Does the Bible call Christians to be fruitful and multiply, or to prefer the celibate life?
Paul calls Christians to celibacy.
This is not to say he commands them to be celibate.
Rather, Paul tells us, with God’s permission, that those who are unmarried, will be happier, and better Christians.
Christians are invited to be celibate. It is one of the recommended courses of conduct, over marriage.
Of course, for the weaker, less committed Christians, marriage is acceptable, reluctantly.

[1 Cor. 3:6] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[BHN: Paul tells us that what follows is true, but not a commandment. He has not been commanded to tell us these things, but has been given permission. Some things Paul was commanded to tell us. He could not disobey God. Some things he received no commandment, but he went to the Lord and received permission to tell us certain other things. If these things were imperatives, God would have commanded it. It would seem that these are thoughts or instructions that have God’s stamp of approval, but which originate with Paul. God has chosen Paul to share additional instructions, as his representative on earth. Now it seems this is a curious thing if God means them to have the authority of commandments. In that case, Paul would not preface his comments with “I speak this by permission, and not commandment.”
Paul is careful to let us know when commandments are issued, and what are merely his suggestions, which he humbly concedes are divinely inspired.
We do not need to doubt that they are true to God’s intentions. We are invited to follow them, but not commanded.
The Bible offers many invitations to Christians. Invitations can be accepted, or declined.
Commandments are orders to be followed and obeyed, and can not be declined.
When Paul tells us that these are divine suggestions, but not commandments, he is telling us they are invitations.
It is his wish and God’s wish that we accept the invitation, but a gracious Lord understands when a faithful servant has other obligations, possibly accepting another invitation, or prior commitment.]

[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[BHN: Paul would have all men (and women by other passages), be as he himself was, an unmarried person. It is good for single persons to remain unmarried.]

[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[BHN: If the trouble of the flesh comes to them as unmarried persons, they should get married. Given the choice between marriage or burning in hell for adultery, choose marriage.]

[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[BHN: Paul has given his suggestions for the unmarrieds. Now his advice for the marrieds. This time it is a commandment, not just from him, but from the Lord. The commandment is that a wife must not depart from her husband.]

[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
[BHN: But if she does depart from him, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to him, go back to him.]

[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[BHN: Christians should not divorce unbelievers if the unbeliever wants to remain married.]

[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
[BHN: Now this says if the unbeliever wants to leave, let them leave. It does not say the Christian can remarry.]

[16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
[BHN: There is no guarantee that if you remain married to an unbeliever, they will become a believer.]

[17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
[BHN: The Lord calls the married and the unmarried to follow him.]

~ ~ ~

[1 Cor 7: 20-40] Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
[21] Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
[22] For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
[23] Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
[24] Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
[BHN: Whatever your lot in life, live it with god. If you are servant to a master, know that Christ is your real master, and what you do honors him. If you are a master, know that you are a servant of Christ, and called upon to follow him. You must do as he does, and treat you fellowman accordingly.]

[25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
[BHN: Paul has been asked some question about the conduct of young ladies. What follows is not a commandment from Jesus, but does represent the opinion of Paul, whom he modestly describes as one having received the blessings of God for being faithful. He modestly tells us that he has it on good authority, that what follows, represents the thoughts of Jesus.]

[26] I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
[27] Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
[BHN: Men should stay as they are, concerning marriage. If they are married, they should try to remain so. If they are single (for whatever reason), they should remain single. ]

[28] But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
[BHN: If you get married, that’s okay. Jesus understands. But remember, the ones who get married will have, not spiritual problems, but trouble in the flesh. Problems in the carnal world. The lifestyle of being married is an invitation to trouble in the flesh. Paul would like to spare us of that risky behavior, and recommends that we all stay single. We might well suppose that this “trouble in the flesh” is of a sexual nature. Lasciviousness and such. There is no proof for this interpretation, but I think it reasonable. If it does not mean this, I would think it means the materialism associated with a married life. The nice house, furnishings, fancy clothing. The single person is more likely to be free of these fleshly needs.]

[29] But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
[30] And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
[31] And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
[BHN: Life on this earth is short. In the next life all will be equal, so your lot in life, whether servant or master, single or married, in the end does not matter.]

[32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
Single people care about the things of Jesus, and how to please Jesus.
[33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
[34] There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
[35] And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
[36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
[37] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
[BHN: If a man can remain true to his heart, true to the invitation of God, and not succumb to the troubles of the flesh, and remain unmarried and not an adulterer, he does well.]

[38] So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
[BHN: A married man does well, but an unmarried man does better.]

[39] The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
[BHN: Only widows may remarry.]

[40] But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
BHN: But a woman will be happier if she remains unmarried, like Paul, who has the spirit of God.]

