Dewey's post
-
This should scare you. DON'T FUCKING CALL ME BALDY!
2 Kings 2:23-24
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ they said. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey's post:
This should scare you. DON'T FUCKING CALL ME BALDY!
2 Kings 2:23-24
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ they said. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
I know the story. If you wish, I can break down the situation and probably why this was done. Hopefully, I'll get it right.
Want an early Sunday School lesson?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey's post:
This should scare you. DON'T FUCKING CALL ME BALDY!
2 Kings 2:23-24
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ they said. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
I know the story. If you wish, I can break down the situation and probably why this was done. Hopefully, I'll get it right.
Want an early Sunday School lesson?
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey's post:
This should scare you. DON'T FUCKING CALL ME BALDY!
2 Kings 2:23-24
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ they said. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
I know the story. If you wish, I can break down the situation and probably why this was done. Hopefully, I'll get it right.
Want an early Sunday School lesson?
Sorry, I don't think the Bible is so simplistic a text that its stories can be distilled down into "this is what this one means." In fact I'd go so far as to say viewing the Bible in those terms is precisely why there's a crisis of belief in Western society.
It's not that we've become Godless heathens—we've always been that, nothing's changed there. What has changed, is that churches stopped doing what they used to do, which was attempt to explain the whole of the Bible. It was open-mindedness, not rigidity, that helped Christianity flourish through the centuries. No surprise at all that once they started down a path of linear messaging, some people stopped listening.
But since this is a crap-on-Dewey thread I'll leave us all the option to return to that.
Please love yourself.
-
Nah, I'll post an answer to your thought...I agree the Bible has to be taken as a whole, but where we have gotten ourselves into trouble, is when we ignore the specific teachings. I know Catholics or others can be cafeteria in their beliefs, but what's in there is in there for a reason.
In this specific instance, it's OT and we do live in an Age of Grace, but there are still lessons we can learn. You have to back up a bit to learn why the prophet was where he was at and what he was doing, to understand why the bears attacked the children.
That lesson revolves around the Wrath of God and Judgement of those who mock His Word. Folks nowadays concentrate too much on the Love of God, while ignoring the fact that Jesus spoke more on Hell than on Heaven. Heaven is real. Hell is real. And so is the Judgement. People forget that God is Alpha and Omega, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
So, when I do read something from the OT, I keep in mind it is the same God. And while you're right about the bird's eye view, remember the smaller illustrations help make it up.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey's post:
This should scare you. DON'T FUCKING CALL ME BALDY!
2 Kings 2:23-24
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ they said. ‘Get out of here, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
I know the story. If you wish, I can break down the situation and probably why this was done. Hopefully, I'll get it right.
Want an early Sunday School lesson?
Sorry, I don't think the Bible is so simplistic a text that its stories can be distilled down into "this is what this one means." In fact I'd go so far as to say viewing the Bible in those terms is precisely why there's a crisis of belief in Western society.
It's not that we've become Godless heathens—we've always been that, nothing's changed there. What has changed, is that churches stopped doing what they used to do, which was attempt to explain the whole of the Bible. It was open-mindedness, not rigidity, that helped Christianity flourish through the centuries. No surprise at all that once they started down a path of linear messaging, some people stopped listening.
But since this is a crap-on-Dewey thread I'll leave us all the option to return to that.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
But since this is a crap-on-Dewey thread I'll leave us all the option to return to that
It’s a thread to discuss his post about Larry. That’s why I titled it Dewey’s post.
-
Nah, I'll post an answer to your thought...I agree the Bible has to be taken as a whole, but where we have gotten ourselves into trouble, is when we ignore the specific teachings. I know Catholics or others can be cafeteria in their beliefs, but what's in there is in there for a reason.
In this specific instance, it's OT and we do live in an Age of Grace, but there are still lessons we can learn. You have to back up a bit to learn why the prophet was where he was at and what he was doing, to understand why the bears attacked the children.
That lesson revolves around the Wrath of God and Judgement of those who mock His Word. Folks nowadays concentrate too much on the Love of God, while ignoring the fact that Jesus spoke more on Hell than on Heaven. Heaven is real. Hell is real. And so is the Judgement. People forget that God is Alpha and Omega, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
So, when I do read something from the OT, I keep in mind it is the same God. And while you're right about the bird's eye view, remember the smaller illustrations help make it up.
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
Nah, I'll post an answer to your thought...I agree the Bible has to be taken as a whole, but where we have gotten ourselves into trouble, is when we ignore the specific teachings. I know Catholics or others can be cafeteria in their beliefs, but what's in there is in there for a reason.
