For those wondering about me...

brianb said:
Ransom said:
brianb said:
Is it just me or is it a little annoying for someone without an IT background to use the word binary?  The LGBTQ+ crowd uses it a lot. I guess it's to make them seem smart.

"Binary" is an adjective for consisting of or being marked by two parts. It isn't exclusive to IT--think of a binary star, or a binary explosive. Even the IT industry uses the term "binary" in multiple ways: binary number, binary operator, binary tree, etc.

Human beings are mammals, so we're sexually dimorphic: the male and the female of the species are physically different. Hence there is a genuine "gender binary," with a tiny set of outliers (those who are intersex).

Those are all traditional uses of the word. Transgendered people have been around for decades in my lifetime (and well before that) and I've never heard them use the word nonbinary to refer to themselves until the 2010's when they wanted to add more genders and even change the meaning of the words they, them and their when they could just invent a new word (actually they have done that) or state that they are he/she or she/he.

Like you said, there have been knowledge of multiple genders for centuries. Even ancient Talmud recognized 8 different genders:

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the-6-genders-of-the-talmud

Others counter with only 6:

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/37225?lang=bi

Regardless, transgender is not some new-fangele ideal and was accepted by Jewish people in Jesus' day.

To add descriptive words as a label, particularly to connect with current culture as it evolves, is not an uncommon practice.
 
So, when people go in for a gender reassignment surgery, why are they only given TWO options?
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
So, when people go in for a gender reassignment surgery, why are they only given TWO options?

Actually, they are only given one option.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
brianb said:
Ransom said:
brianb said:
Is it just me or is it a little annoying for someone without an IT background to use the word binary?  The LGBTQ+ crowd uses it a lot. I guess it's to make them seem smart.

"Binary" is an adjective for consisting of or being marked by two parts. It isn't exclusive to IT--think of a binary star, or a binary explosive. Even the IT industry uses the term "binary" in multiple ways: binary number, binary operator, binary tree, etc.

Human beings are mammals, so we're sexually dimorphic: the male and the female of the species are physically different. Hence there is a genuine "gender binary," with a tiny set of outliers (those who are intersex).

Those are all traditional uses of the word. Transgendered people have been around for decades in my lifetime (and well before that) and I've never heard them use the word nonbinary to refer to themselves until the 2010's when they wanted to add more genders and even change the meaning of the words they, them and their when they could just invent a new word (actually they have done that) or state that they are he/she or she/he.

Like you said, there have been knowledge of multiple genders for centuries. Even ancient Talmud recognized 8 different genders:

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the-6-genders-of-the-talmud

Others counter with only 6:

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/37225?lang=bi

Regardless, transgender is not some new-fangele ideal and was accepted by Jewish people in Jesus' day.

To add descriptive words as a label, particularly to connect with current culture as it evolves, is not an uncommon practice.

That like so much of what you claim about Scripture is a total CROCK! The Talmud did no such thing...and most ?Jews? Or believe no such thing.
It I must admit your posting links to idiot websites to proof your inane, ?Hyles did a number on me? ramblings almost causes me to lose all semblance of intellectual honesty and common sense and believe your idiocy.
Hyles did a number on you.... ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_i_heard_the_talmud_says_there_are_six_genders.





 
Tarheel Baptist said:
That like so much of what you claim about Scripture is a total CROCK! The Talmud did no such thing...and most ?Jews? Or believe no such thing.
It I must admit your posting links to idiot websites to proof your inane, ?Hyles did a number on me? ramblings almost causes me to lose all semblance of intellectual honesty and common sense and believe your idiocy.
Hyles did a number on you.... ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_i_heard_the_talmud_says_there_are_six_genders.

Does everyone know Tarheel is my favorite?
 
Twisted said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
That like so much of what you claim about Scripture is a total CROCK! The Talmud did no such thing...and most ?Jews? Or believe no such thing.
It I must admit your posting links to idiot websites to proof your inane, ?Hyles did a number on me? ramblings almost causes me to lose all semblance of intellectual honesty and common sense and believe your idiocy.
Hyles did a number on you.... ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_i_heard_the_talmud_says_there_are_six_genders.

