Verses Freebirds ignore or misunderstand when reading their Bibles.

[ALAYMAN]

My point being that fundies take a first century writings to a first century people in a middle eastern civilization and try to apply it with a 1950 American idealism to fit in a 21st century culture.

Paul said he wouldn't drink wine if it made his brother to stumble.  What is so difficult about extrapolating an application from that to modern day 21st century?

Again, you need to define "stumble".

Stumble = sin.  No need for any change of understanding regarding what I've written.  Paul said he'd restrict his liberty on the basis of the weaker brother (in the proper context).  That doesn't mean he'd be a tee-totaler due to the weaker brother, but his attitude of conditional restraint  is far from the attitude of most of the winebibbers on here.

Now, again, enough with the conversation, and on to the celebration/mockery of the libertines!...


?In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;?

 

[rsc2a]

I've not seen anyone talking about inviting an alcoholic to a whiskey tasting. It's always been conditional restraint.

But let's pretend otherwise.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I've not seen anyone talking about inviting an alcoholic to a whiskey tasting. It's always been conditional restraint.

But let's pretend otherwise.

And this is the point. There are several people in my life that have/struggle with alcohol.  I don't drink, offer or even have it out when they are at my home. But others who are part of the "Jesus made grape juice" crowd, who have questioned me on FB about my consumption of such drinks have to deal with it.
Especially when I posted a picture of the awesome bottle of George T.  Stagg I just scored.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've not seen anyone talking about inviting an alcoholic to a whiskey tasting. It's always been conditional restraint.

But let's pretend otherwise.

Yes, the application of Paul's exhortation to use discretion in our liberties MUST ONLY be limited to temple meat and explicit personal invitations to drink to known alcoholics, his conscience be damned, and let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[ALAYMAN]

There's another thread for y'all Freebirds to hash out your mockery, so please quit hijacking mine and go there for your back-slapping at fundy's expense, or else get on board with the the theme of this thread....



Gen 9:3  Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

<cue harmonica and Dylan>

"They'll stone ya when you're walkin' to the door. But I would not feel so all alone....

Everybody must get stoned...."

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

lol, why doesn't there seem to be the same cooperative participation in this thread as its' sister? 

Because your thread is based on interpreting Christian liberty as "I am going to sin freely because the law no longer applies to me".

still others really don't ultimately care what the Scriptures  say when it conflicts with their daily practices.

That's just a different way of saying what I said. 

Which is what's wrong with the premise of this thread. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

That's just a different way of saying what I said. 

Which is what's wrong with the premise of this thread.

The difference in what you are saying (I think) and I'm saying is that in many cases I don't believe there is an intentionality to commit known sin by the Freebird (by using the concept of grace to justify said known sin).

 

[ALAYMAN]

Joh_18:38  Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

 

[Recovering IFB]

That's just a different way of saying what I said. 

Which is what's wrong with the premise of this thread.

The difference in what you are saying (I think) and I'm saying is that in many cases I don't believe there is an intentionality to commit known sin by the Freebird (by using the concept of grace to justify said known sin).

The problem here is what you think is sin, isn't a sin at all. Hence, that's is why  we/I participate in such activities.

 

[subllibrm]

Which all points to a singular statement: people's perception of truth and the hermeneutic to come to those conclusions is relative.

And Jesus' claim to be the way, truth and life does not leave room for a "relative" interpretation. Are there debatable thing? Absolutely but admitting that does not render everything in scripture debatable. His argument is that a "self aware" (whatever that is supposed to mean) person should never should never use a phrase like "scripture is clear". I will gladly take my good old unaware self an hitch it to the Jesus is God train.

Jesus' claim is absolutely up for debate. Not in what He said (at least for me) but in the context in which He meant it. The context isn't a simple "Jesus is the only way to heaven" view that is traditionally understood. Context of 'where are we to go?' starts in the previous chapter and bleeds into chapter 14.

Though I disagree with quite a bit of his theology, I found Brian McLaren recognizes the context and words it more succinctly than I:

Stretch your imagination and put yourself in the disciples? situation. Jesus just told you he is going away and you can?t come with him. Then he says you know how to get where he is going. You don?t understand what he?s talking about. You have no idea where he is going, so how can you know the way to get there? Maybe you assume that since he?s going, you need detailed information on how to meet up with him later on. So you want the missing information so you can get yourself to wherever it is you?re supposed to go. But he tells you to trust him, because he will work everything out. He?ll get you to where you need to be. What a far cry from asking about the eternal destiny of people from other religions or periods in history who had no access to belief in Jesus!