Does the Bible call Christians to be fruitful and multiply, or to prefer the celibate life?
Paul calls Christians to celibacy.
This is not to say he commands them to be celibate.
Rather, Paul tells us, with God’s permission, that those who are unmarried, will be happier, and better Christians.
Christians are invited to be celibate. It is one of the recommended courses of conduct, over marriage.
Of course, for the weaker, less committed Christians, marriage is acceptable, reluctantly.


I believe Paul was also specifically speaking to those desiring to dedicate their complete lives to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. He was saying that if you are married, your cares and concerns for wife and family will pull you and keep you away from whole-hearted efforts to travel and carry on with ministerial duties.

An unmarried person can also give his/her complete dedication of service and availability to God. Thus they are available to God 24/7

Paul did not dissuade marriage among believers; on the contrary, he instructed married believers on how they should interact with one another - not provoking each other but living in marital peace and harmony in a family relationship and placing God at the head of the household with the husband and wife submitting to one another.

I prefer hedonistic debauchery. It's much more fun.

I believe Paul was also specifically speaking to those desiring to dedicate their complete lives to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. He was saying that if you are married, your cares and concerns for wife and family will pull you and keep you away from whole-hearted efforts to travel and carry on with ministerial duties.

An unmarried person can also give his/her complete dedication of service and availability to God. Thus they are available to God 24/7

Paul did not dissuade marriage among believers; on the contrary, he instructed married believers on how they should interact with one another - not provoking each other but living in marital peace and harmony in a family relationship and placing God at the head of the household with the husband and wife submitting to one another.

As usual you have a whole lot of OPINION, with nothing to back it up.
NOTHING.
You have no disagreement with my exegesis, except some vauge, general comment about what you 'believe', with no sound basis.

Paul ABSOLUTELY disuaded marriage among believers.
Your failure to admit this shows your blindness.

Yes, if they felt weak, and became married, then, after the fact, he had instructions on how to behave.

The whole point of the quoted scripture is to avoid being in the uncomfortable sitution of marrigae to begin with.
Do not divide your allegence.
His message is clear.
Do not get married, unless you are so weak in the flesh, that there is no alternative.
There is of course more, and I expect to discuss it later.

I trust you and the other 'true Christians' here have taken and will take Paul's message to heart.
I trust it is your goal as 'true Christians', to remain single.

Others, who are not as 'true' as some of you, may disregard this admonition, seeing it for what it is, namely, advice to those living in 'The Last Days'.
Of course, if you truly believe you are living in 'The Last Days', even more reason to observe this instruction and invitation.

Who among you is bold enough to say 'Paul's instructions were not meant for me.'?
Who will say 'I am too weak in the flesh, and God cannot give me the ability I desire.'?

I believe Paul was also specifically speaking to those desiring to dedicate their complete lives to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. He was saying that if you are married, your cares and concerns for wife and family will pull you and keep you away from whole-hearted efforts to travel and carry on with ministerial duties.

An unmarried person can also give his/her complete dedication of service and availability to God. Thus they are available to God 24/7

Paul did not dissuade marriage among believers; on the contrary, he instructed married believers on how they should interact with one another - not provoking each other but living in marital peace and harmony in a family relationship and placing God at the head of the household with the husband and wife submitting to one another.

This is absolutely correct. The "be fruitful and multiply" is to be sure to bring more people to Christ, regardless if you're married or not.

God created us to be relational people; we NEED to have others in our lives (HELLO! He created the human race because HE was lonely); everyone has a calling in life; some to celibacy, some to marry and raise a family. If marriage WASN'T encouraged, um, wouldn't the human race would die out (okay, only if people followed commandments and had sex in the sacrament of marriage, but then we wouldn't be being fruitful, would we?)? :ohwell:

This is absolutely correct. The "be fruitful and multiply" is to be sure to bring more people to Christ, regardless if you're married or not.

God created us to be relational people; we NEED to have others in our lives (HELLO! He created the human race because HE was lonely); everyone has a calling in life; some to celibacy, some to marry and raise a family. If marriage WASN'T encouraged, um, wouldn't the human race would die out (okay, only if people followed commandments and had sex in the sacrament of marriage, but then we wouldn't be being fruitful, would we?)? :ohwell:

Thank you very much and AMEN to your comments. Marriage is the recommended method for procreation of a family unit that would be able to all serve God together - and continue on for generations as long as God allows the earth to exist before Christ returns.

God – speaking to Adam and Eve
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)

God – speaking to Noah
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (Genesis 9:1)

God – speaking to Jacob:
And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; (Genesis 35:11)


Can't very well be fruitful and multiply if one remains "celibate"

Marriage was meant to be a sacred union between husband and wife unto the honoring of God.

