Well, There Goes NC

What does Christ teach about the issues of life? Make sure you back up your opinions with scripture, and always be courteous and polite in talking with others.<P>Only Permanent and Native Residents may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Well, There Goes NC

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat May 07, 2016 9:31 am

I see that Bill Martin has shut down the "What is Marriage" strip because Biblical discussion of What is approved of as "Marriage" offends his Quaker principles. This is understandable (not the same as approvable) in that Quakers believe in ongoing revelation being as important or more so than the bible. I suppose one could say that they do not regard some of the bible as important as the rest of us do.
In the 20th chapter, Isaiah wrote: 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
I saw no diminution of anybody's religion in so far as the posts there but rather attempts to refer the definition to the Biblical record, which for Christians is the ultimate source of the definitions of terms pertaining to our conduct. Plausibly someone slipped in a post that was odious sometime between yesterday evening and this morning but I did not see it if that happened. No activity among humans is in the Bible more emphatically and repeatedly condemned than Homosexuality! So among bible believing Christians applying the term "marriage" which by God's ordination describes the high estate and purpose that God established for it to such a distorted, perverted and abominable activity as God describes homosexuality to be is offensive in the extreme. But NC is Bill's web site and he is free to do with it as he will. I really wonder if we should consider re-establishing the topic of "What is Marriage" here on CNV so scripture observant Christians can engage in examining the nuances of the matter.

I have always liked CNV better anyway, there seems to be a bit more of the spirit of Berea here.
The recorder of the Acts of the Apoltles in the 17th Chapter wrote: 10 ¶And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Worthy of note is that these Bereans were JEWS, and the scriptures that they had to search were what we call the Old Testament which contains the explicit condemnation of Homosexuality as an abomination in Lev 18:22 , which is repeated in Leviticus 20:13 with the addition of the death penalty. Also Leviticus 20:15 juxtaposes bestiality, which the homosexuals will really react to if it is raised as a parallel sin because they don't like to have that compared in seriousness to what they do.)

Bare_Truth
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Sat May 07, 2016 12:14 pm

AS my NC alter ego pointed out - to eliminate discussion where there may be differences of opinion is to shut down everything but spitback parrotry.

It was in no way - as late as fairly late last night - a heated debate, difference yes - though not a lot - but hardly divisiveness.

I get de gustibus, of course - rabbit chicken toktok is not discussion. But the spirit that censors discussions and insists on trivial pablum is precisely the spirit that is perturbed by visible skin.

I am not dumping out - though I may be rebanned - but it perturbs. Where are we if instead of "proving all things" we turn sifting and winnowing into an ironic plaque pointlessly displayed on Bascom Hall?
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby JimShedd112 » Sat May 07, 2016 3:23 pm

It does seem Bill Martin is sensitive to any real discussion of which he disapproves. I too was previously banned (perhaps suspended is more appropriate) without notice or warning when Bill took offense to comments I made about the pope and the Catholic Church.

I personally say live and let live and accept the fact Quakers accept and recognize homosexuality and same-sex marriage but recognize others are fastidiously set against it as an "abomination to God." It is, as many here will argue, not our position to pass judgment/condemn those we don't agree with, it's God's role.

Jim
Jim Shedd
NudistGrandpa
User avatar
JimShedd112
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1960
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:44 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat May 07, 2016 10:11 pm

I think that to Biblically observant Christians, the term "Same-Sex Marrriage" is:
-- an oyxymoron
-- a non-sequitur
-- an offensive degredation of the term and concept of "marriage"
-- a seizure of a term for purpose of taking control of the language of the dialogue to assure a bogus victory (think of George Orwell's "New Speak" language from the novel 1984)

Marriage has historically been the union of opposite sex partners, with a real and natural prospect of children and family fulfilling the command to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (Gen 1:28, KJV)

The attempt by the Homosexuals to co-opt the term to lend equivalence to their their union as being the same thing and equally acceptable simply is false as they are not the same thing! Only by hoodwinking the supreme court to think that they were the same thing could they get a ruling that existing law made one couple's marriage less than another couple's and hence a violation of equal protection under the law. This is just another example of left wing word twisting in order to promote their agenda contrary to established law, (comparable to multiple attempts to twist the 2nd amendment by arguing that the right of the people was a collective and not an individual right and was fulfilled in a militia, and that the national guard was the militia).

