Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
Life After Brown
Youth Group Question From Last Night: God can’t allow sin into heaven? (OnTopic-No bible verses please)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4819369" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>It depends. Is your objective to help people improve their scriptural understanding? Or to turn them off from talking to you <em>and</em> continuing to read scripture? If It's the latter, then you are spot on.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which won't happen when people aren't interested in what you have to say.</p><p></p><p></p><p>On this discussion? I'm trying.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, no source for that standard? A standard created by man, which is as fallible as any man. Who gets to say what is "acceptable" apostolic example? Whose interpretation of the direct command is correct? Who says what is a "necessary" inference or conclusion? I get that it may be necessary to have a standard of intepretation, but you have to be realistic about the limits of the standard you employ.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Heaven forbid I try to establish some common ground. </p><p>To answer your question: Mostly because it's not the example set, but I believe water baptism is symbolic anyway, and in no way tied to our salvation (and before we go down that rabbit hole again, I will stipulate for sake of conversation that I could be wrong about that). By that standard the sprinkling of water vs full submersion isn't much of an issue. My main objection is the baptism of babies who cannot make a conscious choice to accept Jesus as their savior, so it's a pointless religious "going through the motions" thing. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Because there is a basic minimum that Jesus teaches, particularly when it comes to salvation. There are a lot of extraneous doctrines, which people derive from scripture, and which add variety, flavor and depth to some people's experience. Assuming they don't contradict the teachings of Jesus, they don't concern me much.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which shows in how you share your views and beliefs.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sure you don't believe that you come across that way, otherwise, I assume, you wouldn't respond the way you do. But I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person who feels that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's good. I was concerned based on your phrasing that maybe I had gotten under your skin.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that some people lack the scriptural basis to support their doctrinal views, but those are the ones you need to be a little more gentle with so that you can help them understand the importance of reading and contemplating scripture.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, using "absolutely" means you believe your intepretation is 100% correct, and a sign of being prideful. But thanks for letting me know how you see yourself in these conversations. Do you really believe that people are turned off by the fact that you see things differently than them? It's not what you say, it's how you say it. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm glad you're not ashamed. You clearly have spent time in the word. </p><p></p><p></p><p>See above.</p><p></p><p>I'm not one that you need to be gentle with, just to clarify. I have done my share of studying, and I know I'm still no expert and am willing to listen, discuss and learn because I sincerely wish to understand God better. From our few interactions on the subject I consider you someone I could learn from, except for the fact that your presentation is a turn off. Your logic in supporting your positions is often not logical, which makes discussion impractical at best. When you use "grammatically incorrect" as an excuse to infer something not clearly indicated by a scripture, that's not good faith, nor does it conform to your own standard of interpretation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4819369, member: 63706"] It depends. Is your objective to help people improve their scriptural understanding? Or to turn them off from talking to you [I]and[/I] continuing to read scripture? If It's the latter, then you are spot on. Which won't happen when people aren't interested in what you have to say. On this discussion? I'm trying. So, no source for that standard? A standard created by man, which is as fallible as any man. Who gets to say what is "acceptable" apostolic example? Whose interpretation of the direct command is correct? Who says what is a "necessary" inference or conclusion? I get that it may be necessary to have a standard of intepretation, but you have to be realistic about the limits of the standard you employ. Heaven forbid I try to establish some common ground. To answer your question: Mostly because it's not the example set, but I believe water baptism is symbolic anyway, and in no way tied to our salvation (and before we go down that rabbit hole again, I will stipulate for sake of conversation that I could be wrong about that). By that standard the sprinkling of water vs full submersion isn't much of an issue. My main objection is the baptism of babies who cannot make a conscious choice to accept Jesus as their savior, so it's a pointless religious "going through the motions" thing. Because there is a basic minimum that Jesus teaches, particularly when it comes to salvation. There are a lot of extraneous doctrines, which people derive from scripture, and which add variety, flavor and depth to some people's experience. Assuming they don't contradict the teachings of Jesus, they don't concern me much. Which shows in how you share your views and beliefs. I'm sure you don't believe that you come across that way, otherwise, I assume, you wouldn't respond the way you do. But I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person who feels that way. See above. That's good. I was concerned based on your phrasing that maybe I had gotten under your skin. I agree that some people lack the scriptural basis to support their doctrinal views, but those are the ones you need to be a little more gentle with so that you can help them understand the importance of reading and contemplating scripture. Yes, using "absolutely" means you believe your intepretation is 100% correct, and a sign of being prideful. But thanks for letting me know how you see yourself in these conversations. Do you really believe that people are turned off by the fact that you see things differently than them? It's not what you say, it's how you say it. I'm glad you're not ashamed. You clearly have spent time in the word. See above. I'm not one that you need to be gentle with, just to clarify. I have done my share of studying, and I know I'm still no expert and am willing to listen, discuss and learn because I sincerely wish to understand God better. From our few interactions on the subject I consider you someone I could learn from, except for the fact that your presentation is a turn off. Your logic in supporting your positions is often not logical, which makes discussion impractical at best. When you use "grammatically incorrect" as an excuse to infer something not clearly indicated by a scripture, that's not good faith, nor does it conform to your own standard of interpretation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
Life After Brown
Youth Group Question From Last Night: God can’t allow sin into heaven? (OnTopic-No bible verses please)
Top