Celibacy was meant for an individual making a 100% dedication to commit one's life to the service of God, 24/7 specifically for the ministering of God's Message unto all people unto the uttermost parts of the world - not for becoming a recluse celibate individual living in an isolated commune.

Paul was stating that if you cannot "control yourself" nor able to dedicate your life in that manner then go ahead and get married! i.e. Be fruitful and multiply as God intended for mankind to do and dedicate your household to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Does the Bible call Christians to be fruitful and multiply, or to prefer the celibate life?
Paul calls Christians to celibacy.
This is not to say he commands them to be celibate.
Rather, Paul tells us, with God’s permission, that those who are unmarried, will be happier, and better Christians.
Christians are invited to be celibate. It is one of the recommended courses of conduct, over marriage.
Of course, for the weaker, less committed Christians, marriage is acceptable, reluctantly.



Well BHN I'm not too sure where you are going with this but as a distraction I'm willing to play along (keeping in mind that faith is by definition not a logical exercise).

From an analytical perspective, much of what Paul says is explicitly opinion. He remains celibate and ultimately it works for him, but his dwelling on it suggests that it does weigh on his mind. Frankly Paul's ambivalence is all I get clearly from a review of the passages you provided.

From a Christian point of view I have to evaluate whether being married has affected my own commitment to a christian life and frankly I don't think it has. Just for perspective, I was a single Christian to a somewhat advanced age, and then entered into a (fairly) long term marriage, with a subsequent (and continuing) separation.

While being a wife added another dimension (and again frankly a distraction and many problems) to my life, in my current life I am used to a multitasking as christian, mother, worker, daughter, sister, friend. One less (or more ) role is not so overwhelming. Just as a heart can expand to love one more child or one new friend, the human capacity for love and devotion is not finite.

Paul admitedly lived a different life, much more dedicated to a life in Christ. He further lived in a different time, which was much more perilous to the practicing Christian. I'm not sure that my paultry service to the Lord (married or single) would at all impress him.

I do think that Paul was not planning for several millenia to the second coming, so his musings were somewhat short sighted.

So give... where are you heading with this thread?

As usual you have a whole lot of OPINION, with nothing to back it up.
NOTHING.
You have no disagreement with my exegesis, except some vauge, general comment about what you 'believe', with no sound basis.
Paul ABSOLUTELY disuaded marriage among believers.
Your failure to admit this shows your blindness.
You know, you jump on us with both feet like we're wrong, when in actuality, you're wrong.
Starman gave you the best answer that anyone could give and you call it "a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up"??
One question before I continue: What is your source of absolute truth please?

You know, you jump on us with both feet like we're wrong, when in actuality, you're wrong.
Starman gave you the best answer that anyone could give and you call it "a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up"??
One question before I continue: What is your source of absolute truth please?

hmmm.....still waiting for the answer.

Starman quoted scripture....BHN did not offer anything but conjecture to refute. I wonder why?

JMO, however, certain folks jump on here to deny the facts, but cannot back themselves up.

As usual you have a whole lot of OPINION, with nothing to back it up.
NOTHING.
You have no disagreement with my exegesis, except some vauge, general comment about what you 'believe', with no sound basis.

Paul ABSOLUTELY disuaded marriage among believers.
Your failure to admit this shows your blindness.

Yes, if they felt weak, and became married, then, after the fact, he had instructions on how to behave.

The whole point of the quoted scripture is to avoid being in the uncomfortable sitution of marrigae to begin with.
Do not divide your allegence.
His message is clear.
Do not get married, unless you are so weak in the flesh, that there is no alternative.
There is of course more, and I expect to discuss it later.

I trust you and the other 'true Christians' here have taken and will take Paul's message to heart.
I trust it is your goal as 'true Christians', to remain single.

Others, who are not as 'true' as some of you, may disregard this admonition, seeing it for what it is, namely, advice to those living in 'The Last Days'.
Of course, if you truly believe you are living in 'The Last Days', even more reason to observe this instruction and invitation.

Who among you is bold enough to say 'Paul's instructions were not meant for me.'?
Who will say 'I am too weak in the flesh, and God cannot give me the ability I desire.'?

I'll dissect this when I get home...

As usual you have a whole lot of OPINION, with nothing to back it up.
NOTHING.
You have no disagreement with my exegesis, except some vauge, general comment about what you 'believe', with no sound basis. He has his faith.

Paul ABSOLUTELY disuaded marriage among believers.
Your failure to admit this shows your blindness. And your response shows your arrogance and intolerance for his interpretation. Furthermore, are you trying to state that one cannot believe in God and be a faithful servant AND be married?

Yes, if they felt weak, and became married, then, after the fact, he had instructions on how to behave.