To repeat, putting John 14:6 in context, Jesus? meaning becomes clear: ?Guys,? he?s saying, ?it?s not about knowing information, techniques, directions, or instructions: it?s about knowing me, trusting me! Stay in relationship with me, abide in me, and I?ll get you to the place where you belong ? the kingdom of God, knowing God, living in dynamic interactive relationship with God ? the place that I?ve been telling you about from the beginning!? In this way, ?I am the way ... there?s no other way apart from me? is a restatement of reassurance: ?Trust in God, trust also in me. Don?t let your hearts be troubled ? trust me!?

This reading takes seriously the play on the word ?know.? Thomas is saying, ?How can we have intellectual clarity on where you?re going or the route or technique to get there?? Jesus replies, ?You don?t need intellectual clarity: you need personal knowledge. It?s not a matter of ?knowing about,? but rather, ?knowing.?? Remember, this
theme of personal knowing as interactive relationship is strong through all of John?s gospel ? and in just two chapters, Jesus will say, ?And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.? ?I am the life? in John 14, then, has a powerful resonance in John 17 with ?Eternal life
is to know God and to know me.?

A Reading of John 14:6

So in taking Jesus' words in the context of modern Christianity rather than the perceived, limited understanding to the original audience (in this case, the disciples), it is a matter of hermenutical perception, not a simplistic 'black-and-white' interpretation.

So any old hermeneutic will suffice and all resultant interpretations are equally valid. Got it.

 

[subllibrm]

Maybe because you have missed the point of the other thread?

Enlighten me of what I think about that, since I haven't said what I think about the other thread.  What point do I think the other thread is making?

Do you see the question mark? You asked a question which I answered with a question. Pretty standard rhetorical device. One I am near certain that you have employed yourself at one time or another.

 

[subllibrm]

Folk, folks, folks, let's not get bogged down in misdirection and tedium.  Get with the spirit of the thread!.....


They strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none does return from his wickedness.? (Jer. 23:14).

What is the "spirit" of the thread?

 

[subllibrm]

lol, why doesn't there seem to be the same cooperative participation in this thread as its' sister? 

Because your thread is based on interpreting Christian liberty as "I am going to sin freely because the law no longer applies to me".

umm, no, that's not true, simply.not.true.  I don't think that most Freebirds intend to sin freely because they think "the law no longer applies".  I think many of them are ignorant of the concept of restraining their liberty for the sake of their brethren, and still others really don't ultimately care what the Scriptures  say when it conflicts with their daily practices.

Wow!

 

[subllibrm]

My point being that fundies take a first century writings to a first century people in a middle eastern civilization and try to apply it with a 1950 American idealism to fit in a 21st century culture.

Paul said he wouldn't drink wine if it made his brother to stumble.  What is so difficult about extrapolating an application from that to modern day 21st century?

I extrapolate the application all the time. Even so that doesn't negate that "weak"should not be a static condition.

Do you believe or think that Paul believed that the weaker brother would always be weak? Wasn't his ministry to bring the liberty of Grace to them even though he knew some were not yet mature enough to comprehend their freedom in Christ?

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Joh_18:38  Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

Then ALAYMAN answereth him, Anything I deemeth the truth.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The problem here is what you think is sin, isn't a sin at all. Hence, that's is why  we/I participate in such activities.

No, the problem here is that you don't grasp the nuance of the discussion.  The issue at hand is using liberty in a licentious manner, which is addressed in several Scriptures, and in doing so you might lead others to sin.  You can (falsely) claim I am making up rules all you want, but your argument is with Scriptures and not me (which ironically, fits the theme of this thread to an absolute TEE).

I Cor 8:10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Which all points to a singular statement: people's perception of truth and the hermeneutic to come to those conclusions is relative.

And Jesus' claim to be the way, truth and life does not leave room for a "relative" interpretation. Are there debatable thing? Absolutely but admitting that does not render everything in scripture debatable. His argument is that a "self aware" (whatever that is supposed to mean) person should never should never use a phrase like "scripture is clear". I will gladly take my good old unaware self an hitch it to the Jesus is God train.

Jesus' claim is absolutely up for debate. Not in what He said (at least for me) but in the context in which He meant it. The context isn't a simple "Jesus is the only way to heaven" view that is traditionally understood. Context of 'where are we to go?' starts in the previous chapter and bleeds into chapter 14.

