Literal interpretation only forum

"Diversity yes that is what I meant by issues, the funny thing is that the liberals seem to think that if they are left out we will be bored, evidently they forgot KJVO, women preachers etc."

I am not concerned about what the liberals think in this regard.

"But we should not consider those who deny easily understood passages as merely adding to the diverse mix."

And who are those people? The group would very likely have a very different membership depending on what Scriptrue you want to discuss. On some issues, like John 6, YOU would not be allowed to post according to your thinking. But you call yourself a literalist. In reality Murph this is a thinly veiled attempt to exclude people who are not literalists on certain, what YOU consider key, passages. They would become your shiboleths. But if I were to give a different list of passages that one would have to take literally to be considered a literalist, you might find yourself on the outside. And if I were like you, trying to purposefully exclude certain people (not just a certain type of people), then I could arrange it so that you certainly WOULD end up on the outside.

But that would be neitehr fair, nor Baptist. And certainly not Christian.

"Paul said everything is lawful but everything doesn't edify, and he said that if his meat offend that he would not not eat it. This is what I simply desire from my otherwise minded brethren. Whatever way you wish to describe the different groups they are different, those with the more radical (atleast on this board) views should act as Paul and not eat their meat in front of us and the only way for this to happen is a private forum. those in Paul's day didn't know as much as he did but notice he didn't stuff it down their throats but rather kept it from them. Please do us this same service."

You do realise, I hope, that his places you on the side of the one of weak faith, and the liberals on the side of the ones of strong faith?

But that aside, this isn't an analogous situation at all. Paul would not agree with you I think. Remeber this is the Paul who openly disputed with people, so that they could come to a knowledge of the truth. Paul never advocated a holy huddle.

Like it or not this is a baptist board, not a fundamentalist board, and all baptists should be welcome to post. If you want to appeal to a certin vein of people to not post on a certain thread, you may ask to do so, and prevail upon their christian sensibilities. If they don't, and they disrupt a thread, complain to the moderators. That is what they are there for.

Honestly I don't think you are looking for freedom, which you already have, so much as protection from views you don't want to deal with. I think the current format grants you freedom to not be harrassed by other views. Try using it first.

 

Bill Clinton?!?! I'm the same as Bill Clinton?
LOL

 

And who gets to decide who is "liberal" and/or "apostate" and which views are "evil"? You?</font>[/QUOTE]No! I'll decide!

Just joshing…..

Enough of that, anyway..... Where does it tell us to interpret the scriptures literally? I can tell you where it says to interpret the scriptures spiritually… The Bible tells us to do all things in the spirit…….

I would personally like to see a literal (liberal) board… Maybe, then you wouldn’t have so many literal interpretations in the spiritual threads…

Anyway, good luck frog gigging, scorpion hunting, sheep chasing, and goat herding…..

[ August 30, 2002, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Graceforever ]

 

Yeah, Murph, he gave a whole new dimension to the word..."is." How could we ever forget! Birds of a feather.....you know. Need we say more?

I still say there is an element of FEAR...the FEAR factor. That's why there's so much bru-ha-ha about conservatives or literal interpration only having our own forum. They are AFRAID we are right!

 

"Yeah, Murph, he gave a whole new dimension to the word..."is." How could we ever forget! Birds of a feather.....you know. Need we say more? [[Roll Eyes]]"

No moreso than the Reformers did with the "is" in "this is my body". Or at least this is what RCs would argue. Does that mean that the Reformers were liberals? Or wrong?

"I still say there is an element of FEAR...the FEAR factor. That's why there's so much bru-ha-ha about conservatives or literal interpration only having our own forum. They are AFRAID we are right!
[[thumbs]] "

Actually it is, I think, the other way around. Some conservatives here fear interaction with other ideas. It's called anti-intellectulaism, and it is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Not a pretty thing either.

If liberals "fear" anything, it is likely alowing blind dogmatism to pass as bibblical exegesis. Of course one does not have to liberal to worry about that.

 

Care to name any of these conservatives here who "fear" interaction with other ideas?