Does everyone know Tarheel is my favorite?

That woke SBC guy.  :D
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Smellin Coffee said:
brianb said:
Ransom said:
brianb said:
Is it just me or is it a little annoying for someone without an IT background to use the word binary?  The LGBTQ+ crowd uses it a lot. I guess it's to make them seem smart.

"Binary" is an adjective for consisting of or being marked by two parts. It isn't exclusive to IT--think of a binary star, or a binary explosive. Even the IT industry uses the term "binary" in multiple ways: binary number, binary operator, binary tree, etc.

Human beings are mammals, so we're sexually dimorphic: the male and the female of the species are physically different. Hence there is a genuine "gender binary," with a tiny set of outliers (those who are intersex).

Those are all traditional uses of the word. Transgendered people have been around for decades in my lifetime (and well before that) and I've never heard them use the word nonbinary to refer to themselves until the 2010's when they wanted to add more genders and even change the meaning of the words they, them and their when they could just invent a new word (actually they have done that) or state that they are he/she or she/he.

Like you said, there have been knowledge of multiple genders for centuries. Even ancient Talmud recognized 8 different genders:

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the-6-genders-of-the-talmud

Others counter with only 6:

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/37225?lang=bi

Regardless, transgender is not some new-fangele ideal and was accepted by Jewish people in Jesus' day.

To add descriptive words as a label, particularly to connect with current culture as it evolves, is not an uncommon practice.

That like so much of what you claim about Scripture is a total CROCK! The Talmud did no such thing...and most ?Jews? Or believe no such thing.
It I must admit your posting links to idiot websites to proof your inane, ?Hyles did a number on me? ramblings almost causes me to lose all semblance of intellectual honesty and common sense and believe your idiocy.
Hyles did a number on you.... ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_i_heard_the_talmud_says_there_are_six_genders.

They'd know the gender if they had the science we have now (about chromosomes).  Now some think, if male, that if he likes dressing up like a female (The Torah has something to say about that),  do feminine things or feel he's a female that he should legally be female.     
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Walt said:
Smellin Coffee said:
... led me out of the Bible...

This really says it all.

Yep. God isn't contained in a canon, especially not in a singular interpretation of a specific canon. :)
So where do you draw the line between yourself and Joseph Smith? Both claimed to be driven by the Spirit. Well we can tell Joseph Smith was wack cuz his belief contradicted scripture. We can tell you are wack cuz you reject Scripture. Show me anywhere in Jesus words where he departed from Scripture. He always said it is written. He said man shall not live by bread, but every word of God. He repeatedly referred back to the Old Testament. Can you show me anything of Christ that contradicts the OT? People like departing from Scripture, cuz that removes the standard and allows them to do what is right in their own eyes.

Isaiah 5:19?21 (ESV): 20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

These verses describe your mindset. You call what is evil in the Bible good, and what is good evil. The Bible does not matter you are wise in your own eyes.

Isaiah 5:24 (ESV):
...for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Curious how do you know the law of the Lord and the words of the Holy One if you don't use the Bible? How do you even know the God of the Bible is true if you reject his written word?



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
On a personal note Smellin', on what basis do you validate the authenticity of your belief system?  Who's to say objectively and ultimately that you or Kratzer has found the right path and saw the right light?  Maybe like Paul, you're following an angel of light that has you fooled?

I am using the same source you believe as you do: faith. The only difference is, our faith lies in different ideals.

Neither of us know for certainty which (if either) position is right. I don't know how to fix my furnace but if my tech comes out trying to repair the wiring with an axe, I know he is doing it wrong. Based on my personal experience and after studying the Bible, I certainly may not know the right direction, but it is clear (to me) both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are "doing it wrong".

I'm sure in many points, I am wrong. But laying out facts and after 5 decades of seeing behind the scenes of both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, I cannot link either system anywhere close to what Jesus had taught. I know others believe they are following Jesus because it is the White European, Big Business Jesus that our culture introduced to us and the one we are most familiar. Black Christians who follow Liberation Theology do the same from their heritage too. There is probably correct and incorrect theology from both cultural perspectives.

