Raf

Did the male leaders who participated in the adultery know it was wrong?

Evan, Actually, it's not a straw man. There are other counterarguments to my position that I won't get into, but straw man is not a legitimate one. My argument is that if the Father is greater than the Son, they are not co-equal, and therefore Jesus Christ is not God because there's something greater than him. You can argue against that, which is fine, but it's not straw man. The second point is that if there's something the Son does not know, then he is not God. Again, the point can be argued, but my position is not straw man. I used to delight in the trinitarian-unitarian argument. I no longer delight in it, so if anyone wants to argue with my position, have at it. Just don't be surprised if I don't engage as vigorously as I've been known to engage on other threads, k?

I don't see how what I wrote was either lying OR spin. Nor do I see how calling my paragraph "stupid" substantively addresses the point I made, which is that you are so obsessed with the sins of the women that you, like the Pharisees who dragged the woman to Jesus' feet, forgot to include the men. Maybe "obsessed" is the wrong word. Pick another one. Insistent. Stubborn. Dedicated. I don't know, YOU pick the word. Whatever. I'm not wedded to that word.

That's not counterpoint, John. It's spin. It's deflecting from the point. Christian leaders ought not be doing those things. No matter how much you want to malign these women, it doesn't matter. The point is that Christian leaders ought not be doing those things, regardless of whether the women were forced at gunpoint or coming onto them like Times Square hookers during Fleet Week. Oh, and your views on John 8? TWI spin.

wanna talk about ME wanna talk about I wanna talk about number one oh my me my... John, Convenient calling my post "lying spin." Real authoritative. Takes the focus off the baseless speculation of your post and puts it instead on.... meeeeeeeeeeeee. wanna talk about mee-eee-eeeeee. Hey, why don't you quote the rest of my paragraph, John?

Probably? Translation: "maybe." It could have been many times for the guy, just a different girl that time. Probably. Maybe. My baseless speculation is just as good as yours. And just as worthless. Adding a word to the Word, are we? Makes the rest of the interpretation convenient. If only that was what the Lord said! But it wasn't. You know, last time you had the decency to use the word probably. Or maybe. Now you're just stating baseless speculation as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation: If only that was what the Scripture said! But it wasn't. Good point. Do you know what would have happened if Nathan had gone to David with any other story? David would have chopped his head off! Probably. Maybe. Baseless speculation, stated as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation. But it sure sounded a heck of a lot better when it was just stated as fact. Sounds real authoritative, doesn't it? I wasn't there, so I have no comment. I'll leave that to others. I am qualified to say the following, however: It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things. You can distract and make it about the women. But you're still distracting. Or missing the point. Or both.

Hey John, What's the Greek word for "same" in that verse? Just curious.

Kev, You are very considerate. But the name of a character is not a spoiler. They just changed his name for the movie, which is not exactly a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. I guess it's the same reason The Incredible Hulk on television was "David Banner" instead of Bruce. Some writer probably owed a war buddy a favor or something.

Cuppa Joe comin right up for our brand new poster, pfalbmo... cream and sugar with that? Oh, and I have to ask: what does bmo mean?

:)-->

Again with the diversion: Oldiesman, take your eyes off that consequence clause and look at the behavior that's being condemned. Can we agree that regardless of the meaning of that clause, the behavior is being condemned? Do you see it? We can argue the consequence clause in the doctrinal section if you want. But can you, for once, just one time, stick to the subject?

I think she meant Chapter 5: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. ... [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. ... Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So as not to get into a doctrinal debate, I'll drop the point.

This is a matter of deflecting the point of the argument. Johniam, Oldiesman: It does not matter ONE WHIT if the women were prostitutes who took money for their activities and went on to sign multimillion dollar book deals. The point is the Christian "leaders" (ie, Christian servants, at least in theory) ought not do such things. The problem isn't just that there was sex going on. The problem is that it was rampant, and it was justified, by "leadership." It doesn't matter how much blame falls on the victims. Why are you so obsessed with that when the problem being identified is that people took sexual advantage of those they were supposed to be caring for, and they were doing it in God's name, and they didn't even have the decency to teach that it was wrong. Maybe if you stayed on the point, people would stop jumping all over you when these issues came up.

Also like my posts, it may make your stomach uneasy. But that's cafe coffee for you.

Lotsa new talent today. Very well said house 'o rock. Coffee?

Exactly. They controlled your mind so that you weren't thinking for yourselves. Now come think like us and everything will be okay because if you don't we're gonna call you NAMES! Phooey.

Pat, the point of offering the domain name for sale was not raised as a matter of infringement, competition, or dilution. It was raised as a matter of cybersquatting. Not a legal point: just going back over the conversation here. This is not to be misconstrued as a legal statement or advice or anything of the kind. This is strictly about the mechanics of this conversation as carried out on this thread.

There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. Uhhh, how many lumps do ya want?

That's not what I said. Read it again. It was a cult because of the way it mistreated people. I reject your standard of what makes a "cult." It's not disagreeing with you on doctrine: it's mistreating people. (I use cult according to its common usage, not its historic).

You didn't raise Christian issues, diazbro. You disagreed with them. Which is your prerogative, but I'm not about to fight you on it. Go fight someone else. It was a cheap shot to suggest that my standard was personal and not Christian. If you think I'm mistaken, that's fine. Your prerogative, like I said. But you crossed the line by suggesting that I'm just looking for a verse to back up my point of view. It's the Scripture that informs my point of view on this, not vice versa.

I didn't call you a robot for PR. Listen carefully: legal advice that runs counter to Pat, you criticize and bicker and question our motives and our qualifications for daring to have the audacity to speak on the subject. Legal advice that runs in Pat's favor, you greet with utter silence. And you accuse others of hypocrisy? Listen, you don't know my motives, psychologically or psychiatrically, so like Long Gone said, if you want to discuss the issue, fine. But I'm not the issue. Now that was a cheap shot. I cited chapter and verse. I stand by it. I am not attempting to "compel" anyone. Get your head out of the cult, will you? I'm trying to persuade. There's a difference. Like psychology and psychiatry.

Charles Stanley has always been a favorite of mine. On the local front, John Wagner (Davie, FL) and Bob Coy (Ft. Lauderdale, FL). Among offshoots, I still like Vince Finnegan and John Schoenheit (although they don't agree with each other as much as they used to). John Lynn is a hoot too.

Diazbro: I've already addressed this. I've already said that if you're not Christian, my argument holds no sway. Pat is a Christian. I believe my words are relevant, and if he disagrees with them, that's his prerogative. Just like it's my prerogative (and none of your business) if I disagree with Pat. P.S. If you don't care to look up the difference between psychology and psychiatry, then I don't care to continue that portion of our discussion. I noticed that you have not criticized Goey or Zix for their legal posturing that supports Pat. I suppose offering a legal opinion is only objectionable to you if Pat is opposed.

MY point of view? I just asked a question. If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, where does it apply? To answer your question more directly, yes. And diazbro, when you start telling me what's motivating me, you're putting yourself in my head. That's psychology. You don't know me, and you're flat out wrong about my motivations. Further, I did post some legal observations at the beginning of this thread. That's why I said I will RESUME my PRINCIPAL objection to Pat's course of action, which is not legal. It's Christian. It's Matthew 5. And if it doesn't apply here, where does it apply?