If you can throw out the concept that "words mean things" you can turn the law upside down and utterly confuse and destroy any rational communication. It is confusion and not rationality to take the long standing concept called "Marrige" and apply it literally to something that is as general and vague as what is simply a domestic partnership.

Here endeth my rant for the day.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Sun May 08, 2016 1:24 am

While clearly concurring, I cannot but reflect that the word is not newly misappropriated. How long have we had couples wedded in the eyes of society whose arrangement was no marriage as i define it and as it is portrayed in the passages where the union of Son of God and Child of God is presented as marriage?

The homosexual couple may in some ways be closer to God-made unions than A's "marriage" [quotes are my responsibility alone] with J.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby jjsledge » Sun May 08, 2016 6:09 am

I can not find, in scripture, any reference to ceremony, vows, license, or priest. The wedding in Cana is a feast, part of a Jewish wedding. The current discussion is about "christian" marriage and the issuance of a "license". Are we to deny that people "married" by other faiths (Buddhist, Muslim, etc.) are indeed properly married? It's the government that issues a license, not God. The marriage ceremony was not a full sacrament of the church for about 800 years. What about the 1000s of years before Christ?
Those who judge the motives of othere are simply revealing what's in their own hearts. Frank Viola "Revise Us Again" p.89
User avatar
jjsledge
Native Resident
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 6:53 pm
Location: Rockwall, Texas

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Sun May 08, 2016 7:54 am

Our normal vocabulary is inadequate. Externally, we have a variety of partnerships formalized, solemnized, and recognized by individuals, families, clans, states. Internally, we have partnerships forged and crafted by - I would say - God. The two overlap but are not identical. Many a couple are linked by law and custom [and after a while habit] who are very far from being one. And not a few unmistakably united under God have never gone through the civil procedures.

I could artificially distinguish "marriage" and "MARRIAGE" - but it is not adequate. I myself firmly believe that a couple may be married God style without being Christian, having no idea of God, without jumping a broomstick or without having a community in whose eyes they are married - it is between them and God. As so often, it is the clash between the visibly obvious and possibly false, and the absolutely true but hard to detect.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Ramblinman » Sun May 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Bare_Truth wrote:I see that Bill Martin has shut down the "What is Marriage" strip because Biblical discussion of What is approved of as "Marriage" offends his Quaker principles. This is understandable (not the same as approvable) in that Quakers believe in ongoing revelation being as important or more so than the bible. I suppose one could say that they do not regard some of the bible as important as the rest of us do.


How do you know Bill did it? And what leads you to believe it was over principles?
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Sun May 08, 2016 5:53 pm

He done say. With the specific reason - too much divisive talk from conservative wing Christians.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Mon May 09, 2016 1:08 am

TO which I responded by pointing out that I am not a conservative wing Christian and that my views do not match any standard conservative wing Christian statement of faith.

FOR which I have been accused of insulting the religious stances of others and threatened with permanent removal from NC.

For the record, I append one of two pms from Father William, quoting my initial post on the subject - which has now been deleted. At the end you will find my rather puzzled and not a little indignant response.

Purely FYI.
WmRMartin wrote:
Subject: Forsooth! Likewise Zounds and Fiddlesticks

Celsius wrote:
From a recent statement by Father William with reference to the closed discussion of definitions of marriage:
The posts thereon were almost identical stating emphatically the position of the more conservative wing of Christianity.


At least one of the posts was mine. I do not recall - and I need to keep a journal for such instances where allegations are made AFTER the deletion of all evidence - that my views were identical to others [though not oppositional]. And I dare assert - and it is obvious from those of my postings which have yet to be deleted - that I and my views do not align with "the more conservative wing of Christianity".

