Church and abusive marriages

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, TickledPinkinChristWoot! said:

It isn't hard to find if it exists. You say you don't remember what thread it is in, but you claim to remember I said it in order to accuse me of it.  If you can go to the trouble of accusing without evidence, you should go to the trouble of providing evidence when challenged on your accusation. 

It was over a week ago and I am not going to comb through every forum and hundreds of threads and hundreds more posts.   But you said what you said and I responded to you in that thread.

[frienduff thaylorde]

6 minutes ago, TickledPinkinChristWoot! said:

Which scholars have you read so as to arrive at your initial observation of their being all off?

Tickled,  its been so long I honestly don't remember any more .    

OH,   another question just popped in my mind.    First you agree that we are never to lie one to another seeing we have put the old man and his deeds off,  OR WE SHOULD HAVE ANYWAY.

So,  I want honesty.    What do you think about this all inclusive unity mindset that has been increasing . .      IF you have heard of it .   things like interfaith and so on.

Now don't be feared to answer.    I got no fear of man , neither should any.  SO what do you think about this all inclusive world peace gospel  getting taught. 

[TickledPinkinChristWoot!]

3 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

When someone cannot defend their posts, this is the tactic they fall back on.  "I didn't say that."

It is always amusing to see someone brand another poster as aggressive while they double down on aggression themselves.  It is a porcupine response meant to frighten the opposing force into backing down.  People with a secure belief base do not need to resort to that rational.  People with secure beliefs do not resort to labeling others ad hock when their beliefs are challenged.  They simply defend their beliefs with facts, scripture and explanation.  Bristling when your beliefs are challenged does absolutely nothing to make them appear more concrete.

 

You're very very young. 

 

When someone makes an accusation against someone the onus on the accuser is to prove it. Otherwise it is slander. 

If you think someone wrongly accused is at fault for stating the fact they never said what they are accused of, then you're sorely uninformed about cordiality that is commonly afforded and presumed proper in respectful conversations. 

I never said what I am being accused of. That's the fact. 

In your world you seem to think someone is guilty of whatever is accused . 
If that's righteous in your consciousness, then I could say Cobalt admitted they're a transsexual atheist and that's just wrong! In a Christian forum. 

You'd be outraged! And you'd scream , that's a lie! I never said that! 

Oh, but according to your judgment of me here, that's a guilty resort tactic. 

See how it works? 

You jump into a discussion between two people and have no idea what is being discussed as to the accurate particulars. As in, you accused me of calling a member a Pantheist. When that member was accusing me. But facts didn't matter to you. Just availing yourself of the opportunity to demonstrate self-righteous outrage was. Which was defeated instantly when you deliver your accusatory remarks against a charge that is completely wrong. 

I forgive that of you. When you can't help yourself the least the person you've targeted for your animus can do is realize what is wrong and forgive what can't be helped. Perhaps one day the Lord will lead you to seek truth before negativity.

 

[TickledPinkinChristWoot!]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

More likely due to your inability to mount a real refuation.

   A real refutation against a lie is, it is a lie. I never said it.  And you refuse to seek out the proof you'll never find to sustain your false charge. 

I'm not going to respond to slanderers after this. I'll let their words speak for themselves. 

[TickledPinkinChristWoot!]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It was over a week ago and I am not going to comb through every forum and hundreds of threads and hundreds more posts.   But you said what you said and I responded to you in that thread.

But you are going to keep slandering me with the false charge. Somewhere I think there's a prohibition concerning that. I'll see if that is true.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 minutes ago, TickledPinkinChristWoot! said:

   A real refutation against a lie is, it is a lie. I never said it.  And you refuse to seek out the proof you'll never find to sustain your false charge. 

I'm not going to respond to slanderers after this. I'll let their words speak for themselves. 

I am not slandering you.  I might have misunderstood you, but I did respond in that thread and ask you if that is what you meant.  You didn't respond.   Since that time, hundreds of threads and hundreds more posts have been added to board.  I don't remember that exact time it was posted.  I don't remember, at this point, the forum it was posted.   I would have to go through every forum every thread and every post and that is simply untenable.  

