Why are you here?

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't think your examples were examples...they were your perspective on what happened. IMO neither the admin or Ransom are liars.

I didn't give any examples.  I'm waiting for you to provide an example. 

Okay, I'll go first, then.

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]
And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see in that article where the AUTHOR was trying to justify recreational use of marijuana because it has medical use.  I don't think you actually read the article.
[/quote]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
Yep, you missed it....

Jesse Stanley is a Legalizer. And while he supports both medical and recreational uses, he does not revel in stoner culture and routinely declines invitations to 4/20 events held in Colorado every April where people gather and smoke pot in public, in violation of state law.

[/quote]

There is a section of the article headed "Four Christian views on marijuana" and covers these four views:

1. Pot Prohibitionists (no marijuana for any reason)
2. Medical Exceptionalists (marijuana may be okay for medical use, but they're suspicious about it)
3. Pro-Medical Marijuana (believe marijuana has true medical uses)
4. Legalizers (believe marijuana should be legal for any use)

ALAYMAN pulled a quote (NOT by the AUTHOR) from the 4th category, and uses it to claim the AUTHOR of the ARTICLE is promoting recreational use.  ALAYMAN went on for pages continuing to claim the author of the article was promoting marijuana use among Christians even after being proved wrong several times. He even claimed that I was the one who said his quote was from the author. 

That's not a difference of opinion. Those are lies.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I don't think your examples were examples...they were your perspective on what happened. IMO neither the admin or Ransom are liars.

I didn't give any examples.  I'm waiting for you to provide an example. 

Okay, I'll go first, then.

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]
And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see in that article where the AUTHOR was trying to justify recreational use of marijuana because it has medical use.  I don't think you actually read the article.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
Yep, you missed it....

Jesse Stanley is a Legalizer. And while he supports both medical and recreational uses, he does not revel in stoner culture and routinely declines invitations to 4/20 events held in Colorado every April where people gather and smoke pot in public, in violation of state law.

[/quote]

There is a section of the article headed "Four Christian views on marijuana" and covers these four views:

1. Pot Prohibitionists (no marijuana for any reason)
2. Medical Exceptionalists (marijuana may be okay for medical use, but they're suspicious about it)
3. Pro-Medical Marijuana (believe marijuana has true medical uses)
4. Legalizers (believe marijuana should be legal for any use)

ALAYMAN pulled a quote (NOT by the AUTHOR) from the 4th category, and uses it to claim the AUTHOR of the ARTICLE is promoting recreational use.  ALAYMAN went on for pages continuing to claim the author of the article was promoting marijuana use among Christians even after being proved wrong several times. He even claimed that I was the one who said his quote was from the author. 

That's not a difference of opinion. Those are lies.
[/quote]

I have no clue about the marijuana controversy.
I was thinking of your ongoing conflict with the admin and ransom.
Almost everyone lies to you, I guess!
As you define it at least.

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied* to you or were dishonest toward you. You said that liars and hypocrites run this place. I don't agree with that statement.

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied to you or were dishonest toward you. *

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

Being liar has nothing to do with "knowing" doing anything.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied to you or were dishonest toward you. *

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

Being liar has nothing to do with "knowing" doing anything.

What does that mean?

 

[FSSL]

I've never seen anyone call another person a liar because they disagreed or had a different opinion.  Can you provide an example?

Whoa! Taking lessons from Hillary!

Lying about the lies

 

[FSSL]

... and most of the insults recorded in fssls signature line... including the line about being a liar...  actually came from quotes of things that good buddy of yours accused him of...

Mitex, Alayman, PY...

Oh.. and my seminary profs, my pastor and my wife

 

[praise_yeshua]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied to you or were dishonest toward you. *

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

Being liar has nothing to do with "knowing" doing anything.

What does that mean?

You said...

To be a liar one would deliberately, knowingly, purposely offer false information.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied to you or were dishonest toward you. *

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

Being liar has nothing to do with "knowing" doing anything.

What does that mean?

You said...

To be a liar one would deliberately, knowingly, purposely offer false information.

I see.
If you gave false information unknowingly, that would, IMO, not be in the same category as deliberately doing so.
But, I won't argue the point if you think otherwise.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied* to you or were dishonest toward you. You said that liars and hypocrites run this place. I don't agree with that statement.