The whole point of the quoted scripture is to avoid being in the uncomfortable sitution of marrigae to begin with.
Do not divide your allegence.
His message is clear.
Do not get married, unless you are so weak in the flesh, that there is no alternative.
There is of course more, and I expect to discuss it later.

I trust you and the other 'true Christians' here have taken and will take Paul's message to heart.
I trust it is your goal as 'true Christians', to remain single.
So your INTERPRETATION is that you cannot be married and be devout?
Others, who are not as 'true' as some of you, may disregard this admonition, seeing it for what it is, namely, advice to those living in 'The Last Days'.
Of course, if you truly believe you are living in 'The Last Days', even more reason to observe this instruction and invitation.

Who among you is bold enough to say 'Paul's instructions were not meant for me.'?
Who will say 'I am too weak in the flesh, and God cannot give me the ability I desire.'?Your interpretation of Paul's instructions were not meant for me.

Your open acceptance and tolerance of differing points of view is so enlightening, it's no wonder that attendance in churches (all of them) is going down.

I am by no means as learned in the Bible as some people on these boards and I can openly admit that, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus would NOT approve.

How about you? Are you, were you "strong enough" to avoid the weakness and distraction of marriage?

I'd think a true Christian would take Jesus' words over Paul's. After all, who was the Son of G-d? :eyebrow:

Matthew 19:4-6.
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Well BHN I'm not too sure where you are going with this but as a distraction I'm willing to play along (keeping in mind that faith is by definition not a logical exercise).

From an analytical perspective, much of what Paul says is explicitly opinion. He remains celibate and ultimately it works for him, but his dwelling on it suggests that it does weigh on his mind. Frankly Paul's ambivalence is all I get clearly from a review of the passages you provided.

From a Christian point of view I have to evaluate whether being married has affected my own commitment to a christian life and frankly I don't think it has. Just for perspective, I was a single Christian to a somewhat advanced age, and then entered into a (fairly) long term marriage, with a subsequent (and continuing) separation.

While being a wife added another dimension (and again frankly a distraction and many problems) to my life, in my current life I am used to a multitasking as christian, mother, worker, daughter, sister, friend. One less (or more ) role is not so overwhelming. Just as a heart can expand to love one more child or one new friend, the human capacity for love and devotion is not finite.

Paul admitedly lived a different life, much more dedicated to a life in Christ. He further lived in a different time, which was much more perilous to the practicing Christian. I'm not sure that my paultry service to the Lord (married or single) would at all impress him.

I do think that Paul was not planning for several millenia to the second coming, so his musings were somewhat short sighted.

So give... where are you heading with this thread?
Are we to be Pragmatic? Is that your point? Pragmatism above faithfulness?

We have some posters on this board that I would refer to as P & C Christians.
They Pick and Choose what is valid, or important.

Did you see this post (http://forums.somd.com/3930559-post30.html):
"Catholics, Amish, 7th Day and some Pentecostals have some serious doctrinal differences from Christianity. "

Do you suppose (your opinion, please) the writer of this statement has a correct understanding of the Bible, and/or the Amish sect?
Do you see a maturity in the Word of God that is to be emulated?

~ ~ ~ ~

As for the others, I offer scripture, with a detailed explaination. In reply I get what I can only consider evidence that the Bible is contradictory, which I do not believe.
No one refutes my intrepretation of Paul's invitation.
They only offer other passages, which seem to contradict what Paul says, or offer pragmatic reasons why his advice seems uninspired.

The reader has these choices:
Agree with me.
Offer pragmatic reasons why what I say is true enough, but not practical, so should be disregarded. That is, disregard some of the teachings of Paul.
Show how my detailed explanation of what Paul writes is not accurate.

Say Paul did not know what he was talking about.

If ther is another choice, I will entertain the possibility.

If you agree with me, I will add that the whole of the Bible is just that, the whole of the Bible.

We can pick and choose any particular portion, and say "Upon this I build my faith, and all others are mistaken'. I believe this is mistake, and I see much of it on this board, and in ths thread, with some notable exceptions.


Hope this helps.
More this evening or early tomorrow.

?
No one refutes my intrepretation of Paul's invitation.

I did. See:
I'd think a true Christian would take Jesus' words over Paul's. After all, who was the Son of G-d? :eyebrow:

Matthew 19:4-6.
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


?
They only offer other passages, which seem to contradict what Paul says, or offer pragmatic reasons why his advice seems uninspired.

Then I would be following the words of G-d or the Son of G-d over an apostle...wouldn't you? Or are you saying a mortal man knows better than G-d?

Are we to be Pragmatic? Is that your point? Pragmatism above faithfulness?