Well, that's sort of what I'm saying. You seem to view it as "you should ignore everything else and focus on this part, because it's the only part that matters." What you called the "specific teachings."
I don't personally think it works that way. If we throw out those other parts, there's no way to learn everything we're supposed to.
Look, "A Tale of Two Cities" isn't about two cities. It's using two cities as a backdrop to explore ideas about values, where societies go wrong and what can be their redemption.
"Animal Farm" isn't about an animal farm. It's about what happens when you follow communism to its natural conclusion.
These are books written by some very smart people. They're multi-layered, and the lessons take a bit to unpack.
The Bible is at the very least a distillation of Western history and culture. It contains lessons about social structures, psychology, morality and spirituality that took us forever to figure out. And that's just the material side of the book. If you also view it as a holy book gifted to us through divine intervention, then you have that on top of everything else.
Because of what it is and how it came about, I refuse to believe that it can somehow be distilled into something that's somehow more straightforward than a Dickens novel.
In this specific instance, it's OT and we do live in an Age of Grace, but there are still lessons we can learn. You have to back up a bit to learn why the prophet was where he was at and what he was doing, to understand why the bears attacked the children.
That lesson revolves around the Wrath of God and Judgement of those who mock His Word. Folks nowadays concentrate too much on the Love of God, while ignoring the fact that Jesus spoke more on Hell than on Heaven. Heaven is real. Hell is real. And so is the Judgement. People forget that God is Alpha and Omega, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
So, when I do read something from the OT, I keep in mind it is the same God. And while you're right about the bird's eye view, remember the smaller illustrations help make it up.
For millennia, stories are how we convey ideas and lessons that are too deep and complicated to be explained in a straightforward way.
As far as stories go, any time your suspension of disbelief is working overtime, it's a good indication that there's something important to be learned there.
Why is it freaking bears? And what does that have to do with calling someone baldy?
I'd point out that the bears didn't come after the kids on their Judgement Day. It happened after some miscreants mocked him.
What that tells me is that a big driver in our broken world is cause and effect. And sure, we're rational so we can understand simple devices like pulleys and levers, but not something so complicated as social consequences. Being a shithead to others (or, if you like, mocking God and his chosen) will have consequences far beyond your ability to game out in your head, often times with more severity than what you might think is appropriate. Some things that look like hell on earth are really calamities we brought upon ourselves. So be careful how you treat people/God's chosen/whatever else you'd like to tack on to that. Because the consequences aren't just found out on Judgement Day: they're all around you, all the time.
But that's just me. I'm not a biblical scholar and I don't go to mass as often as I should.
-
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
Nah, I'll post an answer to your thought...I agree the Bible has to be taken as a whole, but where we have gotten ourselves into trouble, is when we ignore the specific teachings. I know Catholics or others can be cafeteria in their beliefs, but what's in there is in there for a reason.
Well, that's sort of what I'm saying. You seem to view it as "you should ignore everything else and focus on this part, because it's the only part that matters." What you called the "specific teachings."
I don't personally think it works that way. If we throw out those other parts, there's no way to learn everything we're supposed to.
Look, "A Tale of Two Cities" isn't about two cities. It's using two cities as a backdrop to explore ideas about values, where societies go wrong and what can be their redemption.
"Animal Farm" isn't about an animal farm. It's about what happens when you follow communism to its natural conclusion.
These are books written by some very smart people. They're multi-layered, and the lessons take a bit to unpack.
The Bible is at the very least a distillation of Western history and culture. It contains lessons about social structures, psychology, morality and spirituality that took us forever to figure out. And that's just the material side of the book. If you also view it as a holy book gifted to us through divine intervention, then you have that on top of everything else.
Because of what it is and how it came about, I refuse to believe that it can somehow be distilled into something that's somehow more straightforward than a Dickens novel.
In this specific instance, it's OT and we do live in an Age of Grace, but there are still lessons we can learn. You have to back up a bit to learn why the prophet was where he was at and what he was doing, to understand why the bears attacked the children.
That lesson revolves around the Wrath of God and Judgement of those who mock His Word. Folks nowadays concentrate too much on the Love of God, while ignoring the fact that Jesus spoke more on Hell than on Heaven. Heaven is real. Hell is real. And so is the Judgement. People forget that God is Alpha and Omega, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
So, when I do read something from the OT, I keep in mind it is the same God. And while you're right about the bird's eye view, remember the smaller illustrations help make it up.
For millennia, stories are how we convey ideas and lessons that are too deep and complicated to be explained in a straightforward way.