So asking the Holy Spirit for her help (yes, the Holy Spirit is female in the Bible, both OT and NT), being willing to reject the man-made doctrine of biblical inerrancy and searching for meaning and direction in and through Jesus' recorded teachings (accepted by faith, of course), I've come to the conclusions I have at this point. This is where I began to see Pauline contradictions and see the gospel he taught didn't seem to line up with those of Jesus or the Apostles.

This doesn't mean these conclusions/opinions are finalized. Like a river, as facts and understanding (historically, culturally) uncovers, the water shifts and bends based on those ideals. There is no room for church or even creed in Proverbs 3:5-6.

What is expected of me then? Simple. Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God. That's it. Bringing JUST that to churches, Fundamental and Evangelical, just doesn't cut it for them for me to be involved any longer. I've given it 5 decades and haven't much time left than to heed and practice Micah's words. :)
The Holy Spirit is called God and God is clearly a He. Now you could argue that God is a spirit and spirits don't have gender and you would be correct. God is technically neither male nor female (that's why spirit is neuter.... neuter does not mean either or, it means neither). However when God does refer to himself its masculine.You never find God calling himself a she. Now in the NT in John 16 we find the Paraklete or comforter, advocate, or helper; the Holy Spirit (vs 13). Now let's looks at the passage and notice how many times the Holy Spirit is called a He.

John 16:7?15 (ESV):
7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send HIM to you.
8 And when HE comes, HE will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 ?I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, HE will guide you into all the truth, for HE will not speak on HIS own authority, but whatever HE hears HE will speak, and HE will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 HE will glorify me, for HE will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that HE will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Now if I counted correctly there is 13 times the Holy Spirit is refered to as masculine. There is 0 times where the Holy Spirit is called a she or her. You can't argue from silence. Scripture calls the Holy Spirit a He. So no, He is not a "her."

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 
Anon1379 said:
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
On a personal note Smellin', on what basis do you validate the authenticity of your belief system?  Who's to say objectively and ultimately that you or Kratzer has found the right path and saw the right light?  Maybe like Paul, you're following an angel of light that has you fooled?

I am using the same source you believe as you do: faith. The only difference is, our faith lies in different ideals.

Neither of us know for certainty which (if either) position is right. I don't know how to fix my furnace but if my tech comes out trying to repair the wiring with an axe, I know he is doing it wrong. Based on my personal experience and after studying the Bible, I certainly may not know the right direction, but it is clear (to me) both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are "doing it wrong".

I'm sure in many points, I am wrong. But laying out facts and after 5 decades of seeing behind the scenes of both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, I cannot link either system anywhere close to what Jesus had taught. I know others believe they are following Jesus because it is the White European, Big Business Jesus that our culture introduced to us and the one we are most familiar. Black Christians who follow Liberation Theology do the same from their heritage too. There is probably correct and incorrect theology from both cultural perspectives.

So asking the Holy Spirit for her help (yes, the Holy Spirit is female in the Bible, both OT and NT), being willing to reject the man-made doctrine of biblical inerrancy and searching for meaning and direction in and through Jesus' recorded teachings (accepted by faith, of course), I've come to the conclusions I have at this point. This is where I began to see Pauline contradictions and see the gospel he taught didn't seem to line up with those of Jesus or the Apostles.

This doesn't mean these conclusions/opinions are finalized. Like a river, as facts and understanding (historically, culturally) uncovers, the water shifts and bends based on those ideals. There is no room for church or even creed in Proverbs 3:5-6.

What is expected of me then? Simple. Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God. That's it. Bringing JUST that to churches, Fundamental and Evangelical, just doesn't cut it for them for me to be involved any longer. I've given it 5 decades and haven't much time left than to heed and practice Micah's words. :)
The Holy Spirit is called God and God is clearly a He. Now you could argue that God is a spirit and spirits don't have gender and you would be correct. God is technically neither male nor female (that's why spirit is neuter.... neuter does not mean either or, it means neither). However when God does refer to himself its masculine.You never find God calling himself a she. Now in the NT in John 16 we find the Paraklete or comforter, advocate, or helper; the Holy Spirit (vs 13). Now let's looks at the passage and notice how many times the Holy Spirit is called a He.