We have some posters on this board that I would refer to as P & C Christians.
They Pick and Choose what is valid, or important.

Did you see this post (http://forums.somd.com/3930559-post30.html):
"Catholics, Amish, 7th Day and some Pentecostals have some serious doctrinal differences from Christianity. "

Do you suppose (your opinion, please) the writer of this statement has a correct understanding of the Bible, and/or the Amish sect?
Do you see a maturity in the Word of God that is to be emulated?

~ ~ ~ ~

As for the others, I offer scripture, with a detailed explaination. In reply I get what I can only consider evidence that the Bible is contradictory, which I do not believe.
No one refutes my intrepretation of Paul's invitation.
They only offer other passages, which seem to contradict what Paul says, or offer pragmatic reasons why his advice seems uninspired.



Okay, so I see plenty of scripture here, (and it is NOT contradicting what Paul is saying) and if I had the time would provide plenty of scripture that encourages different callings for different lives. Unfortunately I have to get ready for a presentation and later go watch my son play football, so maybe this weekend...

I agree wholeheartedly with kom... YOUR INTERPRETATION does not apply to me. I choose to listen to the interpretations of those who have studied this in depth, at length and in an environment that is conducive to the Christian theology. I'm absolutely no expert on the Bible which is why I'll leave it to the experts (present company excluded). I wish that I could be one. I'd love to study the Bible for the rest of my life as my job. However, that being said, I also see the validity of what others have posted here.

I don't see anyone being pragmatic here. What I see is someone starting a thread based on scripture, offering their own OPINION and then getting their feathers ruffled when they are given other scripture that does not support THEIR INTERPRETATION of scripture.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just feel that your statements are totally condescending and quite frankly, not worth the time that I've given them already.

Blessings!

Hi,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I like to address a few of your post in one. In your first post you convey the idea of superiority, that one Christian can be a superior to another Christian. That’s not a Biblically correct position. There is a weaker brother to a small degree but we are one body with different members and Paul makes it quite clear that no gift or member is superior to another.<o:p></o:p>
That attitude of superiority is prideful.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Also you say its Paul’s opinion, The Holy spirit made sure it's in the Bible and All Gods Word is God breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Are you considering the Historical context and the audience and what was taking place in the church at the time?<o:p></o:p>
Using a grammatical, historical, theological hermeneutic?<o:p></o:p>
Paul uses himself to make points and express his thoughts.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I read it like starman hes using an either or. Not all are called to full time ministery, or a vow of poverity, yes there are both earthly and heavenly blessings for those that do but they are in no way superior!

Starman3000m I believe Paul was also specifically speaking to those desiring to dedicate their complete lives to the ministry of the Gospel of Christ.
You ‘believe’. No reference. No scripture. Nothing in what Paul says indicates this.
Paul does not say ‘For some of you I have a special message…’.
You believe because that is what you want to believe.

He was saying that if you are married, your cares and concerns for wife and family will pull you and keep you away from whole-hearted efforts to travel and carry on with ministerial duties.
He says nothing about travel.
He says nothing about duties.
You invent things, to suit your desires.
Here are his words:
[29] But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
[30] And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
[31] And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.


You think marriage is important? Paul says otherwise.

An unmarried person can also give his/her complete dedication of service and availability to God. Thus they are available to God 24/7Agreed.

Paul did not dissuade marriage among believers;
Did you read the text?
What about this:
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
Widows and unmarried should remain so. How more plainly could he have said it?

[1 Cor 7: 27] Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
Seek not a wife. Seek not a wife. Do these words have no meaning to you?

And verse 37:
[37] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
He that will keep his virgin doeth well! How much plainer can it be put.


on the contrary, he instructed married believers on how they should interact with one another - not provoking each other but living in marital peace and harmony in a family relationship and placing God at the head of the household with the husband and wife submitting to one another.

Once married, there is an appropriate course of action, we do not disagree.
Choose the lesser path of marriage, and behave appropriately.
That is not at all the same as saying ‘Go and get married.’

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[b]Starman300m Can't very well be fruitful and multiply if one remains "celibate"
If ‘one’ remains celibate, the others might not. Does that escape you?
Paul did not forbid marriage, he only discouraged it.
He knew some would marry, that is clear.


Celibacy was meant for an individual making a 100% dedication to commit one's life to the service of God, 24/7 specifically for the ministering of God's Message unto all people unto the uttermost parts of the world - not for becoming a recluse celibate individual living in an isolated commune.
Another one of your ‘beliefs’, with no scripture.
A belief contrary to the teachings of Paul, I might add.

