George Orwell on "separation"

Recovering IFB said:
Remember, have you read my signature?

This is the absolute truth.  I take it easy on you because you're such an absolute total patsy.  There's no challenge with you, and it wouldn't be worth the effort to make you look more silly than I already do.
 
Recovering IFB said:
Not cool you call people names here then bitch and moan and cry foul when others do it to you....

There's a word for that.  What is it again?  I think it starts with an "h". 
 
rsc2a said:
Soul liberty...except for yoga pants and whatever other supposed stumbling blocks you want to force others to protect you from.

Soul liberty doesn't mean that I feel coerced to believe whatever some other professed Christian wants me to believe, and it doesn't mean I coerce others to believe against their will, so maybe you have the definition confused, because I EXPLICITLY told Aleshanee that I don't hold other people to my subjective standards and that we both will answer to God for how we respond to the light and grace God gives us.
 
Help me out here, people.  Hippo?  No.  Hippocratic oath?  No...
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
Soul liberty...except for yoga pants and whatever other supposed stumbling blocks you want to force others to protect you from.

Soul liberty doesn't mean that I feel coerced to believe whatever some other professed Christian wants me to believe, and it doesn't mean I coerce others to believe against their will, so maybe you have the definition confused, because I EXPLICITLY told Aleshanee that I don't hold other people to my subjective standards and that we both will answer to God for how we respond to the light and grace God gives us.

"Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious.  Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter." - Alayman

Now here's the point where you pretend like you didn't say this...
 
rsc2a said:
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
Soul liberty...except for yoga pants and whatever other supposed stumbling blocks you want to force others to protect you from.

Soul liberty doesn't mean that I feel coerced to believe whatever some other professed Christian wants me to believe, and it doesn't mean I coerce others to believe against their will, so maybe you have the definition confused, because I EXPLICITLY told Aleshanee that I don't hold other people to my subjective standards and that we both will answer to God for how we respond to the light and grace God gives us.

"Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious.  Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter." - Alayman

Now here's the point where you pretend like you didn't say this...

Why would I deny I said that? 

What if I say "smoking cigarettes is likely a sinful activity", is that likewise depriving people of their soul liberty?  You continue to show how inadequately prepared you are to teach people.
 
More soul liberty on display....

"Accentuation of the figure, clothed or not, can be the trigger to the thoughts of lust.  Again, that is in essence, what the sister in the OP was saying, and that a considerate Christian will ponder these things and not flaunt their liberty as if they live in a vacuum." - Alayman

And more...

"It's a fact that when people are younger they are more idealistic, na?ve, and liberal in thought.  Age has a way of taking people towards more conservative principles.  Why can't it be that she recognized the folly of expressing her liberty a bit too much for her conscience sake?" - Alayman

 
rsc2a said:
More soul liberty on display....

"Accentuation of the figure, clothed or not, can be the trigger to the thoughts of lust.  Again, that is in essence, what the sister in the OP was saying, and that a considerate Christian will ponder these things and not flaunt their liberty as if they live in a vacuum." - Alayman

You think these things deprive a person of soul liberty????

bizarro
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
More soul liberty on display....

"Accentuation of the figure, clothed or not, can be the trigger to the thoughts of lust.  Again, that is in essence, what the sister in the OP was saying, and that a considerate Christian will ponder these things and not flaunt their liberty as if they live in a vacuum." - Alayman

You think these things deprive a person of soul liberty????

bizarro

By your own words, so do you. How long before the back pedaling begins?
 
rsc2a said:
More soul liberty on display....

"Accentuation of the figure, clothed or not, can be the trigger to the thoughts of lust.  Again, that is in essence, what the sister in the OP was saying, and that a considerate Christian will ponder these things and not flaunt their liberty as if they live in a vacuum." - Alayman

And more...

"It's a fact that when people are younger they are more idealistic, na?ve, and liberal in thought.  Age has a way of taking people towards more conservative principles.  Why can't it be that she recognized the folly of expressing her liberty a bit too much for her conscience sake?" - Alayman

Come on now... Hypo?  Hypochondriac?  Hypothermia?  It's right there on the tip of my tongue...
 
From a website the admin would approve of:

[quote author=FreeSundaySchoolLessons]Individual soul liberty is a subject that is difficult to treat due to several factors. It somewhat overlaps the concept of the priesthood of the believer; it can easily be misunderstood and misapplied; and it is a concept that is universally held in theory but generally rejected in practice among independent fundamental Baptists.

Definition: Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the freedom to choose what his conscience or soul dictates is right in the religious realm. Soul liberty asks the believer to accept responsibility for his own actions and not try to force anyone else to do or believe anything contrary to his own conscience. However, this liberty is not a justification for disobeying God. The believer must still act according to the principles of Scripture and honor the doctrinal position of the Bible-believing Baptist church to which he belongs.

