Holding and Dee Dee disagree over Christian morals

[skepticbud]

Dee Dee, Holding and Skepticbud (me) finished a debate over the weaker-brother argument in Romans 14, and whether it can be used to promote crass legalism among Christian brothers and sisters without violating it's immediate context.

I eventually convinced Dee Dee to change her signature line from "Ms Warren if you're nasty" to "Momma Dee Dee" (she changed it near the close of that debate, go figure).

But look at Holding's new signature line, which he wrote sometime after the close of that debate..."That's Mr. Holding, because you ARE nasty...."

Some questions come to mind:

1 - Does Holding appear to love debate and argument more than the New Testament says is proper and good? Sure, Jude 3 says "contend earnestly" and Jesus said the Pharisees were hypocrites, but do even these references sound like a call to deliberately take upon yourself a known stumbling block for other Christians just to spite others?

2 - If we can avoid the weaker brother argument in Romans 14 by saying "but if I worry about what some weaker brother might see me do, I could never do anything without causing a weaker brother to stumble", then doesn't that mean this part of Romans 14 is a complete waste of time for modern Christians?

"Since we can't please everybody, let's offend some!" seems to be Holdings higher calling.

3 - There are just as many verses in the New Testament about Christian maturity and sacrifice for the sake of others, and avoiding foolish talk, as there are which say to go around arguing about the bible and Christianity. Ain't it strange that Holding lives his life by the "go around arguing" verses, but totally blows off the "be mature/sacrifice for the others" verses?

4 - This question is for Holding....If a mature brother refuses to drink beer, because he finds that Romans 14 is telling him to watch out for the weaker brother, is he misconstruing that passage? Also, granting that he is misconstruing it, what is the more loving thing to do? To stop drinking around the weaker brother, or to tell the weaker brother that his tendancy to fall into alcoholism simply by watching other people drink alcohol responsibly is not your problem?

5 - Does Jesus sound like the kind of person that would mimic a worldly ungodly song lyric that has "sexual" written all over it, just to spite somebody who doesn't believe his teachings? WWJD? Jesus wouldn't buy a bumpersticker that says "WWJD?", but he also wouldn't spite his opponents and followers by mimicing the ungodly world and the lusts thereof. Using Holding's response ("but that's just a modernist/westerist/literalist understanding of the gospel") you could make Jesus into a homosexual.

After all, just because it SAYS Jesus was godly, doesnt' mean me was LITERALLY godly, right? :)

[dizzle]

Oh I don't disagree at all with Holding on this issue. I changed my signature line for two reasons. One, to shut you up about it out of consideration and mercy for the TWeb membership not to hear you drone on and on about a nonissue (no Christian ever stumbled over it to begin with - if they did, I would weigh the situation), and two, I have had it for a while and wanted a change, and that was as good an excuse as any. I avoid stupid controversies caused by pot-stirrers such as yourself for I have better things to do with my time. And I limit myself to debating one or at most two noxious atheists (as opposed to the very genial ones here at TWeb of which Alward, Powell, and Gerkin are notable examples) at a time, so you will have to get in line behind Mr. Till and Steven. My dance card is full.

And you can call me Ms. Warren by the way.

[jpholding]

In drinks Bud, a frog in his throat,

http://www.tektonics.org/rom14.html

You arguments were even lamer than I realized! :eek:

Meanwhile presumption seems to be stock in trade for YOU, Bud. :brow: Dee Dee has already exposed your lie about "convincing" her to change the line; now as to your "questions" (guffaw):

do even these references sound like a call to deliberately take upon yourself a known stumbling block for other Christians just to spite others?

It isn't a known stumbling block, much less one that meets the criteria laid down in Romans 14. Next.

If we can avoid the weaker brother argument in Romans 14 by saying "but if I worry about what some weaker brother might see me do, I could never do anything without causing a weaker brother to stumble",

It can be "avoided" since the Corinthian parallel clearly indicates that someone has to say something. Next.

"Since we can't please everybody, let's offend some!" seems to be Holdings higher calling.

One of my higher callings is, "Rip the self-confidence out of apostate amateur exegetes," actually. :brow:

Ain't it strange that Holding lives his life by the "go around arguing" verses, but totally blows off the "be mature/sacrifice for the others" verses?

Satire and rhetoric was used by adults in the Greco-Roman world, and still is. Next?

This question is for Holding....If a mature brother refuses to drink beer

I already answered this twice in the original thread. Pay attention. Next.

Does Jesus sound like the kind of person that would mimic a worldly ungodly song lyric that has "sexual" written all over it,

He sure was someone who accepted the Jewish canon, which included the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 23:20 (which I can't even find a proper English translation of). Sounds like you're the one with a problem, Mr. Victorian Prude. :rofl:

response ("but that's just a modernist/westerist/literalist understanding of the gospel") you could make Jesus into a homosexual.

Try it and I'll kick you so high you'll need oxygen. It's actually the modernist/western/literalist view that tries to do that.

Burp?

[Rubia Warren]

I'm lost... how could "Ms. Warren if you're nasty" cause a weaker brother to stumble? Isn't that from a Janet Jackson song from the '80s? The one talking about nasty boys don't mean a thing? She was talking about nasty in a negative way, not a sexually provocative way.:huh:
Well! I gues you are just DARNED if you do, and if you don't ,too, aren't you, DDW?

[jpholding]

Ms. Rubia,

You missed a lot of context here. Bud is a nuisance Skeptic with a very fundamentalist-literalist background that led him to paranoid interpretations of passages like Romans 14. If you follow my link above you will get to an article that has a link here to the original discussion in which Bud was run over by several beer trucks. :smile:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 05:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58046#post58046)
La Rubia:

I'm lost... how could "Ms. Warren if you're nasty" cause a weaker brother to stumble?

It doesn't matter, the fact that a Christian would use a signature line that reminds other Christians who read it about a worldly song from the 80's testifies that the person with such a signature line has never read Romans 12:1-2, or has found an excuse for avoiding this particular Christian moral constraint to be IN the world but not OF the world.


Isn't that from a Janet Jackson song from the '80s? The one talking about nasty boys don't mean a thing? She was talking about nasty in a negative way, not a sexually provocative way.:huh:

You haven't seen the video. Be sure to view it when no weaker brothers are around, you don't want to be reminded of your godly walk in Christ any more than you have to be.


Well! I gues you are just DARNED if you do, and if you don't ,too, aren't you, DDW?

Only because the New Testament supports the legalism found in most fundamentalist churches. Be sure to edit out of Holdings responses any and all statements that are personal invective toward others and leave in only the statements that are attempts to refute what I said, and you'll find he doesn't have a whole lot to say.

Sure, he refers you to our past debate, but again, cleaving out his personal invective, we are left with very little. There's even a little "commentators are wrong if they disagree with me" in there.
JFB he called a "good" commentary, then turned right around and said they didn't understand the social context. Apparantly Holding has no qualms in accusing published bible commentaries of inability to understand this or that, when they reach conclusions he disagrees with. In the final analysis, JFB left open the question of how far exactly the weaker brother argument can be pushed in the life of a Christian, which is still sufficient to refute Holding, since Holding completely cuts off any and all possible relevance Romans 14 might have for modern Christians.

You'll have to agree that Holding simply doesn't give the appearence of being a "mature" Christian, (I don't care whether he is mature or not, but arguing against his maturity in Christ based on the fruits that drop from his tree here in this forum and on his own website constitutes an argument that he is a hypocrite, a blow to any Christian's profession of having Jesus as their savior) because his preoccupation with debating, arguing and politically correct ways to insult the opposition, completely dwarf beyond the abilities of most microscopes whatever desire he has left to obey those "other" bible verses that say do not argue, avoid foolish talk, make sacrifices for other brothers, etc.

[jpholding]

Ribbit,

It doesn't matter

Say it while you taps your ruby slippers and it may even come true! :rubia:

testifies that the person with such a signature line has never read Romans 12:1-2

You mean, mangled and misinterpeted it with decontextualized paranoia? So does that passage mean we have to use new words and get a new dictionary?

or has found an excuse for avoiding this particular Christian moral constraint to be IN the world but not OF the world.

Is the world ALWAYS wrong? :hrm: Even a broken clock is right twice a day, good grief!

Only because the New Testament supports the legalism found in most fundamentalist churches.

It does when you decontextualize it, sure. So likewise Shakespeare supports child molestation. :eww:

Be sure to edit out of Holdings responses any and all statements that are personal invective toward others and leave in only the statements that are attempts to refute what I said, and you'll he doesn't have a whole lot to say.

I said all that was needed. Given the quality of Bud's arguments, that isn't much.

There's even a little "commentators are wrong if they disagree with me" in there.

Try "commntators who don't answer the point are contextually useless". :smile:

You'll have to agree that Holding simply doesn't give the appearence of being a "mature" Christian

Based again on your own decontextualized methods. Blah blah, etc etc, repeat yourself 439 different ways and never say anything new. Want to debate that "foolish talk" issue when we're done? :brow:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 08:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58192#post58192)
jpholding:

testifies that the person with such a signature line has never read Romans 12:1-2

You mean, mangled and misinterpeted it with decontextualized paranoia? So does that passage mean we have to use new words and get a new dictionary?

Again, you accuse of me of taking a passage out of context, but you don't supply this context and then demonstrate how my interpretation violates it. You are here for pretty much the same reason I go to a bar. It's always fun and exciting, but nobody really cares whether the stories you tell are true or not.


or has found an excuse for avoiding this particular Christian moral constraint to be IN the world but not OF the world.