John 16:7?15 (ESV):
7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send HIM to you.
8 And when HE comes, HE will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 ?I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, HE will guide you into all the truth, for HE will not speak on HIS own authority, but whatever HE hears HE will speak, and HE will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 HE will glorify me, for HE will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that HE will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Now if I counted correctly there is 13 times the Holy Spirit is refered to as masculine. There is 0 times where the Holy Spirit is called a she or her. You can't argue from silence. Scripture calls the Holy Spirit a He. So no, He is not a "her."

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

And the Greek also agrees.
https://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/pronoun.html
The word used is  ????? (for him). If it was feminine (her) it would be  ????
as is used here (btw, for the exact Greek word don't use Strong's use an interlinear like this).
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-21.htm.
 
brianb said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
Smellin Coffee said:
brianb said:
Ransom said:
brianb said:
Is it just me or is it a little annoying for someone without an IT background to use the word binary?  The LGBTQ+ crowd uses it a lot. I guess it's to make them seem smart.

"Binary" is an adjective for consisting of or being marked by two parts. It isn't exclusive to IT--think of a binary star, or a binary explosive. Even the IT industry uses the term "binary" in multiple ways: binary number, binary operator, binary tree, etc.

Human beings are mammals, so we're sexually dimorphic: the male and the female of the species are physically different. Hence there is a genuine "gender binary," with a tiny set of outliers (those who are intersex).

Those are all traditional uses of the word. Transgendered people have been around for decades in my lifetime (and well before that) and I've never heard them use the word nonbinary to refer to themselves until the 2010's when they wanted to add more genders and even change the meaning of the words they, them and their when they could just invent a new word (actually they have done that) or state that they are he/she or she/he.

Like you said, there have been knowledge of multiple genders for centuries. Even ancient Talmud recognized 8 different genders:

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the-6-genders-of-the-talmud

Others counter with only 6:

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/37225?lang=bi

Regardless, transgender is not some new-fangele ideal and was accepted by Jewish people in Jesus' day.

To add descriptive words as a label, particularly to connect with current culture as it evolves, is not an uncommon practice.

That like so much of what you claim about Scripture is a total CROCK! The Talmud did no such thing...and most ?Jews? Or believe no such thing.
It I must admit your posting links to idiot websites to proof your inane, ?Hyles did a number on me? ramblings almost causes me to lose all semblance of intellectual honesty and common sense and believe your idiocy.
Hyles did a number on you.... ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_i_heard_the_talmud_says_there_are_six_genders.

They'd know the gender if they had the science we have now (about chromosomes).  Now some think, if male, that if he likes dressing up like a female (The Torah has something to say about that),  do feminine things or feel he's a female that he should legally be female.   

Well, Jews today DO have the science today and many (most?) in general, still accept the idea of multiple genders, so there's that. ;)
 
Anon1379 said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Walt said:
Smellin Coffee said:
... led me out of the Bible...

This really says it all.

Yep. God isn't contained in a canon, especially not in a singular interpretation of a specific canon. :)
So where do you draw the line between yourself and Joseph Smith? Both claimed to be driven by the Spirit. Well we can tell Joseph Smith was wack cuz his belief contradicted scripture. We can tell you are wack cuz you reject Scripture. Show me anywhere in Jesus words where he departed from Scripture. He always said it is written. He said man shall not live by bread, but every word of God. He repeatedly referred back to the Old Testament. Can you show me anything of Christ that contradicts the OT? People like departing from Scripture, cuz that removes the standard and allows them to do what is right in their own eyes.

Isaiah 5:19?21 (ESV): 20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

These verses describe your mindset. You call what is evil in the Bible good, and what is good evil. The Bible does not matter you are wise in your own eyes.

And there it is. You attribute "the Bible" as the source. Sorry, "the Bible" is nowhere in the text, much less the canon you adhere to. So it seems this passage of the Scripture isn't "good enough" for you so you have to add your own context to it.