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

That's not an example.  That's an opinion of yours.  I'm not going to re-hash what Ransom and FSSL did just to prove why I called them liars, if that's what you're trying to make me do.  I have more evidence than I presented, but what I presented should be enough.  I'm ready to drop it.  You should, too. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied* to you or were dishonest toward you. You said that liars and hypocrites run this place. I don't agree with that statement.

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

That's not an example.  That's an opinion of yours.  I'm not going to re-hash what Ransom and FSSL did just to prove why I called them liars, if that's what you're trying to make me do.  I have more evidence than I presented, but what I presented should be enough.  I'm ready to drop it.  You should, too.

NO! Please don't re hash it. That was not my intent.
You asked what I meant in my original post. I answered by giving that example. Often on the fff, a liar, an an example I guess,  is in the eye of the beholder. Perspective is everything. Dropped, it is.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied* to you or were dishonest toward you. You said that liars and hypocrites run this place. I don't agree with that statement.

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

That's not an example.  That's an opinion of yours.  I'm not going to re-hash what Ransom and FSSL did just to prove why I called them liars, if that's what you're trying to make me do.  I have more evidence than I presented, but what I presented should be enough.  I'm ready to drop it.  You should, too.

NO! Please don't re hash it. That was not my intent.
And you asked what I meant in my original post. I answered by giving that example. Often on the fff, a liar is in the eye of the beholder. Perspective is everything. Dropped, it is.

I gave you a real example of a liar being a liar and not being called a liar over a difference of opinion.  You never gave me an example.  You just referenced an exchange and cited your opinion about it.  You're basically saying, "You presented evidence, and I don't think that evidence was sufficient."  That's fine, but it's not an example of calling someone a liar over a difference of opinion. 

That's all I have to say to you about it.

 

[Bob H]

Inf said, "I suppose I still visit here in the hope that the forum will become again what first attracted me?"

This is a good question that should be discussed.

What brought you to FFF (even a previous one) and eventually this one?

I found Don's forum thru Mc Phil's website. And I'm here cause I choose/chose {whatever} to be here. I can't blame nobody else

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Inf said, "I suppose I still visit here in the hope that the forum will become again what first attracted me?"

This is a good question that should be discussed.

What brought you to FFF (even a previous one) and eventually this one?

I found Don's forum thru Mc Phil's website. And I'm here cause I choose/chose {whatever} to be here. I can't blame nobody else

Double negative.  You blame everyone else. 

 

[Frag]

I pop on from time to time to check on the insanity - and occasionally chose to contribute to it.  Life is too busy to spend much time here, but do find some of the interaction amusing.  From day one, I have tried to not take anyone one here too seriously, including myself.  Prob disappear again for awhile - busy stretch ahead.  On a preaching trip , so I had a little time to kill the past few days. 

Wrote  couple more books since last on here.  Traded FFF time for writing time and finally got something done!

Blessings to all

 

[Walt]

2) Over the years I have come to value the forum as a place where I find disagreement. The average IFB pastor of my acquaintance has structured his life in such a way so as to avoid most if not all disagreement. His doctrine, philosophy, practice, principle, priority, and action are seldom challenged. That makes his life comfortable. And that's dangerous. The ramifications include little depth and much pride, not coincidentally two concepts that define much of the IFB world. For example, if I have a weak point in a message I preach @ church I almost certainly will not be called on it.

Yeah, I know I've said this 1,000 times, but one of the reasons for this is the current assembly model.  You get up, you preach, and everyone is expected to sit quietly and listen.  Even if someone in a pew thinks what you say deserves to be challenged, there's no way he's going to stand up and say so.  And in my experience, when I approach the pastor in private with my challenge, the best I can hope for is that he will pretend to take it into consideration.  Most of the time he simply flatly says that's not what he believes (and therefore will continue preaching whatever he believes, even if it's wrong). It IS a matter of pride.  He has been given the position of papal authority, and he doesn't believe anyone's views have any weight.