I think you'll find that most conservatives have wrestled with nearly all issues at one time or another, thought a great deal about "other ideas," but in the end have decided to let the WORD OF GOD be the final authority rather than "intellectualism." You seem to have the notion that Conservatives don't think about anything, we are all catatonic, mindless robots, who don't have two brain cells to rub together (not to mention we are ugly).

This is where the GREAT DIVIDE lies....Conservatives trust the Scriptures as the final authority. Liberals trust man's "intellectualism", political correctness, philosophers, "progressive thinking" theologians, tainted with elements of secular humanism as their final authority. Which all ebbs and flows depending on the popular view of the moment.

God's Word is steadfast and does not change, being the same "yesterday, today, and forever."

Romans Chapter One: "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Also, God says that anyone who adds to or deletes from His Word will face some serious consequences.

Liberals do have a fear factor...the fear that most of their "other ideas" are in DIRECT CONFLICT and CLASH with the Word of God.

Satan had "other ideas" too, in the Garden of Eden. Hmmm....so did Judas. So did Jonah before the great fish experience. So did Goliath. So did Ahab. So did Nebuchadnezzer. So did Samson.

Oh, that's right. These are all just stories, not to be taken literally.

 

I think this would be a great idea. Might I also suggest that all pre-millenialists be excluded from this forum as they don't take the words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse literally when he told the disciples that their generation would not pass away before the end-time events occurred. They also seem to have a hard time accepting the literal words of John in Revelation when he says "The time is at hand" or that these events are coming soon. Yes, let's all get very literal and only allow preterists in. Of course, that would only leave me and a few others on this board...about enough to roast marshmallows around a campfire. But hey, we could have our own little Left Behind experience here and maybe even write a book, make a movie, and sue our production company all in the name of the Lord as Tim Lehaye did.

[ September 02, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

Actually Historic Prmillenialists (post-trib) DO take the olivet discourse literally.

However a post mile owuld say that all premils should be excluded because they don't take the word "soon" literally.

Of course Historic Premils would say that Postmils don't take the Olivet Discourse literally (in the cosmic signs), and Amils don't take the 1000 years literaly.... I guess no one belongs!

 

The only reason they are in the forefront is that they are popular. Your "side" makes those threads red hot with all the posts.

Don't curse the darkness, light a candle! Start another thread about something you want to discuss.

 

I agree.

Murph, if there is a particular scripture that you want to discuss from a literal standpoint (and let it be said that even literalists will differ over what a passage literally means), then post one on a new thread.

I am sure that if you specify that youwant to approach things from a literalist perspective, those of a differing view can be counted on to not hijack the thread, or, if they participate, to do so along the lines you propose.

 

DITTO!!!!!!! This whole thing seems pretty childish to me...almost as if you didn't get your way or prove your point with others who are not as conservative as you, so you want to try and exclude them. Please, give it a rest.

Joseph Botwinick

 

You know, that if they do set up a "conservative forum" with the agreement of a doctrinal statement before being allowed to post, even if you did agree with the doctrines, you don't have to click in and join.

We promise not to twist your mousetail!

 

You know,

If you are not happy with Baptist Board, and with the freedom of believers that is Baptist, perhaps you could put up your own money, start your own Catholic creedal society, and start your own website and exclude whoever you want. You could be www.firstselfrighteouschurch.com. But, as a moderator here at the Baptist Board, I will tell you that I have always opposed creeds and doctrinal statements as a pre-requisite for membership as it violates preisthood of the Believers and the principle that the Holy Spirit guides our conscience and not some paper pope. It is also a very Catholic idea, and recently, I have become very anti-Catholic. If YOU don't like the liberal, moderate, conservative, fundamentalist, and free conservations that occur here, then don't click here. We also will not force you to come here either.

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator

 

Dear Moderator Sir,

Didn't mean to step on your mousetail!

[ September 02, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

No problem.

Sorry for being so harsh about it. I guess I am getting cranky in my old age...

Joseph Botwinick