Paul was stating that if you cannot "control yourself" nor able to dedicate your life in that manner then go ahead and get married! i.e. Be fruitful and multiply as God intended for mankind to do and dedicate your household to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Yes, this is what he said. If you cannot take the loftier path of celibacy, then by all means go the lesser path of marriage.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ItalianScallion You know, you jump on us with both feet like we're wrong, when in actuality, you're wrong.
Starman gave you the best answer that anyone could give and you call it "a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up"??
I quote scripture by line and verse, but that means nothing to you.
I put the obvious meaning to each line and verse, and give all who care to find fault, and not one person finds one line or phrase to disagree with.
I do not offer opinion. I offer scripture. Scripture with clear meaning.
You are so irrational, I truly would fear for my life if I were your neighbor.



One question before I continue: What is your source of absolute truth please?Continue?
Why would I care if you continue?

It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Silence is your friend.

Besides, I believe I have already told you that Reality is the absolute source of truth.
Reality is the absolute source of truth.
Try to comprehend.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Penn Starman quoted scripture....BHN did not offer anything but conjecture to refute. I wonder why?

JMO, however, certain folks jump on here to deny the facts, but cannot back themselves up.
Are you from Bizzaro world as well?
OT quotes that have nothing to do with the advice of Paul, that has meaning to you?
I provided line by line discussion of NT text, and all I hear in return is silence and gibberish.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

kom526 Your interpretation of Paul's instructions were not meant for me.
My interpretation?
If you can find fault, please do so line by line.
What do the words of Paul mean, if not what I have indicated?
Where have I gone astray?

Your open acceptance and tolerance of differing points of view is so enlightening, it's no wonder that attendance in churches (all of them) is going down.
Differing point of view are one thing, denial of facts another thing all together.


I am by no means as learned in the Bible as some people on these boards and I can openly admit that, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus would NOT approve.
Not approve of what?
Celibacy?
Jesus would not approve of celibacy.
I have heard it all.
Paul must be rolling over in his grave.

How about you? Are you, were you "strong enough" to avoid the weakness and distraction of marriage?For many years, yes. Ultimately, no. The best of both worlds.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
migitg
There is no need to choose one over the other. They are not in discord.
Originally Posted by BeHereNow
?
No one refutes my intrepretation of Paul's invitation.
migtig I did. See:
No, I do not see.
Simply because some individuals are to be married, does not mean all are to be married.
There is no discord between Paul and Jesus on this point.
Jesus never advised any of his followers to seek marriage.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Quote:
kom526 Your interpretation of Paul's instructions were not meant for me.
My interpretation?You asked "Who among you is bold enough to say 'Paul's instructions were not meant for me.'?" And I gave my answer.
If you can find fault, please do so line by line.The fault is how you present the scripture.

Quote:
Your open acceptance and tolerance of differing points of view is so enlightening, it's no wonder that attendance in churches (all of them) is going down.
Differing point of view are one thing, denial of facts another thing all together.
Starman believes what he believes and you believe what you believe. That's why it's called FAITH.

Quote:
I am by no means as learned in the Bible as some people on these boards and I can openly admit that, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus would NOT approve.
Not approve of what?Your PRIDE and arrogance
Celibacy?
Jesus would not approve of celibacy.Not to mention your lack of reading comprehension skills.
I have heard it all.
Paul must be rolling over in his grave.

Quote:
How about you? Are you, were you "strong enough" to avoid the weakness and distraction of marriage?
For many years, yes. Ultimately, no. The best of both worlds.So are you on here saying that you are too weak to spread the good news? So you are wasting bandwidth?

In a time when people NEED and SHOULD to come back to church they run into people like you who look down upon them and condemn them with self righteous diatribes about how they are "too weak" because they are married. You must be a real treat as a spouse and life partner. Have you shared with your significant other that they are your punishment for being weak in the eyes of Paul, who coincidentally did NOT die for your sins.

Jesus may be turning over in his grave to have a charlatan such as yourself trying to preach the gospel.

I quote scripture by line and verse, but that means nothing to you.
I put the obvious meaning to each line and verse, and give all who care to find fault, and not one person finds one line or phrase to disagree with.
I do not offer opinion. I offer scripture. Scripture with clear meaning. What are you smoking?
You are so irrational, I truly would fear for my life if I were your neighbor.

No you don't. You're just like many others here who claim to know Scriptures but don't. You read an incorrect meaning into them.
Are you saved? Are you listening to cult teachers? Your messed up mix of quad-religions has led you down a path of confusion. Different Scriptures apply to different people. I'm a single man. The Scriptures about married people do not apply to me and vice-versa. I can stay single, or get married; it's my choice and then different Scriptures would apply to me.
AND you're such a drama queen! How would your life be in danger if I was your neighbor?