Is the world ALWAYS wrong? :hrm: Even a broken clock is right twice a day, good grief!

The whole world lays in the lap of the wicked one, 1st John 5:19. And since in the immediate context the author distinguishes the little group of Christians from the rest of the world, his usage of "whole world" in the phrase "the whole world lays in the lap of the wicked one" means "everybody else except followers of Jesus". It is not a question of whether the world is wrong, but whether a christian who supposedly thinks they shouldn't be worldly, should be reminding other Christians about worldly things such as worldly songs that might cause weaker Christians to stumble.


Only because the New Testament supports the legalism found in most fundamentalist churches.

It does when you decontextualize it, sure. So likewise Shakespeare supports child molestation. :eww:


And like the Mormons, you shout "taken out of context" without proof.


There's even a little "commentators are wrong if they disagree with me" in there.

Try "commntators who don't answer the point are contextually useless". :smile:


JFB left open the question of whether Romans 14 can be used all the time in all situations a Christian might be in; I have been arguing that it would be the more Christian and loving thing to sacrifice one's liberties in Christ for the sake of the weaker brother, and I proved that your responses could also be lodged against Paul himself, since any brother that refused to eat meat that was sold by an idoloter clearly is an idiot and completely imature in the faith, and you spent time trying to justify such a crazy view that Paul says is advocated by brothers who are W-E-A-K in the faith. Your entire rebuttal to me makes Paul's diatribe useless, Paul should have just said "do what you want in Christ all the time; and if a weaker brother stumbles because he can't handle that kind of liberty, remember Cain! "Am I my brothers keeper?! It's not your problem!" (1st Holding 6:66)


You'll have to agree that Holding simply doesn't give the appearence of being a "mature" Christian

Based again on your own decontextualized methods. Blah blah, etc etc, repeat yourself 439 different ways and never say anything new. Want to debate that "foolish talk" issue when we're done? :brow:

Yes, I accept your challenge. I will accuse you of violating several New Testament moral commands, and you have to promise to back up with supporting evidence your accusation that I take something out of context, you can't just scream it's out of context, as if asserting that was sufficient to refute.

[The Laughing Man]

Apparently hyper-fundy atheist Bud doesn't want to address Dee Dee's comments. Obviously, he knows he's a liar when he states that he convinced her to change her sig. Well, perhaps after a fashion and in his delusional mind, he did so by being such an obnoxious donkey bottom biter. :rofl:

[Gavin]

I didn't know atheists had such strict interpretations of Romans 14!

:hrm:

[dizzle]

And he failed to issue the appropriate apologies in the original thread in question after several corrections of other total misrepresentations. Friends don't let friends post drunk.

[jpholding]

In hops Bud, wheeling past the French restaurant,

Again, you accuse of me of taking a passage out of context, but you don't supply this context and then demonstrate how my interpretation violates it.

Wow. I guess it would be hard to make a cross application of those "moral exhortation" principles I already told you about. To which you answered, "Confucius is stupid!"

You are here for pretty much the same reason I go to a bar.

You go to bars to beat up drunks? :hrm:

lays in the lap of the wicked one" means "everybody else except followers of Jesus".

Sigh. More moral exhortation ravished by hyperliteralistic fundamentalism. Black and white? It never was for any moral teacher, and it wasn't here. Gte it through thy head.

should be reminding other Christians about worldly things such as worldly songs that might cause weaker Christians to stumble.

No such stumbling as Rom. 14 describes would occur in such cases unless a person was mentally ill. Check my link, Bud -- you were wrong in even more places than I imagined.

And like the Mormons, you shout "taken out of context" without proof.

You mean, you don't LIKE the proof I give, and have no answer. And have you forgotten? The Mormons actually are often right about that. I ought to have my Mormon friend Kevin come here and give you a noogie.

JFB left open the question of whether Romans 14 can be used all the time in all situations a Christian might be in

And I already told you why and how their material does nothing to help you. Rehashing it will impress no one and will not reverse your loss. I answered every one of these points and you had no reply other than to call ancient people stupid. End of story. You lose with excessive misery attached. But like the brontosaurus, you are too insensate to feel it.

Yes, I accept your challenge. I will accuse you of violating several New Testament moral commands

OK, let's deal in say five verses at most to keep focus narrow. We'll decide which in negotiation after this current debate, after you've healed.

and you haveto promise to back up with supporting evidence your accusation that I take something out of context

I do. You just don't like the supporting evidence and keep making excuses why it doesn't apply. :rofl: All of them tainted with the same modernist fundaliteralism. It's like a dog eating it's own tail.

One more condition. Apologize to Dee Dee for your misrepresentation of her position.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 10:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58262#post58262)
Jinx72:

Apparently hyper-fundy atheist Bud doesn't want to address Dee Dee's comments.

I'll accept that if you admit you cannot read english and you think the "Dee Dee" I responded to more than once a couple weeks ago on the Romans 14 subject was somebody other than the "Dee Dee" that comes around here.


Obviously, he knows he's a liar when he states that he convinced her to change her sig.


Incorrect. I realize full well that Dee Dee insisted all along that she changed her sig apart from any consideration of the force of my arguments in that regard. However, I disagree with Dee Dee's explanation. I think it is less likely that I happened to come along right exactly when Dee Dee was planning on changing her sig anyway, and it's more likely that she just so happened to change the sig after I started attacking the subject because my argument convinced her she was in the wrong, and the more loving thing to do would be to avoid this bit of worldy appearence.


Well, perhaps after a fashion and in his delusional mind, he did so by being such an obnoxious donkey bottom biter. :rofl:

The bible condemns atheists, like me, sure, but it also condemns Christians like you:

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice....But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[" (Ephesians 4:29-31, 5:3-5 NIV)

The context clearly says that "christians" who committ the listed sins, have no inheritence in the kingdom of god. I remind you of the context, because by your post you act like you are the kind of Christian that never knew the book of Ephesians even existed.

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another." (Titus 3:1-3, NIV)

"slander NO ONE" and "show true humility toward ALL men".

You may try to argue that universal terms as those above do not mean everybody without exception. But the immediate context from which these universal imperatives are drawn indicates they are to be taken in their wider sense. The author says the Christians he is admonishing were once unbelievers who lived in malice and hated one another. His reminding them that they used to be unbelievers, widens the scope of "all men" beyond the limited circle of Christians.

And these biblical basic must always be taught to Christians who don't have the guts to admit they love to slander more than they wish to build up and edify.

I love it, because it's entertainment for me until "blind date" comes on tv, but your own bible condemns you just as surely as it condems me. Take the log out of your own eye before you boast about the speck in mine.

Also, I learned the fine art of distraction through tough-talk from the reverend JP Holding himself.

You called me names and disobeyed the bible thereof because the logical force of my argument here was unassailable. :bawl:

[dizzle]

And your apology that you still owe me from the other thread is where???

And you are delusional.... Exhibit One for the Prosecution...

I think it is less likely that I happened to come along right exactly when Dee Dee was planning on changing her sig anyway, and it's more likely that she just so happened to change the sig after I started attacking the subject because my argument convinced her she was in the wrong, and the more loving thing to do would be to avoid this bit of worldy appearence.


So in other words, I was so convicted by your drunken ramblings that I changed my signature line out of guilt stricken conscience that is so tender that it could not bear the thought of stumbling some nonexistent Christians who never complained, yet this conscience is so calculating and hardened that it would outright lie about this act of kindness towards my brethren.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I don't appreciate being called a liar Bud. I bet you I could call more atheists to the defense of my character than even you could becuause I have treated them forthrightly. I readily admit when I am wrong. You have problems apologizing when you outright swallow both feet and your neighbors.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58349#post58349)
jpholding:

In hops Bud, wheeling past the French restaurant,

Again, you accuse of me of taking a passage out of context, but you don't supply this context and then demonstrate how my interpretation violates it.

Wow. I guess it would be hard to make a cross application of those "moral exhortation" principles I already told you about. To which you answered, "Confucius is stupid!"


So you are saying I was taking Romans 14 out of context from Confucious? Even if your confucious quotations agreed with your interpretation of Romans 14, the context of Romans 14 is always first and foremost, and I already showed that your logic would require Paul to have told the weaker brother in the context "if you don't want to eat meat offered to an idol, you are just weak in the faith, and that's not my problem!" Forget confucious and concentrate on how your own logic and spirit totally disagree with the things that are IN the context of Romans 14.


You are here for pretty much the same reason I go to a bar.

You go to bars to beat up drunks? :hrm:


No, I explained that in both cases, we go because it's fun and nobody believes our stories anyway. Don't talk to me about "context" until you start taking note of it yourself.


lays in the lap of the wicked one" means "everybody else except followers of Jesus".

Sigh. More moral exhortation ravished by hyperliteralistic fundamentalism. Black and white? It never was for any moral teacher, and it wasn't here. Gte it through thy head.


It still refutes you. You asked if everything about the "world" was bad, and I provided a quote from the bible, IN CONTEXT, to show that your own professed source of moral instruction says the WHOLE WORLD is under the devil's control. It is funny to see you magnify "literal interpretation in context" up to "hyperliteralistic fundamentalism". Do you have evidence to support your contention that my interpretive methodology is flawed here, or are you just blowing steam? I like to blow spit bubbles when I'm bored at the bar. Trouble is, none of the expensive looking collage girls wanna kiss me, even if I spill my beer on them on purpoze.


should be reminding other Christians about worldly things such as worldly songs that might cause weaker Christians to stumble.