As far as stories go, any time your suspension of disbelief is working overtime, it's a good indication that there's something important to be learned there.
Why is it freaking bears? And what does that have to do with calling someone baldy?
I'd point out that the bears didn't come after the kids on their Judgement Day. It happened after some miscreants mocked him.
What that tells me is that a big driver in our broken world is cause and effect. And sure, we're rational so we can understand simple devices like pulleys and levers, but not something so complicated as social consequences. Being a shithead to others (or, if you like, mocking God and his chosen) will have consequences far beyond your ability to game out in your head, often times with more severity than what you might think is appropriate. Some things that look like hell on earth are really calamities we brought upon ourselves. So be careful how you treat people/God's chosen/whatever else you'd like to tack on to that. Because the consequences aren't just found out on Judgement Day: they're all around you, all the time.
But that's just me. I'm not a biblical scholar and I don't go to mass as often as I should.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
Why is it freaking bears? And what does that have to do with calling someone baldy?
I'd point out that the bears didn't come after the kids on their Judgement Day. It happened after some miscreants mocked him.
What that tells me is that a big driver in our broken world is cause and effect. And sure, we're rational so we can understand simple devices like pulleys and levers, but not something so complicated as social consequences. Being a shithead to others (or, if you like, mocking God and his chosen) will have consequences far beyond your ability to game out in your head, often times with more severity than what you might think is appropriate. Some things that look like hell on earth are really calamities we brought upon ourselves. So be careful how you treat people/God's chosen/whatever else you'd like to tack on to that. Because the consequences aren't just found out on Judgement Day: they're all around you, all the time.
“Karma”
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
Why is it freaking bears? And what does that have to do with calling someone baldy?
I'd point out that the bears didn't come after the kids on their Judgement Day. It happened after some miscreants mocked him.
What that tells me is that a big driver in our broken world is cause and effect. And sure, we're rational so we can understand simple devices like pulleys and levers, but not something so complicated as social consequences. Being a shithead to others (or, if you like, mocking God and his chosen) will have consequences far beyond your ability to game out in your head, often times with more severity than what you might think is appropriate. Some things that look like hell on earth are really calamities we brought upon ourselves. So be careful how you treat people/God's chosen/whatever else you'd like to tack on to that. Because the consequences aren't just found out on Judgement Day: they're all around you, all the time.
“Karma”
@Axtremus said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
Why is it freaking bears? And what does that have to do with calling someone baldy?
I'd point out that the bears didn't come after the kids on their Judgement Day. It happened after some miscreants mocked him.
What that tells me is that a big driver in our broken world is cause and effect. And sure, we're rational so we can understand simple devices like pulleys and levers, but not something so complicated as social consequences. Being a shithead to others (or, if you like, mocking God and his chosen) will have consequences far beyond your ability to game out in your head, often times with more severity than what you might think is appropriate. Some things that look like hell on earth are really calamities we brought upon ourselves. So be careful how you treat people/God's chosen/whatever else you'd like to tack on to that. Because the consequences aren't just found out on Judgement Day: they're all around you, all the time.
“Karma”
Not exactly. They didn't just mock any old dude on the street.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
I like @dewey. He was also nice to me, was genuine, and seemed a person who has strong beliefs, which were generally quite opposite from Larry. I did not realize that he and Larry were once good friends.
One of the things that the forum board has done well is allow people to express their opinions. If someone has been wronged by someone, I have no problem with them speaking their thoughts and feelings.
Making accusations, including about the deceased’s belief in his religion? You have no problem with that? That surprises me TG.
It is not that I dont have a problem with it, but I can understand his frustration. Larry said some stuff to me that almost made me delete this forum board, and he said worst things to others. I ultimately figured Larry was just playing a internet character, and that he really was a big teddy bear. Keeping that in my mind, I just moved forward with that thinking. And, in the end, I think I got along "okay" with him.
I wasn't intending a referendum on your feelings about Larry. I was wondering about your feelings about a man of the cloth, a self described divinely touched True Believer, holding a grudge over online arguments, and claiming one of his old adversaries, soon after the man died, didn't believe in the religion they nominally share. That's the part that I was wondering whether you have a problem with.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
I like @dewey. He was also nice to me, was genuine, and seemed a person who has strong beliefs, which were generally quite opposite from Larry. I did not realize that he and Larry were once good friends.
One of the things that the forum board has done well is allow people to express their opinions. If someone has been wronged by someone, I have no problem with them speaking their thoughts and feelings.
Making accusations, including about the deceased’s belief in his religion? You have no problem with that? That surprises me TG.