I also notice how you neglected to add the next two verses:

Woe to men mighty at drinking wine,
Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away justice from the righteous man!

I have yet to see you apply these woes against our justice system that is murdering "innocent" men, mostly those who are not white, or against a political system who rips innocent and even "righteous" families apart, kidnapping children so they can be put into "Christian" foster homes and eventually adopted by "Christian" families. You don't seem to offer woes to a system that has from the beginning, supported white supremacy. I haven't seen many "woes" from you against the SBC and IFB cultures which allow and sometimes even move sexual predators from one congregation to another.

So your entire "woe"thing was not only out of context, you only apply it with those with whom YOU choose to disagree.

Anon1379 said:
Isaiah 5:24 (ESV):
...for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Curious how do you know the law of the Lord and the words of the Holy One if you don't use the Bible? How do you even know the God of the Bible is true if you reject his written word?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

To quote Reagan, "And there you go again." In Isaiah, the BIBLE HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN. You are applying universal context to a canon that wouldn't be even written until hundreds of years later. But then again, you've already established context doesn't matter to you, even though you hold others to accept YOUR relative application of text.
 
brianb said:
Anon1379 said:
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
On a personal note Smellin', on what basis do you validate the authenticity of your belief system?  Who's to say objectively and ultimately that you or Kratzer has found the right path and saw the right light?  Maybe like Paul, you're following an angel of light that has you fooled?

I am using the same source you believe as you do: faith. The only difference is, our faith lies in different ideals.

Neither of us know for certainty which (if either) position is right. I don't know how to fix my furnace but if my tech comes out trying to repair the wiring with an axe, I know he is doing it wrong. Based on my personal experience and after studying the Bible, I certainly may not know the right direction, but it is clear (to me) both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are "doing it wrong".

I'm sure in many points, I am wrong. But laying out facts and after 5 decades of seeing behind the scenes of both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, I cannot link either system anywhere close to what Jesus had taught. I know others believe they are following Jesus because it is the White European, Big Business Jesus that our culture introduced to us and the one we are most familiar. Black Christians who follow Liberation Theology do the same from their heritage too. There is probably correct and incorrect theology from both cultural perspectives.

So asking the Holy Spirit for her help (yes, the Holy Spirit is female in the Bible, both OT and NT), being willing to reject the man-made doctrine of biblical inerrancy and searching for meaning and direction in and through Jesus' recorded teachings (accepted by faith, of course), I've come to the conclusions I have at this point. This is where I began to see Pauline contradictions and see the gospel he taught didn't seem to line up with those of Jesus or the Apostles.

This doesn't mean these conclusions/opinions are finalized. Like a river, as facts and understanding (historically, culturally) uncovers, the water shifts and bends based on those ideals. There is no room for church or even creed in Proverbs 3:5-6.

What is expected of me then? Simple. Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God. That's it. Bringing JUST that to churches, Fundamental and Evangelical, just doesn't cut it for them for me to be involved any longer. I've given it 5 decades and haven't much time left than to heed and practice Micah's words. :)
The Holy Spirit is called God and God is clearly a He. Now you could argue that God is a spirit and spirits don't have gender and you would be correct. God is technically neither male nor female (that's why spirit is neuter.... neuter does not mean either or, it means neither). However when God does refer to himself its masculine.You never find God calling himself a she. Now in the NT in John 16 we find the Paraklete or comforter, advocate, or helper; the Holy Spirit (vs 13). Now let's looks at the passage and notice how many times the Holy Spirit is called a He.

John 16:7?15 (ESV):
7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send HIM to you.
8 And when HE comes, HE will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 ?I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, HE will guide you into all the truth, for HE will not speak on HIS own authority, but whatever HE hears HE will speak, and HE will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 HE will glorify me, for HE will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that HE will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Now if I counted correctly there is 13 times the Holy Spirit is refered to as masculine. There is 0 times where the Holy Spirit is called a she or her. You can't argue from silence. Scripture calls the Holy Spirit a He. So no, He is not a "her."

