-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
My post at GCM
- Thread starter Memphis Dwight
- Start date
You may achieve better results if you drop some of the vernacular that you use..."plural wife haters," "spiritual thugs," etc. Those comments may do more to harden people in their views than open them up to a reasonable debate and dialog without strong emotional reactions.
Memphis Dwight
Member
Yes, the thing is, I'm very deliberate in my posting. And the choice words I used were actually lighter than should have been. The celibates, eg, the monastics did do a type of hijacking of the church some 2000 years ago. Actually, the seeds were sown much earlier than that in the religions of the gnostics with their matter-is-evil philosophy.
"Lighter than should have been," based upon what standard?
I'm curious, because I'm not sure I can recall any Scriptural admonition to argue with those we disagree with like that. But maybe there is some precedent for this in Scripture but if so it is just not coming to my mind at the moment, especially when thinking over the NT examples and patterns that I can recall off the top of my head.
I'm curious, because I'm not sure I can recall any Scriptural admonition to argue with those we disagree with like that. But maybe there is some precedent for this in Scripture but if so it is just not coming to my mind at the moment, especially when thinking over the NT examples and patterns that I can recall off the top of my head.
Memphis Dwight
Member
If Christ couldn't please the inhabitants of the earth, I know that I can't either. The pharisees wanted to dictate to Him, God in the flesh, with whom He could and could not eat. And on top of that, there was the hand washing religious ritual that they invented and became upset when He would not participate with them in it. Mere men were wrangling with the Manifestation of God in the flesh! How can I do any better than Him?
And what kind words did He have for them?
[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Mt 23:33
And what kind words did He have for them?
[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Mt 23:33
Scarecrow
Member
I think what Dr. Allen was trying to point out is that your argument will be more effective if different language is used, not that your arguments are invalid. Righteous anger is indeed justifiable at times, but discretion is required to know when and where to express it.
If the goal is to influence people then we are to put information in front of them in a way that they will consider it and possibly change their own mind. When we come across as harsh and judgmental then we only solidify their current positions and thoughts. I have been guilty of this myself, and experience shows which approach is more productive.
I added to your post and I hope that it will have the desired affect.
If the goal is to influence people then we are to put information in front of them in a way that they will consider it and possibly change their own mind. When we come across as harsh and judgmental then we only solidify their current positions and thoughts. I have been guilty of this myself, and experience shows which approach is more productive.
I added to your post and I hope that it will have the desired affect.
Huuummmmm....interesting. I took those verses by Christ to be addressing those who were in opposition to him being the Christ and his teachings about salvation being found only in him, which would be a cardinal or first level doctrine of highest importance.
I based that upon the fact that in Matthew 23 the first woe he gives was about them shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. not teaching and presenting the truth about who was Christ and how one entered that kingdom through union with Christ. In other words, I thought he used this language with these religious teachers because they were hypocrites, teaching people but not truly modeling or teaching the true way to true life found only in Christ.
Do these people you are arguing with on that website deny the divinity of Christ and salvation being only in him? If so then they certainly are in serious apostasy.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if they are indeed believers in Christ, and if they affirm the highest essentials of the faith such as the gospel then such language as used by Christ in Matthew 23 towards them would not properly apply. Being a believer who errs in some doctrine, like the people in the Church of Corinth, would not per se mean they are hypocrites, apostates, or false teachers in the absolute sense of the term (i.e. those who deny Christ's divinity and his gospel). Apostasy and a lack of education or understanding is often very different issues.
Just some food for thought. Sometimes, more so than not it seems to me, we have to build a relationship with people first before they will ever consider what we have to say.
But regardless, I hope in some way shape or form you are able to make some progress in reasoning with them if they will dialog about their views.
I based that upon the fact that in Matthew 23 the first woe he gives was about them shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. not teaching and presenting the truth about who was Christ and how one entered that kingdom through union with Christ. In other words, I thought he used this language with these religious teachers because they were hypocrites, teaching people but not truly modeling or teaching the true way to true life found only in Christ.
Do these people you are arguing with on that website deny the divinity of Christ and salvation being only in him? If so then they certainly are in serious apostasy.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if they are indeed believers in Christ, and if they affirm the highest essentials of the faith such as the gospel then such language as used by Christ in Matthew 23 towards them would not properly apply. Being a believer who errs in some doctrine, like the people in the Church of Corinth, would not per se mean they are hypocrites, apostates, or false teachers in the absolute sense of the term (i.e. those who deny Christ's divinity and his gospel). Apostasy and a lack of education or understanding is often very different issues.