Though I disagree with quite a bit of his theology, I found Brian McLaren recognizes the context and words it more succinctly than I:

Stretch your imagination and put yourself in the disciples? situation. Jesus just told you he is going away and you can?t come with him. Then he says you know how to get where he is going. You don?t understand what he?s talking about. You have no idea where he is going, so how can you know the way to get there? Maybe you assume that since he?s going, you need detailed information on how to meet up with him later on. So you want the missing information so you can get yourself to wherever it is you?re supposed to go. But he tells you to trust him, because he will work everything out. He?ll get you to where you need to be. What a far cry from asking about the eternal destiny of people from other religions or periods in history who had no access to belief in Jesus!

To repeat, putting John 14:6 in context, Jesus? meaning becomes clear: ?Guys,? he?s saying, ?it?s not about knowing information, techniques, directions, or instructions: it?s about knowing me, trusting me! Stay in relationship with me, abide in me, and I?ll get you to the place where you belong ? the kingdom of God, knowing God, living in dynamic interactive relationship with God ? the place that I?ve been telling you about from the beginning!? In this way, ?I am the way ... there?s no other way apart from me? is a restatement of reassurance: ?Trust in God, trust also in me. Don?t let your hearts be troubled ? trust me!?

This reading takes seriously the play on the word ?know.? Thomas is saying, ?How can we have intellectual clarity on where you?re going or the route or technique to get there?? Jesus replies, ?You don?t need intellectual clarity: you need personal knowledge. It?s not a matter of ?knowing about,? but rather, ?knowing.?? Remember, this
theme of personal knowing as interactive relationship is strong through all of John?s gospel ? and in just two chapters, Jesus will say, ?And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.? ?I am the life? in John 14, then, has a powerful resonance in John 17 with ?Eternal life
is to know God and to know me.?

A Reading of John 14:6

So in taking Jesus' words in the context of modern Christianity rather than the perceived, limited understanding to the original audience (in this case, the disciples), it is a matter of hermenutical perception, not a simplistic 'black-and-white' interpretation.

So any old hermeneutic will suffice and all resultant interpretations are equally valid. Got it.

Specific hermeneutic is not mandated by God but rather is relative to interpretation. Whether equally valid or not is what we are debating here. I don't know but perhaps that is how God intended it which is why faith is involved.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Do you see the question mark? You asked a question which I answered with a question. Pretty standard rhetorical device. One I am near certain that you have employed yourself at one time or another.

For your rhetoric to have any force you must have assumed I was in error and misunderstood the other thread.  It's a simple question, since I hadn't said anything about the other thread, what did I misunderstand about it?

What is the "spirit" of the thread?

To put those silly libertines in their place, of course.  But I probably should cloak my condescension in something a bit more pious sounding, like, "I'm just trying to help a brother to recover from error", or sumthin like that.  Wouldn't want to seem like I'm using a brother for my own sporting pleasure now would I?  Speaking of which, and keeping in the spirit of the thread...


Proverbs 26:19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?

Do you believe or think that Paul believed that the weaker brother would always be weak? Wasn't his ministry to bring the liberty of Grace to them even though he knew some were not yet mature enough to comprehend their freedom in Christ?

No, I don't think a baby should stay on the milk, but I also am not under the misguided impression that these jokesters' efforts at mockery are an attempt to bring a brother out of their immaturity.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Specific hermeneutic is not mandated by God but rather is relative to interpretation. Whether equally valid or not is what we are debating here. I don't know but perhaps that is how God intended it which is why faith is involved.

A hermeneutic is a tool for understanding truth/reality and discriminating it from falsehood.  The ability to ascertain truth is grounded in logic and reason, which are based on facts.  Faith is not blind trust, but built upon a coherent understanding of truth and reality (facts gleaned from knowledge).  Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, not their own private facts.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

No, the problem here is that you don't grasp the nuance of the discussion.  The issue at hand is using liberty in a licentious manner, which is addressed in several Scriptures, and in doing so you might lead others to sin.  You can (falsely) claim I am making up rules all you want, but your argument is with Scriptures and not me (which ironically, fits the theme of this thread to an absolute TEE).

What, exactly, do you feel are examples of folks using their liberty in a licentious manner, and what sin(s) do you think using that liberty would lead others to commit?  Specifics please.