Ok, and since this thread came up again, I'm really trying to get
my apparent contradiction?
Does it come down to defining "murder?" (which for me,
includes stepping on ants) or am I misunderstanding
something else?
As I remem the conversation, T was, wadr,
attempting to discredit "All things are lawful for me."
That has been resolved to my satisfaction. I've moved on.
However, I see upon rereading some posts that I completely misread what you said! I can only guess that your answer was so contrary to what I expected that I read it the way I was expecting you to answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
Thanks.
Is it lawful for you to murder someone?
Pleeeeease, answer with a yes or a no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
And viola', just like that you reveal your premises.
"Murder" is just a human def of killing with intent,
so yes.
Actually, I misremembered what my question was. I asked you if it was lawful for you to murder someone, and you answered "yes". I took is a the opposite; that it was unlawful for you to commit murder.
So, with this new light shed on the issue, I am ironically more confused about you than ever. But I must apologize for accusing you of contradicting yourself: you said all things are lawful for you (as the literal reading of Paul's epistle would indicate) and that it is lawful for you to commit murder. No contradiction there.
So it is merely an untruth. You say it is lawful, but it is in fact not lawful. It's illegal, immoral, against the law (both man's law and what a lot of people would think is God's law).
Anyway. Live and learn.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Well, I won't lie; I'm conflicted there, myself.
I'm not sure if this comes from over-stretching
"all things are lawful for me"--which concept
I think I fairly grasp--to a consideration of "murder," (fair enough; maybe)
or because I would feel justified in shooting, say, Hitler,
in defiance of Christ's way.
I think the crux might be ones def of "lawful" here,
which I take to mean obviously against civil law,
but adhering to a higher law; so, I might break
a civil law in following a higher law.
Back to the original question of this thread. I prefer breach loading.
__________________ "I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"
Titus2woman on AFF
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.
"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.
"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."
Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
Well, I won't lie; I'm conflicted there, myself.
I'm not sure if this comes from over-stretching
"all things are lawful for me"--which concept
I think I fairly grasp--to a consideration of "murder," (fair enough; maybe)
or because I would feel justified in shooting, say, Hitler,
in defiance of Christ's way.
I think the crux might be ones def of "lawful" here,
which I take to mean obviously against civil law,
but adhering to a higher law; so, I might break
a civil law in following a higher law.
What's the higher law? Is there anything unlawful for you, under that law?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
What's the higher law? Is there anything unlawful for you, under that law?
Strictly speaking, yes, since it is a choice to obey
the Holy Spirit, every single time. So, although
"higher law" is a poor way to put it, as I think
it is better stated "recognizing the cover of Grace,"
not following the Holy Spirit would be "unlawful" for me.
I still pretty much do it every day, with someone fractious
or whatever.
My answer to the original question... I am ok with the current KJV Bible personally. I do believe, however, a book not in the Bible, the Book of Jasher has historical significance and is referenced in the Bible, too. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the Book of Enoch in it, which I have not read... but, that I want to just because I read a fictional book that dealt with it... I don't believe in the Book of Enoch, though.
Some books that are not Canonized in the Protestant Bible... that may be in other versions, though not meant to be scripture, do have some historical insights and some good knowledge in them.
Also, we focus too much on the epistles and letters and not enough on the direct words of Jesus! Or, on the words of the prophets and Old Testament... I do believe the epistles are scripture, however, and divinely lead... And, that a lot of our Christian books we have now are not scripture, but divinely lead... But, in all of this, there are some junk books... Not in the Bible... but in some of the gnostic gospels and similar things.
I read the book of Enoch, seems to me it has merit.
Strictly speaking, yes, since it is a choice to obey
the Holy Spirit, every single time. So, although
"higher law" is a poor way to put it, as I think
it is better stated "recognizing the cover of Grace,"
not following the Holy Spirit would be "unlawful" for me.
I still pretty much do it every day, with someone fractious
or whatever.
OK, so when you said nothing was unlawful for you, were you referring to civil law?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
OK, so when you said nothing was unlawful for you, were you referring to civil law?
Yes--but I don't take this to mean I can break civil law; at least not with impunity; but if I was trapped in a locked office for a week with no food, I prolly wouldn't have a problem breaking into the candy machine...not a great example, I guess.
Do you mean it has some degree of divine inspiration and/or infallibility?
Linear Mode