Just some food for thought. Sometimes, more so than not it seems to me, we have to build a relationship with people first before they will ever consider what we have to say.
But regardless, I hope in some way shape or form you are able to make some progress in reasoning with them if they will dialog about their views.
Memphis Dwight
Member
I appreciate your input. I assure you I have tried the diplomatic approach for some time now. I know these folks from the same background: churches of Christ. And though they have repeatedly pronounced anathemas upon me, I count it a blessing to suffer for the cause of Christ.
Make no mistake about it. Those that have been shown the truth and have had sufficient time to study it , yet still reject it, they are satan worshippers. What? Yes. Look closely at the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 4.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Notice that those that forbid marriage are giving heed to the doctines of devils, ergo, they are satan worshippers.
Make no mistake about it. Those that have been shown the truth and have had sufficient time to study it , yet still reject it, they are satan worshippers. What? Yes. Look closely at the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 4.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Notice that those that forbid marriage are giving heed to the doctines of devils, ergo, they are satan worshippers.
Scarecrow
Member
Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but is there a difference between forbidding marriage, and limiting it (as in the case of monogamy)?
Most commentaries agree...
"These hypocritical priests pretending that a single life was much more favorable to devotion, and to the perfection of the Christian life. This sentiment was held by the Essenes, a religious sect among the Jews; and we know that it is a favourite opinion among the Romanists, who oblige all their clergy to live a single life by a vow of continency."
I would see this as those claiming that to be "most holy" you have to remain unmarried, a doctrine not taught in the scriptures, but taught from ignorance.
Most commentaries agree...
"These hypocritical priests pretending that a single life was much more favorable to devotion, and to the perfection of the Christian life. This sentiment was held by the Essenes, a religious sect among the Jews; and we know that it is a favourite opinion among the Romanists, who oblige all their clergy to live a single life by a vow of continency."
I would see this as those claiming that to be "most holy" you have to remain unmarried, a doctrine not taught in the scriptures, but taught from ignorance.
Memphis Dwight
Member
The commentaries were not inspired. And on top of that, many, if not most, were inspired from the same apostate spirit. Remember, that when Paul was writing those words, he had in mind that last days of that generation. Which means, this spirit has been infesting for some nearly 2000 years.
Semantics or not -- the point is that marriage is honorable in all and not to be forbid either by law or by the disapproving brow of the evangelicals. And those that press their ascetic false religion onto others are explicitly condemned in the holy scriptures.
I don't have high hopes of convincing many. At least not to the point of bringing about a wide sweeping change. The fact is, things are so rotten nowadays in so many ways, that the refractoriness on the part of those professing with their lips is so great that it more than exceeds that of the past workers of iniquities. And it surely will bring a total end of this temporal world. Christ is not coming back to establish an earthly government. His kingdom was established in 33 AD and its domain is within the heart of man.
When I see all the war that the evangelicals promote, it reminds me of Isaiah 59:7:
Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts [are] thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction [are] in their paths.
Semantics or not -- the point is that marriage is honorable in all and not to be forbid either by law or by the disapproving brow of the evangelicals. And those that press their ascetic false religion onto others are explicitly condemned in the holy scriptures.
I don't have high hopes of convincing many. At least not to the point of bringing about a wide sweeping change. The fact is, things are so rotten nowadays in so many ways, that the refractoriness on the part of those professing with their lips is so great that it more than exceeds that of the past workers of iniquities. And it surely will bring a total end of this temporal world. Christ is not coming back to establish an earthly government. His kingdom was established in 33 AD and its domain is within the heart of man.
When I see all the war that the evangelicals promote, it reminds me of Isaiah 59:7:
Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts [are] thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction [are] in their paths.
Memphis,
I hope my dialog here with you does not come across as me being contentious.
I am only sharing some thoughts here to stir your mind to ponder what may be a better methodology.
Let's run with your idea for a moment and suppose these people are seduced by demonic ideology. Would not Ephesians 6:12 apply where it says that we struggle not against flesh and blood but against the evil spiritual forces? If our struggle is against that and not the person would it make more sense to address the issues and ideas that have them held captive than to actually call them derogatory names, like thugs? Is that not what Paul taught his disciple Timothy to do when he said: "The Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26)?
Seems like to me if you do believe they are held captive by the will of Satan that this verse about teaching in kindness would apply as to the actual methodological means God's words prescribes for speaking to them. Basically it seems to boil down to this: if I were trapped by the devil in some belief how would I want others to approach me and to debate or converse with me on that matter? The golden rule of "do unto others as you would them do unto you" seems to be how we ought to interpret and define the words "kind to everyone" and "gentle instruction."