Individual soul liberty is a particularly Baptist principle. Most denominations attempt to exercise control over their members to some extent, but Baptists limit such control by demanding that every believer is ultimately responsible to God. Individuals have the right to disagree with others, follow their own conscience, and not feel compelled to adopt any views they disagree with. This does not suggest that every believer is a ?lone wolf? or that believers need not submit to the leadership of their church. Soul liberty simply asserts that every believer has the right to act in accordance with his own conscience, and that no one can force anyone to believe or act against his theological viewpoint.

When studying the individual priesthood of the believer, we found that no believer has the right to impose views, practices, etc., on any other believer. The priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty overlap a bit as they both deal with the issue of freedom within the confines of the will of God.

Unfortunately, soul liberty is not a popular idea in many Baptist congregations. Of all the Baptist distinctives, this issue of soul liberty is probably the one most fraught with difficulties, discrepancies, and disagreements. Leaders often give no room for personal convictions that may differ from their own viewpoint. Believers are often quick to judge, to criticize, and to give an opinion where not is asked for. Issues that should be minor may rise to a level where anyone who takes another position becomes the enemy. The church?s responsibility is to clearly present the Scriptures so as to convince believers of their need to submit and obey. Nevertheless, the church should not threaten, bully or intimidate its members into submission. Christians should desire to live godly lives because they are freely convinced that they ought to do so, not because someone forces godliness upon them.

There appears to be widespread ignorance of this Baptist distinctive, at least in practice if not in belief. Since it is a biblical issue, it is certainly worthy of serious study and consideration.[/quote]

Yup....Alayman is strooooongly in favor of soul liberty. /sarcasm
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
rsc2a said:
More soul liberty on display....

"Accentuation of the figure, clothed or not, can be the trigger to the thoughts of lust.  Again, that is in essence, what the sister in the OP was saying, and that a considerate Christian will ponder these things and not flaunt their liberty as if they live in a vacuum." - Alayman

And more...

"It's a fact that when people are younger they are more idealistic, na?ve, and liberal in thought.  Age has a way of taking people towards more conservative principles.  Why can't it be that she recognized the folly of expressing her liberty a bit too much for her conscience sake?" - Alayman

Come on now... Hypo?  Hypochondriac?  Hypothermia?  It's right there on the tip of my tongue...

Hypodermic?
 
rsc2a said:
From a website the admin would approve of:

[quote author=FreeSundaySchoolLessons]Individual soul liberty is a subject that is difficult to treat due to several factors. It somewhat overlaps the concept of the priesthood of the believer; it can easily be misunderstood and misapplied; and it is a concept that is universally held in theory but generally rejected in practice among independent fundamental Baptists.

Definition: Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the freedom to choose what his conscience or soul dictates is right in the religious realm. Soul liberty asks the believer to accept responsibility for his own actions and not try to force anyone else to do or believe anything contrary to his own conscience. However, this liberty is not a justification for disobeying God. The believer must still act according to the principles of Scripture and honor the doctrinal position of the Bible-believing Baptist church to which he belongs.

Individual soul liberty is a particularly Baptist principle. Most denominations attempt to exercise control over their members to some extent, but Baptists limit such control by demanding that every believer is ultimately responsible to God. Individuals have the right to disagree with others, follow their own conscience, and not feel compelled to adopt any views they disagree with. This does not suggest that every believer is a ?lone wolf? or that believers need not submit to the leadership of their church. Soul liberty simply asserts that every believer has the right to act in accordance with his own conscience, and that no one can force anyone to believe or act against his theological viewpoint.

When studying the individual priesthood of the believer, we found that no believer has the right to impose views, practices, etc., on any other believer. The priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty overlap a bit as they both deal with the issue of freedom within the confines of the will of God.

Unfortunately, soul liberty is not a popular idea in many Baptist congregations. Of all the Baptist distinctives, this issue of soul liberty is probably the one most fraught with difficulties, discrepancies, and disagreements. Leaders often give no room for personal convictions that may differ from their own viewpoint. Believers are often quick to judge, to criticize, and to give an opinion where not [sic] is asked for. Issues that should be minor may rise to a level where anyone who takes another position becomes the enemy. The church?s responsibility is to clearly present the Scriptures so as to convince believers of their need to submit and obey. Nevertheless, the church should not threaten, bully or intimidate its members into submission. Christians should desire to live godly lives because they are freely convinced that they ought to do so, not because someone forces godliness upon them.

There appears to be widespread ignorance of this Baptist distinctive, at least in practice if not in belief. Since it is a biblical issue, it is certainly worthy of serious study and consideration.

Yup....Alayman is strooooongly in favor of soul liberty. /sarcasm
[/quote]

Can I git me a big AMEN-ah?
 
rsc2a said:
By your own words, so do you. How long before the back pedaling begins?

