Personally, I would prefer it stayed. Its a classic example of the end result of the legalists' argument. I have already had my salvation questioned by Bill Gothard himself so it doesn't really bother me when lesser legalists do the same. :)
You know, I had to do a google search to see who this gothard fella was.
I'm impressed to! (and I sure hope all folk don't associate homeschooling with him, he's sorta scary.
wait...scary, halloween...hmmm, I wonder if he'd make a good decoration.
:laugh: )
No, Steadfast Fred, you missed the point.
The point is I can take that passage and make anything evil.
I don't think your name is evil as I made abundantly clear.
But I can use the same type of exegesis of the "appearance of evil" passage and make your name evil and anything else I don't like.
You declaring that cohabitating a tent is sin is a perfect example of stretching the passage too far.
That is my point as I actually think is really pretty clear.
You miss the point.
I imagine that none of us think this cohabitation of the tent by young unmarried people is wise.
I think most of us would agree that it could be dangerous.
The problem is when people like "steadfast fred" start hurling the word SIN around haphazardly.
When you start using that term you'd better have Bible for it or you make yourself a pope- one who speaks for God where God has not spoken.
This is a major problem in the Church today and should be resisted at every turn.
By common sense.
It is no different than the way I used it to condemn your name.
that whole anecdote about your name is the reasoning I used to condemn your eisegesis of the passage.
By your own standards. By the fact that you are willing to apply it to some things but not others, even though many Christians might say it applies. So, by your own standard you judge yourself.