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

And the Greek also agrees.
https://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/pronoun.html
The word used is  ????? (for him). If it was feminine (her) it would be  ????
as is used here (btw, for the exact Greek word don't use Strong's use an interlinear like this).
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-21.htm.

That's OK. One thing I believe about my God: She loves you anyway. :)
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
That like so much of what you claim about Scripture is a total CROCK! The Talmud did no such thing...and most ?Jews? Or believe no such thing.

Yet I showed you Jewish evidence they did/do.

Tarheel Baptist said:
It I must admit your posting links to idiot websites to proof your inane, ?Hyles did a number on me? ramblings almost causes me to lose all semblance of intellectual honesty and common sense and believe your idiocy.
Hyles did a number on you.... ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_i_heard_the_talmud_says_there_are_six_genders.

See my first point above before criticizing my "intellectual honesty". I didn't even know Jews believe that until I learned about it from two different Jewish Rabbis. I think they would have more "intellectual honesty" about their belief system than you who rejects their belief system.

So who's not being intellectually honest here? Hmmm...

BTW, Hyles and fundamentalist extremism is overt in their predation. Evangelicalism is just as predatory, but does so in a more passive-aggressive demeanor. You know this to be true but cannot bring yourself to leave your seat of influence, circle of friends and "ruin" a reputation build over decades. You don't want to be treated the way you and other Evangelicals treat me. I get it. I'm having to separate myself from that predatory and colonizing religion and it is very gradual and extremely difficult. My drift is gradual and not downright rebellion. And without a livelihood attached, I don't have as much to lose as you do.

But when you are ready to admit the fraud Evangelicalism really is and make efforts to undo the harm you've experienced and inflicted on others, we who have "drifted" will understand and even accept you in your growth. :)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
BTW, Hyles and fundamentalist extremism is overt in their predation. Evangelicalism is just as predatory, but does so in a more passive-aggressive demeanor. You know this to be true but cannot bring yourself to leave your seat of influence, circle of friends and "ruin" a reputation build over decades. You don't want to be treated the way you and other Evangelicals treat me. I get it. I'm having to separate myself from that predatory and colonizing religion and it is very gradual and extremely difficult. My drift is gradual and not downright rebellion. And without a livelihood attached, I don't have as much to lose as you do.

But when you are ready to admit the fraud Evangelicalism really is and make efforts to undo the harm you've experienced and inflicted on others, we who have "drifted" will understand and even accept you in your growth. :)

I've never treated you with anything other than mutual respect.  I don't have "a livelihood to protect" as a motive for my belief in "evangelical" thought, and I've NEVER sought to use "predatory religion" on you or anybody else (nor do I know of anybody like that in the personal sphere I am associated with), so put away your overly broad generalizations.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
BTW, Hyles and fundamentalist extremism is overt in their predation. Evangelicalism is just as predatory, but does so in a more passive-aggressive demeanor. You know this to be true but cannot bring yourself to leave your seat of influence, circle of friends and "ruin" a reputation build over decades. You don't want to be treated the way you and other Evangelicals treat me. I get it. I'm having to separate myself from that predatory and colonizing religion and it is very gradual and extremely difficult. My drift is gradual and not downright rebellion. And without a livelihood attached, I don't have as much to lose as you do.

But when you are ready to admit the fraud Evangelicalism really is and make efforts to undo the harm you've experienced and inflicted on others, we who have "drifted" will understand and even accept you in your growth. :)

I've never treated you with anything other than mutual respect.  I don't have "a livelihood to protect" as a motive for my belief in "evangelical" thought, and I've NEVER sought to use "predatory religion" on you or anybody else (nor do I know of anybody like that in the personal sphere I am associated with), so put away your overly broad generalizations.

You are absolutely correct. You have treated me with dignity and respect which I greatly appreciate. My words were directed specifically to Tarheel. It isn't a universal perspective for every single Evangelical or even Fundamentalist. I'm sorry I didn't specify in my response to Tarheel.