Besides, I believe I have already told you that Reality is the absolute source of truth. Reality is the absolute source of truth. Try to comprehend.
Not everything is what it appears to be. Whose to say which reality is correct? Your reality can be wayyy different than another persons'.
Jesus never advised any of his followers to seek marriage.
:faint: You know, you haven't read doo doo! The only way you could have read the Bible as many times as you said and got nothing out of it would be that you aren't guided by the Holy Spirit. He would NOT lead you down the path of soo many mis-interpretations, so YOU try to comprehend:
Jesus is God.
God dictated what's in the Bible.
Therefore, those are Jesus' words in it even though Paul and others wrote them. God said: "for this reason a man shall leave his father & mother and be united to his wife..." Doesn't look like He's forbidding it...Peter was married...Joseph & Mary were married...
I fail to see your intent. On the surface, it seems like you're making a fair statement: Paul: Celebacy preferred over marriage but then you go off on those rants and make it seem like Paul is telling everyone not to marry? :confused:

Therefore, those are Jesus' words in it even though Paul and others wrote them. God said: "for this reason a man shall leave his father & mother and be united to his wife..." Doesn't look like He's forbidding it...Peter was married...Joseph & Mary were married...
I fail to see your intent. On the surface, it seems like you're making a fair statement: Paul: Celebacy preferred over marriage but then you go off on those rants and make it seem like Paul is telling everyone not to marry? :confused:

Trying to justify an impending divorce? "Jesus and Paul told me to do it."

Are we to be Pragmatic? Is that your point? Pragmatism above faithfulness?

We have some posters on this board that I would refer to as P & C Christians.
They Pick and Choose what is valid, or important.

Did you see this post (http://forums.somd.com/3930559-post30.html):
"Catholics, Amish, 7th Day and some Pentecostals have some serious doctrinal differences from Christianity. "

Do you suppose (your opinion, please) the writer of this statement has a correct understanding of the Bible, and/or the Amish sect?
Do you see a maturity in the Word of God that is to be emulated?

~ ~ ~ ~



You seem to have combined two different points here :

The red point

If you intended this thread to be about our commitment to live every word of the Bible you picked a strange spring board to it. The passages from Paul are explicitly "suggestions". That leaves interpretation to pragmatics, and the opinions you have "slapped down" in many replies. That being said I think the discussion of picking and choosing Christians is a very worthy discussion.

If you were to ask me if I had ever read anything in the Bible that I just could not believe in completely, I would have to say yes....The passages in several books about wives submitting to their husbands are especially difficult. This feels like an anachronism from the biblical time, but according to most that is not possible: if it is in the Bible it must be inspired. Gosh, I don't know. When I am confronted with an issue like this I try to reflect and pray about it. I try to learn something from it to serve me in my life, but then I give it up to God, with continued prayer. This is lame, but I can't force myself to change my non-subserviant personality and if I have to burn for it I guess I will (I don't pick, nor particularly attract, men that want subserviant mates. That may be "gamesmanship" or Christian charma or Pick and Choose).

the blue point

I think this was posted by IT. I don't agree with much of what he says, but completely admire his certainty in his interpretation. We all agree that the basis of our salvation is faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ....but while IT and Starman say that faith is enough for salvation (without any further "earning" of it) they sure do damn a lot of believers for doing the non-compulsory rounds. 'Nough said...IT, Starman and I (with my buddy Libby who I miss) have fought this out numerous times and are currently between rounds.

If you were to ask me if I had ever read anything in the Bible that I just could not believe in completely, I would have to say yes....The passages in several books about wives submitting to their husbands are especially difficult. This feels like an anachronism from the biblical time, but according to most that is not possible :nono: if it is in the Bible it must be inspired. :yay: That's better.
This is lame, but I can't force myself to change my non-subserviant personality and if I have to burn for it I guess I will (I don't pick, nor particularly attract, men that want subserviant mates.
That's because you don't understand it nor do you listen to folks who are trying to help you to, WOMAN! :love:
What's wrong with wives submitting to their husbands? Apparently, you really don't understand what the word "submit" means because, actually, husbands should submit to their wives at times also. I don't want a subservient girlfriend or wife. I want a partner equal to me.

The other problem is, we've gotten sooo far away from God's will that the Bible LOOKS like it is wayyy ridiculous and outdated when, in actuality, it's still very accurate and we will ALL be judged by it's words one day.

And old story comes to mind about that very thing:
One foggy rainy night a ship captain who saw what he thought was another large boat's light, announced on his loud speaker: "alter your course, you're in my path."
A voice answered back: YOU alter your course!
The captain said again: you alter your course, I'm an ocean liner!
The other voice said: You alter your course....I'm a light house!
This is how it is with some people & God. They think He needs to change what He's doing and what the Bible says but, it's actually they who need to change because He does NOT change.