It is not that I dont have a problem with it, but I can understand his frustration. Larry said some stuff to me that almost made me delete this forum board, and he said worst things to others. I ultimately figured Larry was just playing a internet character, and that he really was a big teddy bear. Keeping that in my mind, I just moved forward with that thinking. And, in the end, I think I got along "okay" with him.
I wasn't intending a referendum on your feelings about Larry. I was wondering about your feelings about a man of the cloth, a self described divinely touched True Believer, holding a grudge over online arguments, and claiming one of his old adversaries, soon after the man died, didn't believe in the religion they nominally share. That's the part that I was wondering whether you have a problem with.
I dont a problem with it. People react differently, and obviously Dewey had some pretty strong feelings about his interactions with Larry (most of which I probably dont know about). I dont know the Bible well (actually not at all LOL), so I dont know what it says about talking about someone after they die.
Not the way I would have reacted, but again, we are all different. I dont think that Larry cares, and if it helps Dewey move on, then it is good for him.
I have my own thoughts, feelings, and interactions with Larry and what Dewey wrote doesn't change that - either in a positive or negative sense. It also does not change my feeling about Dewey.
And lets be honest, if the situation were reversed, I do not think Larry would have been all lovey-dovey towards Dewey in a memory post.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
I like @dewey. He was also nice to me, was genuine, and seemed a person who has strong beliefs, which were generally quite opposite from Larry. I did not realize that he and Larry were once good friends.
One of the things that the forum board has done well is allow people to express their opinions. If someone has been wronged by someone, I have no problem with them speaking their thoughts and feelings.
Making accusations, including about the deceased’s belief in his religion? You have no problem with that? That surprises me TG.
It is not that I dont have a problem with it, but I can understand his frustration. Larry said some stuff to me that almost made me delete this forum board, and he said worst things to others. I ultimately figured Larry was just playing a internet character, and that he really was a big teddy bear. Keeping that in my mind, I just moved forward with that thinking. And, in the end, I think I got along "okay" with him.
I wasn't intending a referendum on your feelings about Larry. I was wondering about your feelings about a man of the cloth, a self described divinely touched True Believer, holding a grudge over online arguments, and claiming one of his old adversaries, soon after the man died, didn't believe in the religion they nominally share. That's the part that I was wondering whether you have a problem with.
I dont a problem with it. People react differently, and obviously Dewey had some pretty strong feelings about his interactions with Larry (most of which I probably dont know about). I dont know the Bible well (actually not at all LOL), so I dont know what it says about talking about someone after they die.
Not the way I would have reacted, but again, we are all different. I dont think that Larry cares, and if it helps Dewey move on, then it is good for him.
I have my own thoughts, feelings, and interactions with Larry and what Dewey wrote doesn't change that - either in a positive or negative sense. It also does not change my feeling about Dewey.
And lets be honest, if the situation were reversed, I do not think Larry would have been all lovey-dovey towards Dewey in a memory post.
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
I dont a problem with it. People react differently, and obviously Dewey had some pretty strong feelings about his interactions with Larry (most of which I probably dont know about). I dont know the Bible well (actually not at all LOL), so I dont know what it says about talking about someone after they die.
It's about making a claim about someone else's belief, recently deceased or otherwise. While I'm sure it's the emotional truth of many that Larry was not a believer in Christianity, for Dewey to make that claim would be against the rules of how he's supposed to comport himself within that same faith. I am sure you have issues with people who don't practice what they preach, but in this case, you also know that Larry was mean, so the rules don't apply to him. That's nice.
Education is extremely important.
-
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
-
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
-
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
Yeah, but Dewey is apostate and he knows it. A lot of that smoke is a man trying to convince himself.
Larry? Fairly conservative, mainstream Southern Baptist. Extremely common down here.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
Yeah, but Dewey is apostate and he knows it. A lot of that smoke is a man trying to convince himself.
Larry? Fairly conservative, mainstream Southern Baptist. Extremely common down here.
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
Yeah, but Dewey is apostate and he knows it. A lot of that smoke is a man trying to convince himself.
One can attempt to convince oneself without explicitly breaking rules of behavior that are central to the issue to begin with.
-
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
Yeah, but Dewey is apostate and he knows it. A lot of that smoke is a man trying to convince himself.
One can attempt to convince oneself without explicitly breaking rules of behavior that are central to the issue to begin with.
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Jolly said in Dewey's post:
I know Larry's theology better than any of you.
Period.
I also know his culture better than any of you.
Period.
Don't presume what you don't know. All you can go by is what you do know. Give me specifics and I'll give you answers, as best I can.