Just because some sheep are protectors of the wolf king doesn't mean ALL sheep are guilty of the wolf king's predation. But to those who know it is harmful yet continue to "take" from the sheep to "gain power", whether that power be financially, socially, politically or even within religiosity, the words can be applied. This means not only Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but other religions as well such as Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, etc. There are "wolf kings" and "protector sheep" as well as "innocent" sheep in those sects as well.

Much (not all) of what Jesus' record of teaching shows his being contrary to other Pharisees (of which he probably was one). His "fights" in Pharisaical realms wasn't meant as universal mandate or even morality, for all cultures at all times.

Modern day example: while working for a Dutch Reformed company, I learned some Reformed people today fight over whether or not it is "morally right" to pump gas on Sundays. But the ones who argue against that "right" don't criticize or expect conformity from all Christians but rather expect if of other Reformed folks. It is just a sect debate, not universal piety. In the same way, my post can be directed toward those who do prey on the sheep and is not about every single person who believes in the fundamentals of the faith of Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism or Catholicism or Islam or Mormon or Scientology, etc.

I've become a pluralist in that I believe in the freedom to practice any religion that does no harm to others. I condemn those that use any particular faith to condemn  those who don't practice their specific faith or prey on those who do.

I hope that clarifies that I don't feel that applies to you, ALAYMAN. :)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Like you said, there have been knowledge of multiple genders for centuries. Even ancient Talmud recognized 8 different genders:

Eunuch isn't a gender.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
BTW, Hyles and fundamentalist extremism is overt in their predation. Evangelicalism is just as predatory, but does so in a more passive-aggressive demeanor. You know this to be true but cannot bring yourself to leave your seat of influence, circle of friends and "ruin" a reputation build over decades. You don't want to be treated the way you and other Evangelicals treat me. I get it. I'm having to separate myself from that predatory and colonizing religion and it is very gradual and extremely difficult. My drift is gradual and not downright rebellion. And without a livelihood attached, I don't have as much to lose as you do.

But when you are ready to admit the fraud Evangelicalism really is and make efforts to undo the harm you've experienced and inflicted on others, we who have "drifted" will understand and even accept you in your growth. :)

I've never treated you with anything other than mutual respect.  I don't have "a livelihood to protect" as a motive for my belief in "evangelical" thought, and I've NEVER sought to use "predatory religion" on you or anybody else (nor do I know of anybody like that in the personal sphere I am associated with), so put away your overly broad generalizations.

You are absolutely correct. You have treated me with dignity and respect which I greatly appreciate. My words were directed specifically to Tarheel. It isn't a universal perspective for every single Evangelical or even Fundamentalist. I'm sorry I didn't specify in my response to Tarheel.

Just because some sheep are protectors of the wolf king doesn't mean ALL sheep are guilty of the wolf king's predation. But to those who know it is harmful yet continue to "take" from the sheep to "gain power", whether that power be financially, socially, politically or even within religiosity, the words can be applied. This means not only Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but other religions as well such as Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, etc. There are "wolf kings" and "protector sheep" as well as "innocent" sheep in those sects as well.

Much (not all) of what Jesus' record of teaching shows his being contrary to other Pharisees (of which he probably was one). His "fights" in Pharisaical realms wasn't meant as universal mandate or even morality, for all cultures at all times.

Modern day example: while working for a Dutch Reformed company, I learned some Reformed people today fight over whether or not it is "morally right" to pump gas on Sundays. But the ones who argue against that "right" don't criticize or expect conformity from all Christians but rather expect if of other Reformed folks. It is just a sect debate, not universal piety. In the same way, my post can be directed toward those who do prey on the sheep and is not about every single person who believes in the fundamentals of the faith of Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism or Catholicism or Islam or Mormon or Scientology, etc.

I've become a pluralist in that I believe in the freedom to practice any religion that does no harm to others. I condemn those that use any particular faith to condemn  those who don't practice their specific faith or prey on those who do.

I hope that clarifies that I don't feel that applies to you, ALAYMAN. :)

Thought of another analogy last night.