But I have not slandered you.   I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

So let me ask you, in order to clear the air.  Do you believe the whole Bible is 100% inspired by God?  And that includes Paul's epistles.   Do you believe his letters to the churches are 100% inspired and infallible/inerrant?

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, TickledPinkinChristWoot! said:

But you are going to keep slandering me with the false charge. Somewhere I think there's a prohibition concerning that. I'll see if that is true.

I found what I was looking for.   Here is what you said:

On 1/11/2018 at 7:52 PM, TickledPinkinChristWoot! said:

There are the pastoral letters of Paul. Those are his letters to the churches he founded. That means those epistles, another word for letter, are not God inspired. Rather they are Paul's letters. 

I responded to you and so did Sojourner414 in that thread.  It was thread about the woman caught in adultery.   So, no.   I did not slander you.  I have you on record, now.

[TickledPinkinChristWoot!]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I found what I was looking for.   Here is what you said:

I responded to you and so did Sojourner414 in that thread.  It was thread about the woman caught in adultery.   So, no.   I did not slander you.  I have you on record, now.

 You stated I said Paul's writings were not inspired. That remains a lie.

The cut and paste you've done there speaks volumes. You're not aware that Paul's prison letters were his letters to the churches he founded. No Bible scholar anywhere states everything Paul wrote was inspired of God. Not even Paul said that of his own letters within his own letters. That you aren't aware of Paul's ministry is on record. That's a real shame. 

 

Now, since you launched into a personal attack and derailed this thread for that purpose, I'll leave you to it. I'm going to stay on topic. Let's see if you and your followers in that arena can do the same now.

 

[TickledPinkinChristWoot!]

The Unmarried and the Widows

^{1 Corinthians 7:25} Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. ²⁶ I think that in view of the present^[d] distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.

 

Question: "What are the prison epistles?"

Answer: The prison epistles—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon—are so named because they were written by the apostle Paul during his incarceration in Rome

 

 

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians

....In ii.19 St. Paul returns to personal matters concerning Timothy and Epaphroditus; then he seems on the point of concluding the Epistle (iii.1)

[Guest shiloh357]

59 minutes ago, TickledPinkinChristWoot! said:

 You stated I said Paul's writings were not inspired. That remains a lie.

No, that is not a lie.   You said that Paul's letters to churches were not inspired.  And that is what I said you said.   I did not accuse you of saying that ALL of Paul's letters were uninspired.

Quote

You're not aware that Paul's prison letters were his letters to the churches he founded. No Bible scholar anywhere states everything Paul wrote was inspired of God.

Christian scholars who are faithful to the Word of God DO say that all of Paul's letters recorded in Scripture are inspired by God.  

I don't now what scholars you are referring to, but there are secular Bible scholars who make a career out of studying the Bible and the don't believe a word of it.  THEY deny in the inspiration of Paul's letters.  But the prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon) are all inspired, 100%.  They are part of the Word of God and the Bible is wholly inspired 100%.   That is Christianity 101. 

Quote

Not even Paul said that of his own letters within his own letters. That you aren't aware of Paul's ministry is on record. That's a real shame. 

There are no writings in the NT, that stop and make the claim to be "inspired." By that standard you have erected, nothing in the NT would inspired.

Go ahead quote some true Christians who are Bible scholars who deny the inspiration of the prison epistles.   I promise you that you can't.

 

 

Quote

 

The Unmarried and the Widows

^{1 Corinthians 7:25} Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. ²⁶ I think that in view of the present^[d] distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.

 

That does not mean that what Paul is writing is uninspired.     Paul is claiming that there is no teaching by Jesus in the Gospels on this topic.  Paul knows the Gospels and even quotes from Luke in I Timothy.   Paul says that he has no teaching from Jesus on the specific matter being addressed.

I am sorry, but  people need to be aware of the poisonous theology you hold to.  And you don't have to respond to me.  Feel free to ignore me.  But I will counter all of your false teachings so that others are not led astray by you and that you have no influence here.