I don't think anybody was making any claims about Larry's theology. His belief was dismissed by Dewey, and that dismissal was brought up by me for examination.
Yeah, but Dewey is apostate and he knows it. A lot of that smoke is a man trying to convince himself.
One can attempt to convince oneself without explicitly breaking rules of behavior that are central to the issue to begin with.
I think it was Mik who talked about Larry being a mirror. Wise statement.
-
People are all shitting on Dewey. I’ve never met him, but I’ve met somebody a number of times who I very much liked and who worked on charitable outreaches with him overseas, and she says he’s awesome. Good enough for me.
I couldn’t give a fuck whether he’s apostate or not, or gay, or whatever.
Analyzing his personal life and history? Ok, go right ahead. That’s the great thing about being perfect, right?
I was only joking
-
In fairness, Phibes, Dewey is the one that opened that door. I've mostly stayed out of it, as my issue with him is past history, but it's not quite fair for him to cast aspersions on Larry's faith and expect to be immune to scrutiny of his own.
-
In fairness, Phibes, Dewey is the one that opened that door. I've mostly stayed out of it, as my issue with him is past history, but it's not quite fair for him to cast aspersions on Larry's faith and expect to be immune to scrutiny of his own.
@Mik said in Dewey's post:
In fairness, Phibes, Dewey is the one that opened that door. I've mostly stayed out of it, as my issue with him is past history, but it's not quite fair for him to cast aspersions on Larry's faith and expect to be immune to scrutiny of his own.
I happen to think that what Larry and others said to Dewey once he strayed from the one true path was just horrible. I’m not surprised he was so hurt.
And discussing somebody over here who doesn’t post is just like discussing somebody who’s dead. They’re not here to defend themselves.
I was only joking
-
@Mik said in Dewey's post:
In fairness, Phibes, Dewey is the one that opened that door. I've mostly stayed out of it, as my issue with him is past history, but it's not quite fair for him to cast aspersions on Larry's faith and expect to be immune to scrutiny of his own.
I happen to think that what Larry and others said to Dewey once he strayed from the one true path was just horrible. I’m not surprised he was so hurt.
And discussing somebody over here who doesn’t post is just like discussing somebody who’s dead. They’re not here to defend themselves.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey's post:
@Mik said in Dewey's post:
In fairness, Phibes, Dewey is the one that opened that door. I've mostly stayed out of it, as my issue with him is past history, but it's not quite fair for him to cast aspersions on Larry's faith and expect to be immune to scrutiny of his own.
I happen to think that what Larry and others said to Dewey once he strayed from the one true path was just horrible. I’m not surprised he was so hurt.
Right, and it's a test of character to react to that pain. He failed. That's how that worked.
And discussing somebody over here who doesn’t post is just like discussing somebody who’s dead. They’re not here to defend themselves.
No, it's not. It's not the same.
-
I do. Very much.
I'll tell you why. Every man's path to Christ is his own, but the essentials are the same. The Roman Road, so to speak. And there are things open to interpretation, or we wouldn't have a myriad of denominations, some with minor disagreements, some with more major disagreements.
But what you dont do, is completely ignore what the Bible teaches, especially if that is taught in multiple places, within multiple books in OT and NT. You say all have fallen short of the Glory of God, and we are all sinners? Well, amen, brother! That's true.
We stumble, we fall, but we are commanded to get back up again and do the best we can, to work towards a higher state of Grace. What we are not told to do, is turn our backs on what we know is wrong, or worse, to joyfully engage in sinful behavior with no remorse and no intention of asking for forgiveness.
If you read the pastoral letters - I&II Timothy and Titus - you'll find that leaders within the church are held to a little higher standard. Not an impossible standard, but one that demands their best.
You don't put a drunk in the pulpit, or a man who cheats on his wife, beats his children, etc. The doors of the Church aren't closed to those folks, but they should never be placed in leadership. We had to show a deacon the door last year because of inappropriate behavior with a sixteen year-old girl. I'll pray for him, but he's not staying in any leadership position.
I'll not go item by item, but there are at least three things, probably four, that would keep Dewey out of the pulpit. And not to put words in his mouth, but we've knocked theological heads enough that I can say that Dewey does not believe in Biblical inerrancy, has a lot of trouble with the Pauline Letters and views the Bible as more of a suggestion book. Personally, I feel if you've dragged the Word down to that level, you don't have much Word.
It's written in the End of Days, that many shall bear false witness. That many preachers will engage in oratory for the purpose of tickling men's ears, not to try to actually win them to a Gospel that demands sacrifice, self-control, love for their fellow man and an attentive heart to God's Will, including the Judgement that awaits us all.