Do you judge all citizens of Cuba because they live in a communist country or even participate in a communist regime?  I doubt it. Although you would judge the oppressive system and the oppressive leadership that entraps innocent folks, and rightfully so. That is how I feel about religion, regardless of which sect. Religion and spirituality and certainly a relationship with God play an important part of the lives of many people. It is those who purposely entrap others into a singular system, whether that entrapment be guilt, shunning, "church discipline" or peer pressure is what I am judging.

And yes, I do judge. :)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Much (not all) of what Jesus' record of teaching shows his being contrary to other Pharisees (of which he probably was one).

It seems the obvious conclusion from the Scriptures on why Jesus confronted the Pharisees wasn't merely that they exploited other people by use of a power structure (ie, "religion") but rather it was their belief that they were actually doing the will of God when in reality they were stumbling around in self-righteous pride-filled darkness.


Smellin Coffee said:
I've become a pluralist in that I believe in the freedom to practice any religion that does no harm to others.

Of course that all hinges on your definition of harm.  For instance, if I tell somebody that they are violating the will of God if they deny their created gender status I am not "harming" them, but as long as I speak that truth in love I am actually attempting to help them.

And as far as allowing others to choose their own faith path, as I am sure you know, is a concept of religious/soul liberty which is/was championed by Baptists.


Smellin Coffee said:
I condemn those that use any particular faith to condemn  those who don't practice their specific faith...

Yet Jesus said people are condemned if they don't trust in Him.

Smellin Coffee said:
I hope that clarifies that I don't feel that applies to you, ALAYMAN. :)

It does, and though I don't necessarily deny that some people exploit the sheep for their own gain, I don't believe that simply espousing the worldview inherent to evangelicalism necessitates or causes one to prey on those (weaker folk) who join (or oppose) them.
 
ALAYMAN said:
It seems the obvious conclusion from the Scriptures on why Jesus confronted the Pharisees wasn't merely that they exploited other people by use of a power structure (ie, "religion") but rather it was their belief that they were actually doing the will of God when in reality they were stumbling around in self-righteous pride-filled darkness.

That is another part to religious domination which the Pharisees sought, not only over the lost sheep of Israel, but other religious groups as well such as the Sadducees.


ALAYMAN said:
Of course that all hinges on your definition of harm.  For instance, if I tell somebody that they are violating the will of God if they deny their created gender status I am not "harming" them, but as long as I speak that truth in love I am actually attempting to help them.

Who says it is wrong to have these kinds of conversations? Where it goes wrong is where you tell them "they ARE violating the will of God" when that entire premise is based on a personal belief or faith and not on fact, without their understanding your context. So in you attempt to help them, to push them beyond an option to think about, I believe (yes, my opinion) it would be bringing harm in demanding they are being forced to be conformed to your religious bias, even if/when that bias is correct.

But yes, determining what constitutes harm is relative. But a good rule of thumb is when someone says they are being harmed, believe them. :)

ALAYMAN said:
And as far as allowing others to choose their own faith path, as I am sure you know, is a concept of religious/soul liberty which is/was championed by Baptists.

Tell that to the slaves. Tell that to Black Christians all around this country. "Baptists" are fractured. I highly doubt white Baptists agree much with Black Missionary Baptists. There maybe some Baptists that have done such championing but hardly the White Evangelical Baptists (historically).


ALAYMAN said:
Yet Jesus said people are condemned if they don't trust in Him.

Why did you move from my condemnation (i.e. criticism) to Jesus' condemnation (eternal damnation)? Was moving the goalposts an attempt to obfuscate or manipulate the conversation toward another direction?

Smellin Coffee said:
It does, and though I don't necessarily deny that some people exploit the sheep for their own gain, I don't believe that simply espousing the worldview inherent to evangelicalism necessitates or causes one to prey on those (weaker folk) who join (or oppose) them.

I personally DO believe it is within the worldview. It really became obvious in the last election when Christians found their champion to help them achieve political power. It has moved beyond church walls, past communities and even shores to figurative palaces and literal courtrooms. And the idea is to bring eventual conformity to a singular religious practice, which is in opposition of religious/soul liberty.

I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.
 
Top