No such stumbling as Rom. 14 describes would occur in such cases unless a person was mentally ill. Check my link, Bud -- you were wrong in even more places than I imagined.

I will check that link, but mental illness is no roadblock to making sacrifices of your Christian liberty for the sake of the weaker brother. The source of weakness is left unexpressed in Romans 14; he might be lazy, or willfully stupid, or mentally ill, but Paul's refusal to specify which exact kinds of weaknesses you should make sacrifices for, and which you shouldn't, argues that the intention is wide in scope and non-discriminant: You are to give up meat and drink and indeed ANYTHING whereby thy brother stumbleth, the whole justification being exactly the W-E-A-K-N-E-S-S of the other brother in question.

[/QUOTE]
And like the Mormons, you shout "taken out of context" without proof.

You mean, you don't LIKE the proof I give, and have no answer.
[/QUOTE]

No, I mean "you never gave any proof that I took anything out of context, or that I decontextualized anything."


And have you forgotten? The Mormons actually are often right about that. I ought to have my Mormon friend Kevin come here and give you a noogie.


Go for it.


JFB left open the question of whether Romans 14 can be used all the time in all situations a Christian might be in

And I already told you why and how their material does nothing to help you. Rehashing it will impress no one and will not reverse your loss. I answered every one of these points and you had no reply other than to call ancient people stupid. End of story. You lose with excessive misery attached. But like the brontosaurus, you are too insensate to feel it.


YOU were calling the ancient weaker brother in Romans 14 stupid, by your own logic when you said modern Christians who are truly offended at signature lines are mentally ill and don't deserve your sacrifice. I've now seen your article and will answer it in a seperate response.


Yes, I accept your challenge. I will accuse you of violating several New Testament moral commands

OK, let's deal in say five verses at most to keep focus narrow. We'll decide which in negotiation after this current debate, after you've healed.


The red lines on my skin turned out to be nothing more than spots where I itched and scratched as I got bored looking for substance your replies. Then the Nyquil and Scotch mixed and I became a light of the world, but under a bushel.


and you haveto promise to back up with supporting evidence your accusation that I take something out of context

I do. You just don't like the supporting evidence and keep making excuses why it doesn't apply. :rofl: All of them tainted with the same modernist fundaliteralism. It's like a dog eating it's own tail.


And your magnifying normal and literal interpretations by caricaturing them with negative sounding words like "modernist fundaliteralism" doesn't provide "evidence" against me.


One more condition. Apologize to Dee Dee for your misrepresentation of her position.

Sorry, my original misrepresentation from two weeks ago was an honest mistake of identity. Just because I think Dee Dee is puitting forth a false explanation for changing her sig doesn't mean I am misrepresenting her. She has insisted she was going to change the sig anyway, and to me that sounds like a big fat lie.
You cannot condemn me for any such 'misrepresentation', when other Christians here, like jinx72 refer to me as a "donkey-bottom-muncher".

I'm not asking for this "Christian" to apologize for his totally hypocritical behavior, why do you have a problem with my basic disagreement with Dee Dee?

And why do you suggest apologies as a "condition" to our future debate anyway? Are you just hoping I won't apologize so you can then breathe a sigh of relief wipe the sweat from your head and thank god that "Excuse #43" is now available for refusing to debate?

I'd debate you without asking for apologies even if you called my mother a whore! With all of your well-known satire, rhetoric and sarcasm, how could you possibly care in the least whether your debate opponent apologizes to anybody for anything?

GO HOME! (see?! :brow:)

[Bill the Cat]

Well, bud, Jesus called the Pharisees a Brood of Vipers, and they were actually religious. If you want us to treat you the way Jesus treated the Atheists of His day, we will be glad to offer you the same silence? Can I get an Amen anyone?

Oh, and BTW, your sig line says all we really need to know about your preconceived notions of Christians and especially pastors. I detest the Oprah show, Don't like MTV, even thoug Stacy Orrico is on there now, DOn't have a Wonder Woman t-shirt, nor a girlfriend(married happily 10 years thank you. Quit smoking when I got saved, I am a Youth Pastor at my church and am a conservative. I've never been late for an interview in my 34 years, I detest tv dinners and I don't like video games nor do i live with my mom and haven't since I was 17 and joined the Air Force.

[dizzle]

Bud still hasn't sobered up enough to explain how I could possibly be so moved by his incoherent ramblings with my super-sensitive conscience to change my signature line for these phantom offended Christians who never said a peep and yet so calculatingly devious that would I lie about this great service to Christendom. Do I smell bull crap on my shoe?? Indeed, indeed I do.

And by the way, here is the link where Bud tried accusing me of deception before and was found to be streaking through Central Park....

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44953#post44953

So his half-baked apology a few posts ago just does not cut it. Where is your specific non-self-justifying apology for your slopply elephant hurled accusations from a few weeks ago Bud? And I told you that I do not wish for you to call me Dee Dee. I am Ms. Warren precisely because you are the nasty and noxious sort of individual referenced before in my signature line.

[dizzle]

And JP, don't insist upon an apology for me, though the intentions are gratefully acknowledged. I like showing what a lout he is, and I get more pleasure out of seeing you trounce him then you can possibly imagine.

[jpholding]

In hops Bud, Iron Chef Sakai on his tail,

So you are saying I was taking Romans 14 out of context from Confucious?

That made little grammatical sense, so I'll just put it this way: You took out of context the entire genre of moral exhortation.

the context of Romans 14 is always first and foremost, and I already showed that your logic would require Paul to have told the weaker brother in the context "if you don't want to eat meat offered to an idol, you are just weak in the faith, and that's not my problem!"

You didn't show dip, and your attempt to foist paranoid literalism with yet more of the same was no more than a case of doubling your original error.

Forget confucious and concentrate on how your own logic and spirit totally disagree with the things that are IN the context of Romans 14.

I.e., "Forget genre and context, forget the social world this came from, and stick with my paranoid literalism derived from a modern English reading of the text." We know. That's the only way you can "win" and that's what you'd LIKE to forget. But too bad, Bud, it's all there and no matter how tight you shut your eyes and no matter how hard you tap those ruby slippers, it won't go away.

Don't talk to me about "context" until you start taking note of it yourself.

I noted the context precisely. I beat up those drunk on their own amateurish exegesis.

It still refutes you. You asked if everything about the "world" was bad, and I provided a quote from the bible, IN CONTEXT, to show that your own professed source of moral instruction says the WHOLE WORLD is under the devil's control.

Yet again, suffering your paranoid literalism with yet more paranoid literalism. You don't recreate a building from rubble by piling more cement on it and insisting that people can now move in.

It is funny to see you magnify "literal interpretation in context" up to "hyperliteralistic fundamentalism". Do you have evidence to support your contention that my interpretive methodology is flawed here, or are you just blowing steam?

No steam here except in your pockets. The moral exhortation genre is recognized worldwide and in mnay cultures. Paranoid literalism isn't. The burden is on you to prove that your interpretation -- which happens to comport with what is used by MODERN people in only PARTICULAR sects like the CoC, who are themselves otherwise patently uneducated in the socio-cultural backgrounds of the texts -- deserves credence.

I like to blow spit bubbles when I'm bored at the bar. Trouble is, none of the expensive looking collage girls wanna kiss me, even if I spill my beer on them on purpoze.

Tell them you'll turn into an artist formerly known as Prince, maybe that will help.

but mental illness is no roadblock to making sacrifices of your Christian liberty for the sake of the weaker brother. The source of weakness is left unexpressed in Romans 14; he might be lazy, or willfully stupid, or mentally ill

Don't forget that the aliens might have taken his brain. :rofl: Same old same old. Go bother Confucius with all the exceptions to the rules he missed and tell him that his "intention is wide in scope and non-discriminant." BTW it also runs down to a very skewered understanding of what was meant by weakness. You're dead about 7 different ways now instead of just 3.

No, I mean "you never gave any proof that I took anything out of context, or that I decontextualized anything."

Then your meaning is in error, for I gave you proof, and you responded with nothing substantive. The best you did was to call ancient people stupid for not conforming to your demands.

were calling the ancient weaker brother in Romans 14 stupid, by your own logic when you said modern Christians who are truly offended at signature lines are mentally ill and don't deserve your sacrifice.

Around in that circle yet again. It is YOU who calls them stupid in the ancient world; I say they were not.

red lines on my skin turned out to be nothing more than spots where I itched and scratched as I got bored looking for substance your replies.

I know, there were no substances you could smoke, which is what you look for. :thumb:

your magnifying normal and literal interpretations by caricaturing them with negative sounding words like "modernist fundaliteralism" doesn't provide "evidence" against me.

Regrettably for you, it is not used as evidence but as an accurate summary after evidence, your denials notwithstanding.

Sorry, my original misrepresentation from two weeks ago was an honest mistake of identity.

At least the word "sorry" was in there. Well, never mind.

She has insisted she was going to change the sig anyway, and to me that sounds like a big fat lie.

Why? Because that's the sort of lie you used to pull as a CoCer?

I'm not asking for this "Christian" to apologize for his totally hypocritical behavior, why do you have a problem with my basic disagreement with Dee Dee?

Mainly because it takes a tooth pulling exercise to get you to admit to an error. It's also a way to break you down and make you harmless to others.