What do you think? Do you think gentleness and kindness is displayed by those terms of "spiritual thugs" and other related terms?
I hope my dialog here with you does not come across as me being contentious.
I am only sharing some thoughts here to stir your mind to ponder what may be a better methodology.
Let's run with your idea for a moment and suppose these people are seduced by demonic ideology. Would not Ephesians 6:12 apply where it says that we struggle not against flesh and blood but against the evil spiritual forces? If our struggle is against that and not the person would it make more sense to address the issues and ideas that have them held captive than to actually call them derogatory names, like thugs? Is that not what Paul taught his disciple Timothy to do when he said: "The Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26)?
Seems like to me if you do believe they are held captive by the will of Satan that this verse about teaching in kindness would apply as to the actual methodological means God's words prescribes for speaking to them. Basically it seems to boil down to this: if I were trapped by the devil in some belief how would I want others to approach me and to debate or converse with me on that matter? The golden rule of "do unto others as you would them do unto you" seems to be how we ought to interpret and define the words "kind to everyone" and "gentle instruction."
What do you think? Do you think gentleness and kindness is displayed by those terms of "spiritual thugs" and other related terms?
Memphis Dwight
Member
Dr Allen,
These folks are not the victims, they are the abusers. I have witnessed up close and personal the heart ache and destruction of homes due to feminism, "egalitarianism", and just about every other ism that opposes God's design for family relations.
Christians are to be the light of the world, meaning, we set the example. Yet, these folks are continually counseling young women in ways that are not in keeping with God. And they incessantly brow beat men into little boys. And the end result is that mom and dad divorce and the children have their childhood memories destroyed.
Make no mistake about it. Many of these monogamites are deliberate and wicked in their hearts. Granted, there are some christians out there that have not studied the subject well. But those at GCM have a proven history of being haters of all things patriarchal as well as a deeply rooted contempt for sola scriptura.
These folks are not the victims, they are the abusers. I have witnessed up close and personal the heart ache and destruction of homes due to feminism, "egalitarianism", and just about every other ism that opposes God's design for family relations.
Christians are to be the light of the world, meaning, we set the example. Yet, these folks are continually counseling young women in ways that are not in keeping with God. And they incessantly brow beat men into little boys. And the end result is that mom and dad divorce and the children have their childhood memories destroyed.
Make no mistake about it. Many of these monogamites are deliberate and wicked in their hearts. Granted, there are some christians out there that have not studied the subject well. But those at GCM have a proven history of being haters of all things patriarchal as well as a deeply rooted contempt for sola scriptura.
Scarecrow
Member
MD, while I tend to agree with your statements they do not negate the truths revealed from scripture as Dr. Allen has graciously provided.
To be confrontational can come across as angry and judgmental and tends to make people think there are underlying issues that are being expressed rather than a genuine concern for the issues at hand. In fact the way we address others when discussing polygyny will often determine whether they will consider the message we give them rather then a mountain of facts thrown in their faces.
Referring to them as monogamites and making statements with negative tones only serves to put them on the defensive and further entrench them in the defense of their particular doctrine, it does not warm them up to you and open their minds. We cannot change other people's minds for them, but if they respect us they may consider the information we provide to them. How do I know this? I am just as guilty of it as you are. I still have trouble applying what Dr. Allen has pointed out. I am a work in progress, but progress is possible because I realize my shortcomings in this area. I don't care for the "politically correct" kind of feel I get from doing things this way, but I have to say - the results speak for themselves.
So if you want to come across as angry and judgmental that is easy, if you want to be effective then I would suggest changing your tactics (again, something I am also working on myself).
Now measure yourself...did this post make you angry and want to justify your position again, or did it cause you to consider modifying your approach? The answer to that will tell you a lot.
To be confrontational can come across as angry and judgmental and tends to make people think there are underlying issues that are being expressed rather than a genuine concern for the issues at hand. In fact the way we address others when discussing polygyny will often determine whether they will consider the message we give them rather then a mountain of facts thrown in their faces.
Referring to them as monogamites and making statements with negative tones only serves to put them on the defensive and further entrench them in the defense of their particular doctrine, it does not warm them up to you and open their minds. We cannot change other people's minds for them, but if they respect us they may consider the information we provide to them. How do I know this? I am just as guilty of it as you are. I still have trouble applying what Dr. Allen has pointed out. I am a work in progress, but progress is possible because I realize my shortcomings in this area. I don't care for the "politically correct" kind of feel I get from doing things this way, but I have to say - the results speak for themselves.