I'm beginning to seriously think you have a screw loose.  By my own words I have again EXPLICITLY said that these things are subjective, and that each person must be persuaded in their own mind (and said it MANY times).  Only in a world where black means white does your contradictory self-defeating claims hold any water.


And the FSSL site, Puh-lease!  A very good read indeed, as I almost cited it myself.  Nothing in that supports your claim about my arguments.  I particularly liked "Issues that should be minor may rise to a level where anyone who takes another position becomes the enemy."  Take a look at the avalanche of greenies that a particular individual has given recently to people she heretofore wouldn't have walked across the street to spit on if they were on fire and tell me who has declared somebody (that was previously called "friend" many many times) their enemy for daring to take a view in disagreement to their own?  I have no ill-will against people for saying that they should be able to wear less clothes on the beach than most people do when they go to bed, but that's not the case for the opposing viewpoint.
 
aleshanee said:
ALAYMAN said:
aleshanee said:
he called me a liar and depraved over something he thought i was insinuating..... ......

I apologized for misunderstanding you.  You accepted that apology.  Now you bring it back up.  Not cool.

i accepted your apology with the belief it was sincere ......but then all the admissions about pot stirring.... and the mockery of me that followed over this being a fighting forum and how i was too stupid to see it .. etc etc.... didn;t leave me feeling very cool ..............  then finding out later the thing you accused me of insinuating about you and called me a depraved liar over was actually true... left me realizing how stupid i really was... .... to have trusted you.......

but check out the nasty wording in the red karma your friend tarheel gave me..... i wrote him a pm telling him how i found that word offensive ... and to not ever use that word towards me again........ and guess what he does then?...... .... he replies with a long pm chocked full of that word...... with no other intention but to offend..... ..... so that told me the man is nothing but a pervert....... ...... and thats the guy whose pot stirring and "pavlovian" games you defend?......... ..... don;t talk to me about whats cool and what isn;t ...... ........

In fact, whether you believe it or not, I am a very sincere straight-shooting person.  I meant my apology regarding misunderstanding what I thought you were accusing me of, regardless of how you interpolate other statements.  The answer to Web, who is about the most disingenuous poster on the FFF other than rsc2a, was in fact truth as well, and those two statements (what I misunderstood you to be insinuating, and what she asked) don't need to be tied together.  That is mere speculation on your part.  I apologized, but you continued in different ways to dig your heels in because of how you view my support of Tarheel.  I don't know what your beef is with him, but I don't use guilt by association tactics with you.  Anyhoo, I ain't wastin' no more ink/type on it.  I said I was sorry for misunderstanding you and meant it, and if you want to ignore that or disbelieve it then that says more about you than me.
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
By your own words, so do you. How long before the back pedaling begins?

I'm beginning to seriously think you have a screw loose.  By my own words I have again EXPLICITLY said that these things are subjective, and that each person must be persuaded in their own mind (and said it MANY times).  Only in a world where black means white does your contradictory self-defeating claims hold any water.


And the FSSL site, Puh-lease!  A very good read indeed, as I almost cited it myself.  Nothing in that supports your claim about my arguments.  I particularly liked "Issues that should be minor may rise to a level where anyone who takes another position becomes the enemy."  Take a look at the avalanche of greenies that a particular individual has given recently to people she heretofore wouldn't have walked across the street to spit on if they were on fire and tell me who has declared somebody (that was previously called "friend" many many times) their enemy for daring to take a view in disagreement to their own?  I have no ill-will against people for saying that they should be able to wear less clothes on the beach than most people do when they go to bed, but that's not the case for the opposing viewpoint.

"I'm all about soul liberty. That's why I talk about the folly of expressing one's liberty." 
 
Thinking about it, the original George Orwell quote was quite fitting.

?You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.?
 
rsc2a said:
"I'm all about soul liberty. That's why I talk about the folly of expressing one's liberty."

You continue to show, through sophists methods, how dangerous a teacher you are.  No coercion was employed.  Aleshanee nor anybody else is a member of my church, home, or other institution that I have any control over.  I am not for making laws and public policy regarding such matter, excluding banning public nudity.  Any sane person who knows what soul liberty and the binding of the conscience sees through the contorting that you are doing, shoe-horning a perfectly good word to suit your own contrived and illogical definition.  This is a public forum for the exchange of free thoughts and ideas, if it binds your conscience to share those ideas then maybe you need to go to one of those safe-zones to talk among your own birds of a feather.  And that is indeed more irony, as it was you who on this very day waxed monotonously long about how FSSL should relax the standards on this forum so that those who aren't fundy or evangelical would feel right at home.  I've stated that the weirdo who posted nude pics and advocated for smutty films not be kicked off, but you twist everything to fit into your own neat little box, whether it fits the facts and definitions appropriately or not.
 
ALAYMAN said:
You kiss your mother with that mouth?


She should have taught you to use better judgment with your language.

[offensive stuff removed - Scott]
 
Back
Top