foolish doing so here.
You call it an "attack" if it makes you feel better. But
it might be wiser for you to consider the points.
> The Scripture says "blessed are you, when men shall persecute you,
Says the guy who "hates religion." Nice.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Bob Felts
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> bwme...@toast.net wrote in
> news:DF060342-CA3B-6CF2...@art.srcbs.org:
>
[...]
>
>
> > The Scripture says "blessed are you, when men shall persecute you,
Ah, yes, the "they laughed at Einstein!" defense.
>
> Says the guy who "hates religion." Nice.
>
What he doesn't get is the "they also laughed at Bozo the clown"
response.
He isn't being "persecuted" because of Jesus; he's being "persecuted"
because his arguments, as you so rightly point out, are self-refuting.