In the home assemblies and bible studies I attend, that isn't how things go at all.  People disagree, we debate our points from scripture, and hopefully everyone is edified.  Not everyone leaves convinced of someone's other insights, but at least they're aired on the spot, and not in some way that gives all the Biblical authority to one man.

There is a time and place for Bible study, when everyone is encouraged to participate, but there is also a time and place for preaching, which is not open to everyone's interruption on minor points or wacky ideas.... case in point - the Scripture (1 or 2 Corinthians) that begins "for we know that if this earthly tabernacle were destroyed..." - clearly, and in context, it is talking about our bodies; our flesh. I was in a Bible study where someone went on and on about how we would be living in tents in heaven, using this passage.

 

[Walt]

It was, I think, perhaps around 2007. 

I was an unhappy kool-aid drinking member of a HAC church.  The popular fundamentalist song had been "The Value of One" by Eric Capaldi, who had been at Bob Gray, Sr (TX) church ... but somewhere around 2007, he was gone, and no one would talk about it.  Irritated by the withholding of information, I searched for him, and one of the top links was a link to the FFF that explained what had happened.  Intrigued, I started reading... I assumed it was a forum  for fundamentalists like me, but I was both repelled and attracted to what I found.  People were (rightly) poking holes in (or making fun of) some of the ridiculous aspects of IFBx (the church we attended was IFBx; I, personally, very privately disagreed with some of their positions).  I was appalled by some of the people who claimed to be "good Christians" but were (it seemed to me) boasting of their divorces, drinking, tattoos, and other deliberate breaking of the "rules".

I was aware that "fundamentalists" disagreed to some extent about music, but I was not prepared for the supporters of hard rock and rap in the church, and the belief among "fundamentalists" that music was utterly amoral.

I only use the KJV, but I'm not sure that it makes me "King James Only" - so much of it depends on how the term is defined. I utterly reject Ruckmanism, which states that God actually wrote the King James Version.  The King James Version is a translation.  Claiming that the KJV is "inspired" muddies the water.

There were plenty of IFBx practices to poke  fun at - the missionary surveys asking what attire his wife sleeps in; preaching against bananas and open-toed sandals (what do people think they wore on their feet in New Testament times?), preaching that Jesus didn't have a beard, and on and on the list goes.

It has been educational.

 

[Tim]

Have you ever considered putting all of the liars on ignore?

That would be a great idea, if I hadn't already done it.

I guess you won't supply any examples, though.  That's fine.

I do not think that the admin or ransom lied* to you or were dishonest toward you. You said that liars and hypocrites run this place. I don't agree with that statement.

*As I define a liar....which is also how the dictionary defines a liar.

That's not an example.  That's an opinion of yours.  I'm not going to re-hash what Ransom and FSSL did just to prove why I called them liars, if that's what you're trying to make me do.  I have more evidence than I presented, but what I presented should be enough.  I'm ready to drop it.  You should, too.

NO! Please don't re hash it. That was not my intent.
And you asked what I meant in my original post. I answered by giving that example. Often on the fff, a liar is in the eye of the beholder. Perspective is everything. Dropped, it is.

I gave you a real example of a liar being a liar and not being called a liar over a difference of opinion.  You never gave me an example.  You just referenced an exchange and cited your opinion about it.  You're basically saying, "You presented evidence, and I don't think that evidence was sufficient."  That's fine, but it's not an example of calling someone a liar over a difference of opinion. 

That's all I have to say to you about it.

Be careful with your examples and evidence ...  8)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is a time and place for Bible study, when everyone is encouraged to participate, but there is also a time and place for preaching, which is not open to everyone's interruption on minor points or wacky ideas.... case in point - the Scripture (1 or 2 Corinthians) that begins "for we know that if this earthly tabernacle were destroyed..." - clearly, and in context, it is talking about our bodies; our flesh. I was in a Bible study where someone went on and on about how we would be living in tents in heaven, using this passage.

So any person who feels compelled to contribute is going to interrupt with a minor point or wacky idea, therefore there should be no interruptions?  That's a classic non-sequitur.  I'm sorry you have a single data point where someone went on and on with a wacky idea, but that is not a valid argument for sermons to a silent, captive audience.  There are preachers who go on and on with a minor point or wacky idea, too, but that's not the reason why I don't think the model is the right one.