Albert Mohler to be Nominated For SBC President

[church mouse guy]

Oh boy, another link littered with Janet Meferd. Sorry, no thanks.

You are dodging the issue because you do not have access to the words of Mohler, which I quoted accurately from the source that you didn't like but it is word for word from the video of the same so Mohler did say that nonsense that there is a homosexual orientation. I myself would not vote for that if I were to have a vote.

 

[Reformed1689]

You are dodging the issue because you do not have access to the words of Mohler, which I quoted accurately from the source that you didn't like but it is word for word from the video of the same so Mohler did say that nonsense that there is a homosexual orientation. I myself would not vote for that if I were to have a vote.

If you noticed my post #78 I don't have a problem with there being such a thing as orientation and acknowledging people may be predisposed to that sin. I believe that is a biblical reality.

 

[church mouse guy]

Mohler can't do anything about Lifeway or the ERLC, even as SBC President. The Executive Committee has all power over those or other denominational organizations, but and the most the President can do is make appointments to the Committee on Committees and which then appoints members and trustees of boards and agencies, etc.

One has to comprehend the complexity of the denominational Behemoth infrastructure to try to figure out what is going on at any time.

In the case of Lifeway, I first thought that stores that make money should be kept open but I have decided that the denomination may be in decline so I think that the stores should all be closed.

In the case of the ERLC, I should think that a leader could ask the meeting to pass motions to abolish this horrible expenditure as neither the Dems nor the GOP in the denomination can be very happy with the bitter partisanship that has been displayed by the ERLC. Let's just say that maybe the SBC is not good at politics just as the American State Department is not good at diplomacy.

 

[church mouse guy]

If you noticed my post #78 I don't have a problem with there being such a thing as orientation and acknowledging people may be predisposed to that sin. I believe that is a biblical reality.

Garbage. Do you care if people go to hell?

 

[Reformed1689]

Garbage. Do you care if people go to hell?

Ok, what exactly about that position is garbage? And what does that have anything to do with me caring or not caring if people go to hell?

 

[Wingman68]

Oh boy, another link littered with Janet Meferd. Sorry, no thanks.

You are over the top in being dismissive. Dismissing an opinion is one thing, but dismissing facts brought by that person is another. Dismissing out of hand is a loser position which is championed by the left, so be careful.

 

[Reformed1689]

You are over the top in being dismissive. Dismissing an opinion is one thing, but dismissing facts brought by that person is another. Dismissing out of hand is a loser position which is championed by the left, so be careful.

I have zero respect for Janet Mefferd. She's not reliable and has no credibility. So yes, every time I see her name I will dismiss it. Find a better source.

That being said, I already dealt with the other parts that @church mouse guy put in the post. His response? Said it was garbage. When asked why? He engaged in ad hominem. So who is the real loser here?

 

[Reynolds]

Garbage. Do you care if people go to hell?

He was exactly right. Aa a result of the fall and the impartation of the sin nature, men are naturally programmed to sin . Certain people are disposed to certain sins. Have you ever seen a kid that at age 5 you just knew would probably turn out gay? I have seen plenty . Raised right along side brothers who are straight as an arrow.

 

[church mouse guy]

You are over the top in being dismissive. Dismissing an opinion is one thing, but dismissing facts brought by that person is another. Dismissing out of hand is a loser position which is championed by the left, so be careful.

The only reason that I quoted that source was that it had a written transcript that was accurate of what Mohler said about there actually is a homosexual orientation. I also provided video. Since the other guy does not have video, the video would have been dismissed as unreachable and then the transcript was dismissed for the source so that the issue was dodged. When called out about this, then came the admission that the debater agreed that there is a homosexual orientation. Why not just say that in the first place? Mohler can just reiterate his apology to homosexuals and concede that there is a homosexual orientation and the convention can agree or disagree.

This was 5 years ago so I don't know why I had to provide the link when a common search of Mohler homosexuality would bring up the statement.

Yes, that is over the top in dismissive. That's politics. I think that it is just extreme partisanship and it is only a taste of what we will get if Mohler is elected in my opinion. I don't have much expectation from the SBC but I only have about 30 years in that denomination and I am prepared to move on, as Soros says. They just don't want to get electoral politics out of the sanctuary, do they? Look what they did to Richard Land, who is much better educated than Mohler.

 

[church mouse guy]

I have zero respect for Janet Mefferd. She's not reliable and has no credibility. So yes, every time I see her name I will dismiss it. Find a better source.

That being said, I already dealt with the other parts that @church mouse guy put in the post. His response? Said it was garbage. When asked why? He engaged in ad hominem. So who is the real loser here?

You demanded a link and then denounced the source and never showed any appreciation for any courtesy extended to you since the story is 5 years old and you could have found it very easily for yourself. Then you went and dragged me onto a new thread of yours. This is just a passing debate. You like Mohler and you want to attack everyone who disagrees with you. But now we understand that you agree with Mohler on homosexuals having an orientation so it is up to the messengers.

 

[Reformed1689]

But now we understand that you agree with Mohler on homosexuals having an orientation so it is up to the messengers.

That's a little out of context don't you think. You said my viewpoint was garbage but couldn't explain why.

 

[Reformed1689]

You demanded a link and then denounced the source and never showed any appreciation for any courtesy extended to you since the story is 5 years old and you could have found it very easily for yourself.

Good grief, why are you so petty?

 

[church mouse guy]

Good grief, why are you so petty?

I thought you say personal attacks are wrong. You should just said that you tend to agree with Mohler that there is a homosexual orientation and it is wrong to say there is not.

 

[Reformed1689]

I thought you say personal attacks are wrong. You should just said that you tend to agree with Mohler that there is a homosexual orientation and it is wrong to say there is not.

I agree that what the world calls homosexual orientation is an orientation towards that specific sin, just like someone may have an orientation towards anger, or lying, or any other sin. So yes, there is such a thing as homosexual orientation. It is called sinful nature and that persons disposition is inclined toward homosexuality. That is a biblical viewpoint. You said that viewpoint was garbage and then gave some nonsense about me not caring if people go to hell. Yet you haven't said 1. Why that view is garbage and 2. how in the world that viewpoint makes me not care about people going to hell.