And why do you suggest apologies as a "condition" to our future debate anyway? Are you just hoping I won't apologize so you can then breathe a sigh of relief wipe the sweat from your head and thank god that "Excuse #43" is now available for refusing to debate?

Nah. I would just have kicked your rump in other ways instead, just like I'm doing to FTill, who BTW has done a lot better than you in debate. I never thought I'd say that to anyone.

I'd debate you without asking for apologies even if you called my mother a whore!

You shouldn't. You think that little of your mother? Is she still CoC?

With all of your well-known satire, rhetoric and sarcasm, how could you possibly care in the least whether your debate opponent apologizes to anybody for anything?

Let's say it's like getting satisfaction out of squeezing that last drop out of an orange -- for the sake of those watching. :brow:

[skepticbud]

Now let's close with the verse which Bud used to try to, as he put it, take ALL Christian liberty away (v. 21):

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
The "anything" as he saw it gave reverse carte blanche to the weak to be rid of anything that bothered them. Does it? Not so. There are conditions set here: The action nust be something that causes stumbling, offense, or weakness. The first word is used only 8 times in the NT and is also used by Satan of what Jesus would do if he fell from the Temple (Matt. 4:6) and of what floods and winds do to a house (Matt. 7:27). All other uses are moral and indicate a serious stumbling, to the point of grievous injury.


Skepticbud:
First, Paul calls the brother in question “weaker”. That in itself is Paul’s own admission that the problem stems from an immature faith and not from a seriously important divisive issue. The problem is caused not so much by the issue as by the weaker brother who is MAKING it an issue.

Second, the proper meaning of “stumbling” must be determined by how it is defined in context FIRST, before other less relevant contexts are brought in. Paul uses several analogies of weaker-brother situations; weaker brothers according to Paul are the kind of brothers who:

- eat only vegetables
- regards one day above other days
- regards any certain food as unclean

Since Paul sums up the matter by saying the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (verse 17), we may rest assured that Paul’s weaker brother argument here was making use of TRIVIAL differences of opinion that weaker brothers stumble over via their weakness, and not more important things. His statement “whatever you believe about these things, keep between you and god” (verse 22) ought to end all argument on the point. Surely Paul would not talk so lightly about differences that were of major importance. These contextual summaries by Paul indicate that his words “destroy/stumble/offence” etc, are not big monster problems that would cause great havoc that Holding builds them up to be so he can then emphasize how different these important issues are from modern-day fundamentalist nit-picking. I contend that Paul’s analogies about what weaker brothers do are all prime examples of exactly nit-picking about unimportant points, and what little importance they are able to scare up only stems from Christian necessity to sacrifice for the weaker brother to avoid division and offence, definitely not because things like which day is more special than the other are supposedly “big issues”.

So then, “stumble” in it’s own original context, is not the “dive into hell fire” major issue that Holding magnifies it into, but is rather about nit picky matters whose ability to cause problems stems only from brothers being WEAK, not because the picky issues weaker brothers bring up are themselves important.


The second word is not as weak as it sounds ("offended"). It is used to refer to what your right eye does that would cause you to pluck it out; it means to trap and entice into sin. Note in this context 1 Cor. 8:10: "For 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..." The last word, "weak," literally means sick or diseased and is used of physically sick people such as the one on the verge of death (Luke 7:10). These are not mere matters of the sort of politically correct offense we see today, but of someone whose loyalty is so weak that they are in danger of loss of eternity via apostasy! (This also relates to whether or not one can apostasize and forfeit salvation; Calvinists may simply take this as hyperbole, but either way we have a situation that is serious, not trivial.)


Skepticbud:
Again, as with the case of the word “stumble”, Holding refuses to look in the immediate context to determine how the author he is citing is defining the word in question THERE.
But in the context of 1st Corinthians 8, there are plenty of phrases that clue us in to how exactly the author meant “weak”. Holding started at verse 10, but verse 7 is the clue to determining what part of the weaker brother verse 10 is referring to:

“Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled…But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” (1st Corinthians 10:7)

Clearly it is the weakness of the conscious, not the physical weakness Holding mistakes it for. Let us then look at the whole context:

7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your's become a stumbling block to them that are weak.
10 For 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;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (1st Corinthians 8:7-13, KJV)

I would encourage the reader who sides with Holding still, to read this entire 8th chapter of 1st Corinthians and then ask themselves whether Holding appears to be the kind of Christian who would tell a weaker brother “If you are offended that I eat meat, because you are weak, I will never eat meat again, to make sure you aren’t offended anymore.”

Holding will now remind us how every statement he disagrees with is just Semitic exaggeration to make a point, an accepted literary practice back then in that culture. Doesn’t matter, because we can ask “what point was being made with the exaggeration?” Clearly, that the conscience of the weaker brother should always take priority in the stronger Christian’s mind, above the right to exercise his own liberty. I refer the reader to our original debate at theology web campus, where stronger Christians argued tirelessly for their right to do something in spite of weaker brothers that might be and could be anticipated to take offence at Dee Dee’s liberty in Christ to remind everybody of a worldly sexy Janet Jackson song every time they look at her signature line to get an idea of what kind of Christian she is. 1 Corinthians 10

23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.


Bud: "....ALL Christians are under obligation to live their lives in way that is cautious toward the weaker brother. Dee Dee cannot possibly know how many weak Christians, who have an addiction to worldly music, will see her plagurized [sic] 'Ms Warren if you're nasty' tag line. And since one of her defenders already said she would be happy to change it if any Christian voiced his offense of it, they thereby prove that it is indeed a POSSIBLE stumbling block for a weaker brother."

As noted above, this is false on two points. First, "caution" to the point of worrying about every possible offense is unwarranted.


Skepticbud:
It might be a real pain in the butt, but Romans 14 can be interpreted to support this exact sort of paranoid exegesis without violating anything in it’s own context. Which is exactly why you previously expanded it’s context to include the “entire genre of moral exhortation”. Basically there is nothing in Romans 14 that will support your Cain “am I my brother’s keeper” interpretation, so you expand the context fallaciously without first making sure that everything IN Romans 14 has been utilized.


Indeed, it is quite clear from the Corinthian example that "unawares" offenses are not what we are to be concerned about.


Skepticbud:
First, granting that, there’s enough “awares” exhortation in Romans 14 to refute the way you believe weak brothers should be responded to.

Second, Romans 14 certainly has unawares offences listed in it! “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.” (Romans 14:21) While Christians may not always be aware that their conduct is actually causing a present struggle for another Christian, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that what liberty in Christ you are exercising MIGHT BE a stumbling block. The spirit of Paul’s entire discourse there in Romans 14 doesn’t have the sense of “if you don’t tell me you are offended by what I’m doing, I have every right to continue doing it regardless of what I’ve learned about weak brothers in the past!”, but rather “I realize in my situation, exercising my right to perform actions A, B and C MIGHT offend a weaker brother, so I will refrain from doing those actions for the sake of promoting unity among the body of believers.“

Just because my argument makes Paul look like a legalistic Pharisee doesn’t mean my interpretation is wrong. It could also be that Paul is advocating legalism here. Indeed, Paul says “let everyone be convinced in his own mind”, which sounds like a more liberal attitude, and then turns around and says “judge this rather, that no one put a stumbling block in his brother’s path,”, meaning, we are right back to legalism, and watching our every move to make sure we don’t offend a weaker brother. There is no a priori reason that I can see for
Assuming Paul must make perfect sense at all times, therefore I see no reason to avoid the “Paul’s instruction was slightly confused” conclusion. But the parts of his instruction that are not confused certainly teach the legalism of looking over your shoulder to make sure weaker brothers aren’t going to stumble.


Bud goes on to suggest that even possible offense should be considered, but that is simply not the case.


Skepticbud:
Do I really need to come up with a list of reasonable possible offences to refute this? How about a Christian woman who wears jewelry, invited to attend a fundamentalist church that has a few members who think all jewelry should be banned? There’s no guarantee she will offend them, but the possibility does still exist. What should she do for the sake of the weaker Christians at the fundamentalist Church? Refrain from wearing the jewelry just in case? Or wear it the way she always does, and then just respond to any objections “that’s your problem, not mine, you don’t understand the social context of Romans 14!”

How about a Sunday School Field trip for teens to the local swimming hole? Do you think the girls will be instructed to leave their bathing suits at home and just wear shorts with tee shirts? Of course. Why? Because normal female swim suits “MIGHT” offend someone, and they don’t want to take the chance.

How about JP Holding himself? Lots of Christians would object (and you have probably received many emails on this) because they say you push the sarcasm way too far and therefore contribute to the constant alienation of skeptics you dialogue with. Suppose you do receive one such request for you to drop your “writing style” and just stick with the arguments and cleave away all personally derogatory comments?

Let’s put this into biblical perspective:

You are very sarcastic in your rebuttals (a Christian eats meat)

A weaker brother tells you he is offended (a weaker brother says he is a vegetarian to you)

What should you do, based on Romans 14? Would you refuse to “eat, drink [and] do anything whereby [your] brother stumbleth…”? (Romans 14:21)

Or would you say “Paul said in Romans 14 that brothers who eat only vegetables are “weak”, therefore the problem here is YOU, not me, and YOU need to grow up in the faith and stop dragging everybody down with your clear disobedience toward paul, who said those with strong faith know there’s nothing wrong with eating meat”…?