My Christianity is conservative, yes, in that its key tenets are contained in the 4th century Nicene Formula. That predates Luther, Calvin, George Fox, the Church of God of Anderson Indiana, Billy Graham - conservative enough. But in normal American English usage, "conservative Christian" implies someone much more politicized and with a much more detailed creed than I have.

I also do not recall stating my views "emphatically" - why in Great Patham's seventh and coldest would I? We were having a discussion, comparing views, not haranguing anyone or setting policies.

Fact, mes amis, messieurs, mesdames and memsahib - if my views ever come before a court of Conservative Christians, Moderate Buddhists, Free Silverites, Liberal Jasperians, Fundamentalist Whigs, Latitudinarians, or any other definable group, I will be the first to be ejected as the universal heretic - too liturgical for these, too freeform for those, too coservative here, too liberal there, too much of this, not enough of that.

And through it all, a rational critically thinking Didymist [since most people misuse skeptic Didymist is the better label who looks at scripture like a text to be interpreted and listens for the voice of the spirit as a necessary guide.

I am NOT part of any "conservative wing" - nor any other wing - any more than I an apathetic and negative.


You had better read the Terms of Service and comply with them.


It would appear - from the fact you quote this and the fact you removed it - that you construe my claim that
I am NOT part of any "conservative wing" - nor any other wing - any more than I an apathetic and negative.
to be a violation of the terms of service, to insult the views of others.

How does it criticise anyone to say that I am not part of a group? I am not a Roman Catholic - should Jude be offended if I say that? I am a Christian - should Mr Shedd be offended if I say that?

If I in fact violate the terms of service - and you can show where and how - I will amend my ways and apologize or depart without fanfare. But - WHERE?
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Mon May 09, 2016 7:23 am

I have not yet this morning checked in to NC. Will i already have been barred for asking Father William point out WHERE and HOW I have offended? In due course, Petros, all in good time we will find out.

I say unto you here, however - a definition of "divisive" which stifles debate so those of deviant views will not feel uncomfortable and exiles those with deviant views needs to take a long look in a non-distorting mirror.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 09, 2016 10:07 am

Petros wrote:I have not yet this morning checked in to NC. Will i already have been barred for asking Father William point out WHERE and HOW I have offended? In due course, Petros, all in good time we will find out.

I say unto you here, however - a definition of "divisive" which stifles debate so those of deviant views will not feel uncomfortable and exiles those with deviant views needs to take a long look in a non-distorting mirror.

This forum, Christian Naturist Village, needs more love and support.
Perhaps it is time for all of us to double down our time and attention here!
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Mon May 09, 2016 11:26 am

Don't know if I can double down. CNV is my first and most frequent port of call, the place I am most likely to raise intersting issues and the only place I seek prayer. I poke my nose into every topic where I have something useful to say, and read most of those where I haven't.

The range and depth and fellowfeeling of this group I value very highly.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Ramblinman » Mon May 09, 2016 2:43 pm

Petros wrote:Don't know if I can double down. CNV is my first and most frequent port of call, the place I am most likely to raise intersting issues and the only place I seek prayer. I poke my nose into every topic where I have something useful to say, and read most of those where I haven't.

The range and depth and fellowfeeling of this group I value very highly.

That's good to hear.
So, maybe it would be unfair to ask a double-downer to double his double-downing...
but that will not relieve you of your voluntary obligation to correspond as often as you wish and not a bit less. :biggrin:
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Well, There Goes NC

Postby Petros » Mon May 09, 2016 4:37 pm

I will have you know that my voluntary participation is neither a burden to me or in any way incumbent on me. I either volunteer of my own free will or not a penny more. Queen Elizabeth my profit by my example. If I choose to opt in, let no golfer puttr asunder.

Or something like that? I may be a tad tired.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Next

Return to Christianity and Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest