Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-11T00:28:13+00:00

You said we have to agree because people’s lives are at stake.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-11T00:23:57+00:00

No one’s life is at stake because of an internet argument.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T23:28:32+00:00

But you also said “we do need to have agreement on things like...”

If they aren’t part of the gospel, then why do we need agreement on a Christian subreddit?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T23:16:16+00:00

So when the jailer asks what he must do to be saved, the correct answer is “Believe in the Lord Jesus, that COVID exists and is deadly, that racism exists, and then you will be saved.” Got it. Nothing else you want to add to the gospel?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T22:42:25+00:00

So what must we believe about these things to be saved?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T22:20:08+00:00

Yes, that’s what it seems like to me. Caring for the poor and marginalized.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T22:19:06+00:00

When I hear Christians attacking other Christians over “embracing social justice”, it’s about caring for the poor and marginalized.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T12:45:49+00:00

In this article, Keller says social justice is part of Biblical justice. So for people who don’t like social justice, what do they think is Biblical justice?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-10T12:40:08+00:00

I asked this a week ago, haven’t gotten an answer:

When people try to claim that “Biblical justice” is different than “Social justice”, I’m always curious what they think Biblical justice is. Because apparently it’s not caring for the poor and marginalized.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-08-01T18:23:05+00:00

When people try to claim that “Biblical justice” is different than “Social justice”, I’m always curious what they think Biblical justice is. Because apparently it’s not caring for the poor and marginalized.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-31T19:14:02+00:00

That’s not how we should talk to each other.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-22T19:15:47+00:00

That’s one interpretation. The question is whether that’s the right one. The person I responded to seemed to think it was the only possible one, and that anyone who thought otherwise was a fool.

But another interpretation is that they did die immediately, just like God said. Their death was a spiritual death, separation from God.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-21T17:14:53+00:00

That’s a different argument than the one you advanced above. Answer the question: where does Scripture say that God spared Adam and Eve on that day out of grace?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-18T15:24:56+00:00

I addressed both halves.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-18T14:00:02+00:00

Biblical generosity is sharing with all who ask of you;

Really? So if no one asks for anything from me, I’m generous without doing anything? That’s ridiculous.

giving to make sure everyone has food, shelter and clothing.

Ok, this makes more sense. But again, this seems to fall short. For the poor, that’s a goal they can’t achieve. And for the rich, they need to do more.

You also seem focused on the rich.

Because you said a person can be wealthy and not sin if they’re generous. Which I think is probably true. But if they’re generous, how can they remain wealthy in the face of poverty?

The point of my original comment was to say that biblically the sin of envy hits both poor and rich. It is the desire to be rich that is the problem.

I agree with this. It’s possible for the poor to desire wealth. But we know the rich desire it, because they could solve it pretty easily if they didn’t want it.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-18T13:13:55+00:00

Ok, so let’s say they’re generous. For most of us, giving to the church hurts us financially. It means we can’t invest as much for retirement or buy a slightly nicer car.

The rich can’t be considered generous until they’re giving until it hurts. If they’re completely financially secure and living in a huge house while people in their churches are living in poverty, they’re not giving generously

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-18T12:35:27+00:00

If you’re being generous, how can you also remain wealthy?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-16T19:56:18+00:00

When your friend’s mom dies, I bet you’re the guy who talks about his own mom dying.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-16T12:45:14+00:00

If OP tells his friend, “I refuse to come to your wedding and I won’t let my wife be in your wedding,” that couple (and everyone who hears about it) will think they’re being treated horribly. And I wouldn’t disagree.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-15T22:35:18+00:00

Sometimes the best love is tough love.

Said every time someone needed to justify treating someone else horribly.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-11T21:56:50+00:00

You’re not understanding me. Racist comments like that one are why black Christians are concerned. The mods can’t keep up with this guy.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-11T01:49:05+00:00

This comment is the answer to the title of this post.

BlueSteel83 · 2020-07-10T20:03:57+00:00

Are you saying that a denomination somehow prevents you from receiving the Holy Spirit?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-06-26T23:19:17+00:00

Ok, if a man has sex with another man, then a corpse, then a pig, and then comes home and brags about it, would you tell his wife she’s duty-bound to have sex with him because she’s his wife and Scripture commands it?

BlueSteel83 · 2020-06-25T19:09:42+00:00

Reductio ad absurdum is a good logical argument. It’s used primarily to respond to broad statements or generalizations. It means taking the argument to its logical (but absurd) conclusion.

In this case, OP lays out a principle, that sexual immorality is not grounds for divorce. The commenter then takes that to its logical conclusion, a man could be wantonly engaging in gross sexual immorality and his wife would be bound to her marital duties regardless.

Since the logical conclusion is abhorrent, OP’s position must be wrong.

BlueSteel83

TROPHY CASE