I rather doubt you would cease your sarcasm just because of one weaker brother, and yet that’s exactly what Romans 14 would tell you to do. Paul never uses the weakness of the brother complaining about something as justification for the stronger to just ignore the complaint and chide the weaker for his weakness. Paul tells the stronger one’s to accommodate the wishes of the weaker brother, even though he is called the “WEAKER” brother.


Second, the "stumbling" block implies something serious -- a level of seriousness that would today imply, where something as minor as a tagline is concered and which is being used in the way Dee Dee used it, serious psychological disorder.


Skepticbud:
Paul’s examples of weaker brother issues are:

Vegetarianism
Esteeming one day above another

Do you think that a Christian who is a vegetarian has a “serious psychological disorder”? Do you think Seventh Day Adventists (who esteem one day above the others) have a “serious psychological disorder“?

The obvious answer to both is no. However, if you answer “yes”, simply to remain consistent with your earlier assertion that Paul is discussing seriously divisive issues that imply mental disorder, it doesn’t matter, you are STILL under a Romans 14 obligation to refrain from eating or drinking or ANYTHING whereby these confessedly weaker brothers stumble. And since it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that inviting a vegetarian Christian to your house for dinner will offend them if you eat meat, you can anticipate this offence, and such anticipation proves that Romans 14 obligates you to watch out for POSSIBLE offences, not just limited to issues brought to your attention.


A better example is one Bud did come up with:

For example, suppose I am a Christian and I live with a Christian brother who has a problem overcoming alcoholism. YOU come over to counsel me, and ask me why I take my liberty in Christ to have a beer once on friday afternoons, when I MIGHT BE offending the weaker brother. Then I respond "but he hasn't expressed any problem with it, in fact he said it's ok!" Do you think that this would justify going ahead and having alcohol in the house and drinking it while he lives there, KNOWING that he has had a problem overcoming this addiction? (snip preaching against alcoholism)

In all of this there is nothing to be said against accomodating an offended person on these minor issues.


Skepticbud:
Well thank you very much for agreeing with my point that even the “minor” issues concerning weaker brothers need to be accommodated by the stronger!


However, dialogue and understanding is a premier option in such cases, for they have not reached anywhere near the level that Paul's church members had reached.

Skepticbud:
Unfortunately for you, Romans 14 is exactly where Paul WOULD have told the weaker brothers that they need to grow up in Christ and stop dragging down the stronger who understand the faith more and thus know better…..and he doesn’t. Unbeknownst to Holding, the writer of Romans 14 was a Pharisee, who in speech declared his freedom from that legalism, but who in fruits and exhortation shows that he is still straining out gnats.


Thus Bud's statement becomes even more ludicrous in context:
Your only defense will be to suggest absurd scnearios involving extremely weak Christians who would be offended at absolutely everything from your drinking coffee to dating before marriage, to helping the world destroy the earth by driving a car to work instead of taking the bus or bicycle. Of course, the problem for you is, Romans 14 will sustain my criticism even in these cases. But you'll have to committ to debating me on the subject before you find out how Romans 14 is necessarily the end of all Christian enjoyment.
Clearly, this is nowhere near the truth and reflects only a paranoid overreading of Romans 14.


Skepticbud:
So let’s take each of those absurd extremes I mentioned and see if Romans 14 will sustain them just as easily as vegetarianism….

“Drinking coffee” - The weaker brother says “there are more impurities than nutrition in the coffee you drink, aren’t you polluting the temple of the lord? Wouldn‘t water be better?

Apostle Paul: “If you are truly offended, I will stop drinking coffee to promote our unity.”
Holding: “Apostle Paul said it was ok to eat meat, yet meat is not the most healthy food to eat! Romans 14 calls you a W-E-A-K brother, so your offence at my drinking coffee testifies more to your psychological disorder than it does to my obligation to accommodate you in this minor matter! How long do you plan to be a weak brother? Doesn’t Paul say elsewhere to “grow in Christ”? Should I accommodate you when your request stems from a refusal to grow up in the Lord? That would be assisting you in your effort to stunt your own spiritual maturing process, whereas the stronger brothers have an obligation to teach the weaker ones the truth about Christian liberty! I cannot let you continue in this error of yours, so let me teach you from the bible about how your refusal to grow in Christ can actually drag down others!

“Dating before Marriage” -the weaker brother says “To avoid dating is to avoid the possibility of fornication, and I’ve tried dating before and fell into sin. Don’t you realize that Paul said marriage is ok, but that remaining single is better? I’m trying to stop being a weaker brother by taking the highest moral, to remain single. Yet every time I see you, you are dating some woman! I‘m offended that you date, when you should be single so you can devote all your time to directly serving god.”

Apostle Paul: “If you are truly offended, so that you might try dating and stumble into sin and lust again, I will stop on your account, to promote the unity of the brothers.”

Holding:“But Paul never said marriage was ‘bad’, so you cannot condemn others for choosing biblical options that are available to them! And if you have a problem with lust, so that you cannot date a women without taking her to bed, is that my problem? Sounds more like you are so much more immature in Christ that I cannot even help you, and you should seek the company of other Christians who believe like you, so you don’t drag me down from my biblically justified choice to date! Do you realize that when you say you are offended at dating, you are promoting legalism, because it will cause other brothers who love you to cut that out of their lives for your sake? Don’t you realize when you make your offence known, you are making yourself the center of attention, and therefore acting like you have more important needs than other people? But we are ALL equally sinful, and Paul said no one should esteem himself as more important than anybody else! You need to have a balanced view and take in the “whole counsel of god”! Do you realize that you create more problems by being offended at stronger brothers? So that means you are dividing the brothers, and Paul says to reject those who are divisive!”

I think you get the point that you are certainly not interested in simple obedience to the legalism of Romans 14. You have your canon within the canon and that’s that, right? And if anybody doesn’t like it, they can bark up another tree for all you care, right?

[skepticbud]

At this point as well Bud tried to rein in more for his case:

The entire New Testament seems to say that a Christian should not seek to exercise their liberty in Christ, but to do all things toward edification. So in the best case scenario, totally hypothetical that is, Dee Dee's "Ms Warren if you're nasty" tag line, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T GIVE THE APPEARENCE OF SIN OR CAUSE A WEAKER CHRISTIAN TO STUMBLE, still does not "edify".

I asked Bud in reply, "Seems to say this where, please? And would you mind explaining to us how going to the bathroom may be used toward edification?" to which Bud evaded by quoting, "Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord." (Philemon 1:20)


Skepticbud:
You answered the first question later, but the bathroom bit, well, what is more edifying, to go to the bathroom or to hold it all day?


Then Bud offered these two:

Christians who date. Could you be using that time for bible study and evangelizing others? Which is more important? What if a weaker brother that needs the example of Christians who prefer to study than to date, comes around!? You don't want to lead him into a liberty that he can't handle right? Who does Paul in Romans 14 say should make the sacrifice, the weaker brother or the strong? What's more important, to selfishly cling to your liberty in Christ and tell the weaker brother that you never said you believed everything in Romans 14, or to sacrfice dating and study the bible more to show him a good example?
What about driving cars? You said they were necessary in this modern age, so let's assume a strong Christian and weak Christian live in the same apartment that is two blocks from all the stores and their jobs. The weaker sister says "you would be safer to just walk instead of taking the car, even safe drivers can cause accidents, and besides, it is that much less pollution created for people walking down the street." Should the stronger one just pass her off as crazy, or make the sacrifice and walk? Clearly the weaker sister thinks a little off-center, but then, that's what weak faith is, right? And who does Romans 14 say should make the sacrifice; the weak or the strong?

I replied in part:

Weak faith is a fine reason to give up something for someone else. Paranoia is not. Stupidity is not. Nor is stubbornness, contrariness, or a desire to be a nuisance.


Skepticbud:
Paranoia, stupidity, stubbornness, contrariness and desire to be a nuisance are all earmarks of those kinds of Christians who have “weak” faith! Christians who do those things, clearly don’t have a mature faith, agreed? Yet although Paul in Romans 14 had the perfect opportunity to chide weak brothers for their weak faith and admonish them to grow up, yet he DOESN’T do that! How could Paul avoid any word of warning to weak brothers in a context where he is writing about accommodating weaker brothers? Because Paul wished to emphasize that the stronger Christians making sacrifices of their liberties in Christ was far more important than exhorting the weaker brothers to stop dragging down the others.


True "weak faith" is actually a rarity today in my experience and seems to be limited to those going through the difficulties of adolescence.


Skepticbud:
Maybe in your experience, but your own stated attributes of people such as Paranoia, stupidity, stubbornness, contrariness and desire to be a nuisance, characterize many of today’s Christians. For you to say you haven’t seen too many examples of “weak” faith in your own experience, seems to implies you attend a church of one in a cave, the one next to the cave you live in.


On dating I said:
Life requires balance. We each need to evaluate and set priorities. We are made to be social; some sort of courtship or social life is a necessity. The days of clubbing women and dragging them home are long past.


Skepticbud:
Apostle Paul was in a perfect context when he wrote Romans 14, to say all these things in order to educate the weaker brother. He didn’t. Sort of like a person who notices the traffic light turn green, and then just sits there. He must have a damn good reason for refusing to do that which the context he is in would predict he would do.


You obviously had problems because your Bible (which you used as a leather security blanket) didn't coddle you and hold your pinky through the process. Amazing. He couldn't think for himself, so he became a "freethinker".


Skepticbud:
You see? I wonder how many Christians would take offence at your incessant use of personally derogatory remarks against your debate opponents? Now don’t get me wrong, I like it when you belittle me, because more mature Christians will see what you write, and that will be one more evidence that growing up in Jesus doesn’t always work out as planned, hence, suggesting that spiritual maturity isn’t real, so that the spiritual world isn’t real.


[Dating is] pretty stupid as an example. If this allegedly "weaker" brother knows you do Bible study already, what's he on about? If he thinks you need to spend less time with dating and more with study, how does he know? If you ARE off on dates to the exclusion of such study, he may have a point. If you are not sacrificing adequate study, and he doesn't know, inform him and his weakness will be strengthened by knowing that you really are setting a good example.


Skepticbud:
Apostle Paul doesn’t ask such questions of the weaker brother, he just ceases the activity the weaker brother is complaining about or else may be offended at.


If he wants to argue, he isn't weak, he's paranoid and holier-than-thou.


Skepticbud:
False distinction; Christians who just want to argue clearly do not have a mature faith, and that leaves weak faith as the only possible description of them. Perhaps they don’t have faith at all, and are just wolves in sheeps clothing, however, this could also be true of the weaker brothers in Romans 14, yet Paul never suggests that the stronger Christians test the weaker brother to be sure he is saved before they start sacrificing their liberties in Christ for his sake. Indeed paul wouldn’t say that, because Christians cannot know with sufficient certainty whether any professing Christian is actually born-again or not.


Bud, was this kind of thinking just too complicated for you as a believer, or are you just trying to prop up an argument that was so lame from the start that it needed to be shot?


Skepticbud:
Again, your desire to be constantly insulting, while making it more fun for me, is frowned upon by your beloved Pharisee apostle. I could quote many New Testament verses that tell Christians not to belittle others, etc, but you would probably just brush it off with “paul said bring my coat from troas, especially the parchments, do we need to obey that too?”


...The "weaker" sister here is nuttier than a fruitcake, and you are just making it up to try to save your bacon.


Skepticbud:
If she is nutty, she is weak in the faith. And the hypothetical scenario I gave you is perfectly within the bounds of reason, and I’ve heard plenty of Christians talk that before, and I’ll paste that scenario in here again for the convenience of the readers:

====“What about driving cars? You said they were necessary in this modern age, so let's assume a strong Christian and weak Christian live in the same apartment that is two blocks from all the stores and their jobs. The weaker sister says "you would be safer to just walk instead of taking the car, even safe drivers can cause accidents, and besides, it is that much less pollution created for people walking down the street." Should the stronger one just pass her off as crazy, or make the sacrifice and walk? Clearly the weaker sister thinks a little off-center, but then, that's what weak faith is, right? And who does Romans 14 say should make the sacrifice; the weak or the strong?”====


Sorry, but there is no mentally healthy person who would stumble over such a matter.


Skepticbud:
First, you admit later that “Practically speaking, I have run into no actual examples of weak faith of this sort in my lifetime. Perhaps others have.”, so you changed your mind later on this matter. Second, mentally healthy or not, the women clearly has weak faith so she qualifies as a weaker sister for whom stronger Christians should sacrifice their personal enjoyments when she takes offence. And you are wrong anyway, there are lots of Christians I’ve met through the years who think driving cars is a sin. Ever hear of the Amish? Let me guess, you will simply insist they are crazy in their efforts to be as separate from sources of worldly influence, right? You are just jealous because you know you couldn’t walk in Christ with that degree of purity. You have to have your cars, mochas, cable tv commercials during worldly movies.


Both should engage in healthy discussion over the issue


Skepticbud:
Why didn’t Paul say that? That’s like president Bush addressing the subject of the current war we are in, and “choosing not to mention” Iraq or Saddaam. Not likely. Paul refused to exhort his readers with all these nifty ideas you have because he taught that sacrifice for the weaker is so much more important than exhorting them to grow up in the faith, that exhortation to grow up was irrelevant to his point.


-- I do have sympathy for the sister's viewpoint, actually, and myself would refuse to drive a car that was not fuel efficient.


Skepticbud:
Then you are “nuttier than a fruitcake“!


In light of the above, my point has been even more greatly reiterated. Such persons as above are not victims of "weak faith" but of misplaced concern at best and paranoia at worst.


Skepticbud:
First, then you are plagued with misplaced concern at best and paranoia at worst. Second, “misplaced concern” and “paranoia” in a Christian sure doesn’t sound like “mature faith”, right? And that leaves only weak faith as their proper characterization, so you lose this point. Only if you deny the person’s salvation, could you then exclude weak faith as the last option. Butr no Christian has the ability to know for certain who is and isn’t saved, and the risk of calling a saved person unsaved (and thus blaspheming the work of the Spirit, who regenerated them) is so great that it is better to let me win this point instead of trying to distinguish between strong, weak, and mentally ill faith.

[The Laughing Man]

Wait, wait, wait. What does Philemon 1:20 (KJV) have to do with going to the bathroom? Do we not understand where the seat of emotion was at that time?

[dizzle]

Scepticbud: Please be aware of this rule:

The maximum post length is 24K characters. Please keep the points concise. Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. There are progress bars below the reply boxes to assist you. When making a reply or referring to multiple replies please make use of the Link, Quote and Multi-Quote features. Breaking of posts or multiple posts to post an article is not allowed, if you wish to post an article or such that will exceed the post limit please contact a moderator to get your article posted in the appropriate Bulletin Board section where you may then make a link to in the thread you wish to create for discussion regarding the article. Discussion will not take place in the Bulletin Board sections only articles are posted there. Discussion will take place in the proper forum for the context of the article. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator about this.

Please do not post "part one" and "part two" responses in that fashion. Ordinarily such posts are simply deleted, the next one will be.

Thank you.

[jpholding]

Since Bud felt free to violate Tweb post rules, I will cut his words and only respond to them. If he loses track, it’s his own fault. Fortunately, as usual he mainly repeats himself over and over and over and over so that there's not much to respond to once you cut out the blathering.

The problem stems from an interaction of immature faith and an issue. One can’t be placed over the other.

The proper meaning of “stumbling” IS determined by what the word means. Bud is trying to evade by the bait and switch method and from there on relies on his assumed emasculation of the words used. Standard CoC rationalizing procedure. He repeats this canard several times and I will not address it again. This is like saying there is a difference between “I will destroy that building” and “I will destroy that rubber duck” and trying to claim that the latter does not imply destruction but only minor abuse!

And here we go, yet again, with the same old harp from Bud. The differences Paul cites are not “trivial” or “nit-picking” but are clearly matters of great importance to the ancients. In particular they match customs which Jewish converts would have practiced all their lives as fulfilling ancient ritual purity requirements – ritual purity being an especially important thing for the ancients. Bud’s standard bigoted answer as we know is that they were all crazy for believing this was important, which amounts to waving the white flag. Verse 22 is not “lightly” but another means of keeping peace.

In 1 Cor. Bud again tries to play his game of word meaning emasculation, and misses the point admirably while doing so. Whether it is weakness of “conscience” (which BTW does not mean the internal Jiminy Cricket we think of today, but refers to general moral perception, but it makes no difference in this context) it remains that this is weakness to the point of danger of apostasy. I did not say that it was physical weakness; I used places where the word was also used of physical weakness to indicate the strength of the meaning behind the word. Bud would waste a lot less space if he actually bothered to try understanding what is being argued rather than jumping to conclusions after a beer.

Bud asks if I would stop eating meat under 1 Cor. 8 provisions. Yes, if I was asked by a brother on the verge of apostasy to do so, I would cease eating it in his presence. Of course the conditions in 1 Cor. 8 are not duplicable anywhere in the world that I know of today. Remember it is not a matter of “offense” but APOSTASY and spiritual ruin, and Bud’s attempt to soften the words do not cut the mustard. I do not need to appeal to Semitic exaggeration here and Bud is wasting time burning a straw man in order to distract from the beating he is taking on the main point.

Bud insists that Romans 14 can be interpreted to support his paranoid stance “without violating anything in it’s own context.” Sorry Bud, but the “entire genre of moral exhortation” IS part of Romans 14’s “own context” and merely drawing artificial lines around what YOU arbitrarily declare is its “own context” is nothing more than a game you play to save your unsupportable, decontextualized, and narrow eisegesis.

Bud next says that “there’s enough ‘awares’ exhortation in Romans 14 to refute the way you believe weak brothers should be responded to.” That made little sense as stated, and Bud gives no example of such an “aware” exhortation in Romans. 1 Cor., which is an actual, practical example of Romans 14 being enforced (and was assuredly in Paul’s mind as he wrote Romans in Corinth – cf. 16:23) and it clearly indicates that the weaker brother should speak up, while Romans 14:3 places a burden on the weak to not judge the strong, . He tries to make Rom. 14:21 an “unawares” but sorry, it wouldn’t be – because again, the reference is to meat used for sacrifice to idols and wine used for libations, ancient paradigms all persons in that time would be familiar with.

I will ignore Bud’s pleas that “Paul could really be advocating legalism”and suggesting that Paul was confused – it is again HIS burden to explain why we should believe an interpretation that JUST HAPPENS to match that of people a world away and 2000 years later is the correct one, over what I have shown to be an interpretation that fits the world Paul lives in precisely. Transferring his own confusion onto Paul while sitting in his easy chair is a despicable act of bigotry.

Bud wants to know of he needs to “come up with a list of reasonable possible offences to refute this”. A few would help. The jewelry example I addressed in the article, and he apparently did not notice, and also still pretends that he has deflected the force of Paul’s “stumbling” words to mean just everyday offense. Find me a person who apostasizes over wearing of ANY jewelry, and I will show you also a person who has decontextualized the Scriptures and also needs psychological counseling. I do wonder if the swim party issue comes from Bud’s past and will add that example to my essay. I have already addressed the issue of satire, and there as well the few letters I have received have not been threats of apostasy. Bud continues to pretend that Romans 14 is a mere matter of personal offense.

In what follows Bud yet again plays the card of ignorance and pretends that i.e., the “vegetarianism” is a mere matter of “I like Chef Boyardee, he likes rabbit food”. It isn’t, and it never will be. If that WERE the only matter, then yes, I would suggest serious psychological disorder is the real problem. Maybe they were beaten by a parent who held a Bible in one hand and a steak in the other. Who knows? Either way what Bud suggests of a
dinner at home is not a Romans 14 problem.

Bud says, “Well thank you very much for agreeing with my point that even the “minor” issues concerning weaker brothers need to be accommodated by the stronger!” Cut the manipulation, Bud. Bud pulled out the sentence before the conclusion in order to fool gullible readers (very gullible ones) into thinking I had agreed with him. My main reply had to do with dialogue and understanding, and Bud waves that away by harping back to the same paranoid-literal, any-offense-at-all view of Romans 14 that has already been soundly refuted. His examples of coffee drinking is the same, and we already addressed dating in the previous thread. The answer Bud puts in my mouth is not the one I gave, sorry.

Bud evades with yet another joke on Phil. 1:20. Jinx has rightly noted that that is not a “bathroom” verse. Even so the question is not “what is more edifying” but “how is it edifying to begin with”? It isn’t. Many daily human activities have no power to tear down or to edify (barring mental illness, as usual). Therefore it is absurd to read instructions to edify with paranoid literalism. Again.
Yet again as well, Bud insults the ancients by saying that those with paranoia, stupidity, nutty etc. ARE the weak Christians. No, they are NOT. That is not what the word means, as I showed in the article. Bud’s namecalling is a semantic scam, and his attempt to collapse all of these things into “weak faith: is nothing but a rationalization. Then Bud yet again demands that the genre of moral exhortation meet his nitpicking demands that exceptions and questions be laid out so that he doesn’t have to think his way through. Once again, we’re sorry, Bud, but your error in using the Bible as a security blanket (i.e., stupidity, not weakness) is not for us to cover for, and your demands that the moral teachers of antiquity comport to your standards is a bigoted case of anachronism. Bud here is like the OSHA official who fined two men who saved the life of someone buried in dirt who would have died without immediate rescue, because they didn’t go look for and don safety helmets before jumping into the pit.

Bud tells is that “ Christians who just want to argue clearly do not have a mature faith” – there he goes again, playing semantic games by trying to mash together two unmashable concepts. No, Christians who want to argue, want to argue – whether their faith is mature or not is not germane to their desire to argue. People argue for any number of reasons – personal animosity, misinformation, personal offense – that have nothing to do with their level of loyalty (faith) to Christ Jesus.

Bud claims his driving scenario is within reasonable bounds, but sorry, merely requiting the case proves nothing. I changed my mind on nothing re examples of weak faith; I merely related my personal experience. Bud’s “driver woman” does NOT have “weak faith” except by the illicit move of fallaciously collapsing down anything and everything as “weak faith” and expanding the definition to suit Bud’s purposes. In other words, yet more rationalization. (The Amish I do not think regard driving cars as a “sin” but even if they do, have yet to invoke Romans 14 on the rest of the world, which suggests that they view it as a matter of personal choice, not “right and wrong”.)

Bud is too ignorant, apparently, to see a difference between wanting to drive a fuel efficient car and wanting to stop all driving entirely.

And so we come to the end. Bud’s arguments, as usual, run down to the same few fallacious points repeated over and over and over and over to the point of nausea, the same propping up of weak reeds with weak reeds. Of course that he has lost his shirt on this issue is a foregone conclusion. But we will continue to take his shirt to the cleaners for the sake of breaking Bud down and keeping him from ever being a threat to any who DO have weak faith. And THAT is also what Romans 14 is all about.

[dizzle]

But we will continue to take his shirt to the cleaners for the sake of breaking Bud down and keeping him from ever being a threat to any who DO have weak faith. And THAT is also what Romans 14 is all about.

Amen.

[jpholding]

As an aside to Bud. I plan to change by tagline again sometime next week, NOT because it offends anyone or because it might or because you are paranoid, but because I like variety in my taglines. Just so you don't start crowing again, though this probably won't stop you from lying as you did before. We can smell the moral sewer you're in from Miami.

[Lizard]

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60371#post60371)
Dee Dee Warren:

But we will continue to take his shirt to the cleaners for the sake of breaking Bud down and keeping him from ever being a threat to any who DO have weak faith. And THAT is also what Romans 14 is all about.

Amen.

Amen.

That deserves a second.

Very well said JP.

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 10:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60398#post60398)
Faramir:

Amen.

That deserves a second.

The motion passes. :yipee:

[skepticbud]

I have decided to do what should have done a while back, and that is to pick out one single error of reasoning in Holding's response, and just concentrate on that, because points can truly become lost when several thousand of them are flying around all at once.

And besides, to focus on one point will reduce the number of opportunities Holding has to generalize and preach to his choir about how utterly wrong I am.

So the one point I will choose to focus on for a while will be my exegetical methods. Holding thinks they are crazy:


The proper meaning of “stumbling” IS determined by what the word means. Bud is trying to evade by the bait and switch method and from there on relies on his assumed emasculation of the words used.


Emasculation? I consulted the immediate context of "stumble" in Romans 14, to get an idea of what exact sense Paul intended it to have THERE, and you say I play word-emasculation-games?

Your insane caricature of me means either you willfully misrepresent my work or else are so fully incompetant it's a miracle you can spell as well as you do, but either way, I'm going to remind readers of what exactly i did to derive the proper meaning of "stumble" in Romans 14, then afterward i will remind them of a single basic error of interpretation you committed.


Skepticbud:
Second, the proper meaning of “stumbling” must be determined by how it is defined in context FIRST, before other less relevant contexts are brought in. Paul uses several analogies of weaker-brother situations; weaker brothers according to Paul are the kind of brothers who:

- eat only vegetables
- regards one day above other days
- regards any certain food as unclean

Since Paul sums up the matter by saying the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (verse 17), we may rest assured that Paul’s weaker brother argument here was making use of TRIVIAL differences of opinion that weaker brothers stumble over via their weakness, and not more important things.

His statement “whatever you believe about these things, keep between you and god” (verse 22) ought to end all argument on the point. Surely Paul would not talk so lightly about differences that were of major importance.


Do you agree that learning what Paul meant by 'stumble' in Romans 14, must make use of the immediate context FIRST, at least before jumping to other books and and different contexts?

If you answer yes, then why did you immediately jump to other bible books before consulting the clues available in Romans 14? I remind the reader of how exactly you went out attempting to discern the true meaning of "stumble" in Romans 14:


==="It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

The "anything" as he saw it gave reverse carte blanche to the weak to be rid of anything that bothered them. Does it? Not so. There are conditions set here: The action nust be something that causes stumbling, offense, or weakness. The first word is used only 8 times in the NT and is also used by Satan of what Jesus would do if he fell from the Temple (Matt. 4:6) and of what floods and winds do to a house (Matt. 7:27). All other uses are moral and indicate a serious stumbling, to the point of grievous injury." =====


This was your chance to consult the immediate context, and you NEVER ONCE made use of it to show what verse 21 meant with the word "stumble"(!?) .

Now then, if you answer "no, I don't think the immediate context of the disputed word should be consulted before seeing how the word is used outside it's immediate context..."

Then I want the readers here to tell me what they think: Should the immediate context have priority when assigning meaning to a disputed word, or should different books and contexts have that priority?

We are not talking about excluding either larger contexts or immediate contexts, since both should be used, what I am asking is which, whether immediate or larger, should have the PRIORITY in assigning a meaning to a disputed word. Which should be consulted FIRST, immediate context or different book?

In other words, does "stumble" in Romans 14 mean something because of what that word means in Matthew 4, or in Romans 14?

It would be very easy for you to answer "I was wrong, and should have consulted the clues in Romans 14 FIRST, before I jumped to completely different books of the bible..."

now I'm gonna go have "10 rounds with Jose Cuervo" while I "waste away again in Margaritta-ville" and when i come back, i want to see an "admitting of error" from donation-soliciting internet apologists who think truth is more important than money, and thus admit their unforgivable violation of the most basic rule of biblical interpretation, no matter what the co$t. :thumb:

My girlfriend always slobberz on her shirt.

skepticbud

[jpholding]

In ride Bud, his legs now in the deep fryer,

I have decided to do what should have done a while back, and that is to pick out one single error of reasoning in Holding's response

Good idea, Bud. Save yourself the embarrassment of having done no homework. :thumb:

lost when several thousand of them are flying around all at once.

Do you mean "thousands" literally?

Emasculation? I consulted the immediate context of "stumble" in Romans 14, to get an idea of what exact sense Paul intended it to have THERE, and you say I play word-emasculation-games?

Yes, you DO, Bud. "Immediate context" is not sufficient. Definition comes FIRST. Then the context is used to determine whether the definition is being followed. You have no reason to say otherwise in Romans 14 except that it preserves you from an embarrassing stance you have no other recourse to defend. It's the same game FTill is now playing, trying to make the "mine" in Lev. 25:23 "figurative" so that he can escape from the clear implication that Yahweh owned the land, period.