So if you want to come across as angry and judgmental that is easy, if you want to be effective then I would suggest changing your tactics (again, something I am also working on myself).
Now measure yourself...did this post make you angry and want to justify your position again, or did it cause you to consider modifying your approach? The answer to that will tell you a lot.
Memphis Dwight
Member
Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I consider myself a free agent, accountable to God and not some unofficial polygamist cause organization. None of us here are elected spokespersons for "the group." The push for some diplomacy in this thread could have been limited to one post. Instead, it is now past the point of being, shall I say, whiney?
Christ never said Don't Judge. He said Don't Judge until you've removed the beam from your eye. That indicates that christians are called to judge. IF not, why not?
What always comes up when the issue of the abomination of a man lying with another man? Someone will always and inevitably remind the speaker that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner? Am I wrong? Doesn't any conversation or discussion germane to the issue of sodomy always end up with a lame straw man appeal for diplomacy. And the thing is, the speaker has never said that God Hates Fags. Or anything close to that. This is just the devil's way of putting the speaker on the defensive. Pretend as if the speaker is doing something wrong. Then that takes the spotlight off the issue and onto the straw man assertion.
If I'm saying anything, it is this: The imbalance towards feminine virtues to the exclusion of the masculine has swallowed up the brethren. Considerateness, courtesy, etc. There's nothing wrong with these, but each in its right place and time.
I've already had to deal w/ another straw man attack over at GCM. By my asserting the biblical position that the wife is under the authority of her husband, that she belongs to him, my opponent has claimed indirectly, that I am really meaning that the woman is some inanimate, or subhuman, or material object. The purpose of this is to cause me to go on the defensive and say, Oh no, that's not what I mean... when the onus should be on the one making the accusation to prove that this is what I have said/meant.
are we clear on all of this?
Christ never said Don't Judge. He said Don't Judge until you've removed the beam from your eye. That indicates that christians are called to judge. IF not, why not?
What always comes up when the issue of the abomination of a man lying with another man? Someone will always and inevitably remind the speaker that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner? Am I wrong? Doesn't any conversation or discussion germane to the issue of sodomy always end up with a lame straw man appeal for diplomacy. And the thing is, the speaker has never said that God Hates Fags. Or anything close to that. This is just the devil's way of putting the speaker on the defensive. Pretend as if the speaker is doing something wrong. Then that takes the spotlight off the issue and onto the straw man assertion.
If I'm saying anything, it is this: The imbalance towards feminine virtues to the exclusion of the masculine has swallowed up the brethren. Considerateness, courtesy, etc. There's nothing wrong with these, but each in its right place and time.
I've already had to deal w/ another straw man attack over at GCM. By my asserting the biblical position that the wife is under the authority of her husband, that she belongs to him, my opponent has claimed indirectly, that I am really meaning that the woman is some inanimate, or subhuman, or material object. The purpose of this is to cause me to go on the defensive and say, Oh no, that's not what I mean... when the onus should be on the one making the accusation to prove that this is what I have said/meant.
are we clear on all of this?
Scarecrow
Member
"are we clear on all of this?"
Absolutely...you would rather dangle out in left field and scream at the crowd while they point and laugh at you...all for the sake of "your righteous cause". In the mean time any "cause" that you represent looses credibility because it is associated with you...does that about sum it up?
Absolutely...you would rather dangle out in left field and scream at the crowd while they point and laugh at you...all for the sake of "your righteous cause". In the mean time any "cause" that you represent looses credibility because it is associated with you...does that about sum it up?
You know when something happens on TV and they interview someone to represent the pov of your 'community'. Have you ever thought 'oh no, they got the biggest, ignorant wackjob to do this interview, they want us all to look like total fools....I am SO embarrassed....'.
I have been there.................
I have been there.................
Hey Memphis,
Would you mind sharing with me what you think this verse then means and how it is to be applied today to those who are teaching what you see to be serious error? I'm really curious as to what these words mean to you and your methodological approach.
"The Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-25)
I agree with you that many have been watered down and feminized. But, even so, it looks like to me that the truly strong man will exercise the power within him with the sword in a careful, kind, and non resentful way.
What are your thoughts on this verse and how should it be applied today?
Would you mind sharing with me what you think this verse then means and how it is to be applied today to those who are teaching what you see to be serious error? I'm really curious as to what these words mean to you and your methodological approach.
"The Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-25)
I agree with you that many have been watered down and feminized. But, even so, it looks like to me that the truly strong man will exercise the power within him with the sword in a careful, kind, and non resentful way.
What are your thoughts on this verse and how should it be applied today?