Sorry, Bud, but repeating yourself over and over and over fools no one but you.

Do you agree that learning what Paul meant by 'stumble' in Romans 14, must make use of the immediate context FIRST, at least before jumping to other books and and different contexts?

NO, Bud. That is in fact the stupidest, most moronic way to do exegesis. It is called "decontextualization". All contexts must be considered TOGETHER. Isolation of context is a tactic of head in the sand fundaliteralism.

Then I want the readers here to tell me what they think: Should the immediate context have priority when assigning meaning to a disputed word, or should different books and contexts have that priority?

The people here are intelligent and will say NO as I did, Bud. Glad you did this, though, because when you fall into the democratic appeal tactic, it's a good sign you've lost your shirt and are scrambling for help. Get it right, too: there is no "priority" but all must be considered TOGETHER. Your buffaloing appeal for "what gets priority" is misplaced from Square 1. Do not pass GO, Do Not Collect 200 Beer Cans.

In other words, does "stumble" in Romans 14 mean something because of what that word means in Matthew 4, or in Romans 14?

It means something because that is what the word MEANS in Greek. :duh: The other passages provide contextual examples illustrating this definition. Hello?

It would be very easy for you to answer "I was wrong, and should have consulted the clues in Romans 14 FIRST, before I jumped to completely different books of the bible..."

It would also be a lie.

now I'm gonna go have "10 rounds with Jose Cuervo" while I "waste away again in Margaritta-ville

Funny, I've vacationed in Cedar Key. You sound like one of the pelicans.

" and when i come back, i want to see an "admitting of error"

If you drink enough you may see one.

violation of the most basic rule of biblical interpretation,

Bud's Rule does not interest me in the least, nor do the rules of Fundaliteralism Looking for Excuses.

My girlfriend always slobberz on her shirt.

Are you sure that's not part of the shirt's design? :hrm:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 05:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61749#post61749)
jpholding:

Do you agree that learning what Paul meant by 'stumble' in Romans 14, must make use of the immediate context FIRST, at least before jumping to other books and and different contexts?

NO, Bud. That is in fact the stupidest, most moronic way to do exegesis. It is called "decontextualization". All contexts must be considered TOGETHER. Isolation of context is a tactic of head in the sand fundaliteralism.


First, I never said to isolate any particular context, I said do you agree that the immediate context should be consulted FIRST (talking about prioritizing contexts, not prioritizing immediate context over lexical definition)?

Second, if you think that considering all contexts together is something different than consulting the immediate context first, then you still failed your own game. Remember when you were talking about the word "weak" in Romans 14?


Now let's close with the verse which Bud used to try to, as he put it, take ALL Christian liberty away (v. 21):

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.... The second word is not as weak as it sounds ("offended"). It is used to refer to what your right eye does that would cause you to pluck it out; it means to trap and entice into sin. Note in this context 1 Cor. 8:10: "For 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..." The last word, "weak," literally means sick or diseased and is used of physically sick people such as the one on the verge of death (Luke 7:10). These are not mere matters of the sort of politically correct offense we see today, but of someone whose loyalty is so weak that they are in danger of loss of eternity via apostasy!


We were arguing what exactly "weak" faith in Romans 14:21 is, and you zipped straight to 1st Corinthians 8 and Luke 7:10 to interpret something in Romans 14, but you never ONCE consulted the immediate context of Romans 14!

If you think all contexts should be considered together, why would you leave out the very context being debated?

Your complete neglect of the immediate context in this instance is gross violation of basic biblical hermeneutics. By your standards,
justification by works in James 2 must be interpreted as justification by faith because of Romans 4.

After all, ALL contexts that use the word in question must be considered, and given your track record, the actual context being debated doesn't have any bearing on the issue!

I went to the Dollar Store today, they are selling boxes of cereal called "Fluffy Twinkles". It tastes like cardboard with sweet-n-low added. But i have a friend who is recovering from homosexuality, so I threw out the box in case he stops by. :yipee:

[jpholding]

First, I never said to isolate any particular context, I said do you agree that the immediate context should be consulted FIRST

That, Bud, IS ISOLATION. You give it a priority BY ITSELF. DON'T DO IT. There is no "first" or "last" -- it all GOES TOGETHER or you don't do it AT ALL. Go to your ROOM.

We were arguing what exactly "weak" faith in Romans 14:21 is, and you zipped straight to 1st Corinthians 8 and Luke 7:10 to interpret something in Romans 14, but you never ONCE consulted the immediate context of Romans 14!

Um, hello? It's the same argument, different word, you're trying to pull this time. No dice.

If you think [i]all contexts should be considered together, why would you leave out the very context being debated?

Almost my ENTIRE article was that, Froggy! :rofl: The culture stuff! HELLO????

Your complete neglect of the immediate context in this instance is gross violation of basic biblical hermeneutics.

Bud's a fine one to speak of "gross" anything! Grody! :tongue:

By your standards, justification by works in James 2 must be interpreted as justification by faith because of Romans 4.

Nope.

http://www.tektonics.org/jamesvspaul.html

More recontextualizing for you to chew on.

I went to the Dollar Store today, they are selling boxes of cereal called "Fluffy Twinkles". It tastes like cardboard with sweet-n-low added. But i have a friend who is recovering from homosexuality, so I threw out the box in case he stops by. :yipee:

Did you eat ALL the cereal first? Don't you know you could offend a starving person? :lol:

[Sher]

In all this complaining, I guess I missed where it was explained how "nasty" was something that could be misconstrued as sexual ... especially given the line from JJ's song that says, "I don't like no nasty car, I don't like no nasty food, huh (Oh oh yeah)" Are we to understand it was a sexy car and sexy food that she didn't like? Furthermore, the line that was that was parodied, I understand to be concerning respect ... respect that she wanted ... and since they were nasty, they needed to address her with even more formality than a first name basis. ::shrugs::

[skepticbud]

04-13-2003 @ 06:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64785#post64785)
SherBear:

In all this complaining, I guess I missed where it was explained how "nasty" was something that could be misconstrued as sexual...

Watch the video. That's the context that JJ herself places on the song, and the video is oh so much more than just yucky food and disrespectful men.

[The Laughing Man]

I think my old Ford Escort and macaroni and cheese are very sexy. :brow:

[dizzle]

Yeah baby.

[JNLC]

Well I've been following this discussion because I have nothing better to do. Even though I'm an athiest based on my interpretative powers, I tend to see the brother in Roman 15 as wanting to worship God in a different way.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. My interpretation? Whatever you do it's all for God. Being a vegetarian or respecting sabbath day as long as it's all for God it's a ok. Eating meat, not regarding sabbath again as long as it's all for God it's a ok.

I don't think it was meant that these things are trivial, I think it was meant that it does not matter what form your respect for God takes, as long as it is present.

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost Now this can be interpreted to make meat and drink themselves trivial. But I think in this context they meant all types of worship are equally valid. God released people from the diet and the Sabbath, people who still follow them kudos, people who don't it's all good.

Now we come to weak in the faith. I have no inclination to do any research so I shall consider the Bud perspective, then the Holding one.

Bud-weak in the faith means the brother is worried about these trivial differences in opinion (while I say worship style)
-therefor we can generalize this idea and say we should give up our liberties based on nit-picky opinions of weaker brothers
the problem I have with this is that I see trivial differences in worship style while Bud sees trivial differences in opinion. Bud then too quickly generalizes it to apply to anything and anywhere. With worship style or religious convention perhaps is a better word, it's only about meat, sabbath, wine etc reasonable church stuff, no bicycles. Also

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Destoying is a powerful word to mean offending someone.

Holding-weak in the faith means the brother is close to turning his back on religion and thus not following the weak one's religious customs is pushing him over the edge
I have no idea whether this is justified or not, I didn't bother check up evidence for this definition. Nevertheless it seems to fit. Look

1. They say the weaker brother will get destroyed, rather than religious harmony itself

2."One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/notes.html#14:5)Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/notes.html#14:5b)"

let him think whatever, as long as he belongs to ME. Don't change his religious conventions

3."Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."

Why would God care if you offended someone? I've seen God tear 42 children apart with bears. God doesn't want you to rationalize away his cherished religious conventions. Don't question or dispute with the weak brother.

4."For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence."

Being offended doesn't destroy the work of God, although I guess work of God could also mean religious harmony. I think destroying belief in God better destroys his work.

5."Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth"
Gotta religious practice? Give it to God not other people and leave them alone.

6. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/notes.html#14:21)"
Now it seems like God is saying don't do this in general to any brother, in the context of religious practice or in any context? It's up to your opinion.

7."Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/notes.html#14:13)" Ditto

Yes yes it's out of order. The first 5 points make me interpret 6 and 7 as relating to the same thing due to context, although God probably winks and tells you it makes sense in general too.

Now is Holding being a bad boy?
I don't think the passage was saying to give up liberties based on offending brothers who think about trivial things. So Holding isn't a bad boy because of this.

Arguing? Bible probably doesn't care.

Insulting people, being mean etc etc. It's funny, but I'm sure there's something in the bible that tells you not to do this, at least if not here.

Of course this falls apart at the introduction of the seven points if that isn't that definition. Still I think there's evidence that he means religious practices, not trivial differences in opinion from a guy focused on the wrong things, primarily from this.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
I don't imagine things like cars fitting in here, they have nothing to do with God worship.