I think this was posted by IT. I don't agree with much of what he says, but completely admire his certainty in his interpretation. We all agree that the basis of our salvation is faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ....but while IT and Starman say that faith is enough for salvation (without any further "earning" of it) they sure do damn a lot of believers for doing the non-compulsory rounds. 'Nough said...IT, Starman and I (with my buddy Libby who I miss) have fought this out numerous times and are currently between rounds.
Round 3 baby! Hello sugar! :howdy:
What are "non-compulsory rounds"???
We damn no one. We repeat what God says and, if one can't fit His mold, they damn themselves. We're only messengers.
If you add works, you've just eliminated Ephesians 2 v 8, 9.

You seem to have combined two different points here :

The red point

If you intended this thread to be about our commitment to live every word of the Bible you picked a strange spring board to it. The passages from Paul are explicitly "suggestions". That leaves interpretation to pragmatics, and the opinions you have "slapped down" in many replies. That being said I think the discussion of picking and choosing Christians is a very worthy discussion.

If you were to ask me if I had ever read anything in the Bible that I just could not believe in completely, I would have to say yes....The passages in several books about wives submitting to their husbands are especially difficult. This feels like an anachronism from the biblical time, but according to most that is not possible: if it is in the Bible it must be inspired. Gosh, I don't know. When I am confronted with an issue like this I try to reflect and pray about it. I try to learn something from it to serve me in my life, but then I give it up to God, with continued prayer. This is lame, but I can't force myself to change my non-subserviant personality and if I have to burn for it I guess I will (I don't pick, nor particularly attract, men that want subserviant mates. That may be "gamesmanship" or Christian charma or Pick and Choose).

the blue point

I think this was posted by IT. I don't agree with much of what he says, but completely admire his certainty in his interpretation. We all agree that the basis of our salvation is faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ....but while IT and Starman say that faith is enough for salvation (without any further "earning" of it) they sure do damn a lot of believers for doing the non-compulsory rounds. 'Nough said...IT, Starman and I (with my buddy Libby who I miss) have fought this out numerous times and are currently between rounds.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
IT says the Amish are not Christian because of serious doctrinal differences, and no one bats an eye. On top of this, neither are the Cathlics, for the same reasons, when the Amish are the very embodiment of the Reformation and split from the Catholic church. Essentialy this person says he is the only Christian in the world, and that's just fine.
I point out the obvious Biblical truth that Paul favored celibacy over marriage, and I'm a heritic.
When the kool-aid is passed around, I'll pass.

Hi,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I like to address a few of your post in one. In your first post you convey the idea of superiority, that one Christian can be a superior to another Christian. That’s not a Biblically correct position. There is a weaker brother to a small degree but we are one body with different members and Paul makes it quite clear that no gift or member is superior to another.<o:p></o:p>
[COLOR=black]That attitude of superiority is prideful.I never said one Christian can be superior to another. That idea is in your head, you cannot show it in my writing.
One Christian's actions can be superior to another.
You are picking and choosing. You ignore what does not suit you.
I refer you to the teachings of Jesus:

Mark 12:41-44
[41]And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
[42] And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
[43] And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
[44] For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

She 'cast in more'. Her deed was better than the rich who gave a small portion of what they had.

There are other examples.
Pride does not exist in the deed, it exists in the mind.
Good deeds do not need to lead to a prideful spirit.
~ ~
Also you say its Paul’s opinion, The Holy spirit made sure it's in the Bible and All Gods Word is God breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit.you try to hard to find fault in my comments.
I point out that some of what Paul says are commandments from God, and some are his suggestions. Nothing more.

Are you considering the Historical context and the audience and what was taking place in the church at the time?
Using a grammatical, historical, theological hermeneutic?There is no need for that.


Paul uses himself to make points and express his thoughts.
I read it like starman hes using an either or. Not all are called to full time ministery, or a vow of poverity, yes there are both earthly and heavenly blessings for those that do but they are in no way superior!
I never said Paul gives a mandate, requiring certain action.
Paul very clearly says celibacy is a better course of action for a Christian than marriage.
In other chapters Jesus very clearly says wealth is often an impediment to right action and right belief, and poverty is preferable.
Mark [10:21] Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

kom526
BHN: Not approve of what?
Your PRIDE and arrogance.
If there is any pride or arrogance on this board it is from IT who boasts that he is a 'true Christian', when Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, some Pentacoasts, and even the Amish are not Christian.
I will have to admit that I have heard just about every sect and denomination identified as being 'not true Christian', EXCEPT the Amish. That is a new one on me. And no one even questions his comment.
I am sure we could add just about every denomination of Christianity except his own.
On the other hand I say all of these denomominations are Christian, but I am the prideful one according to you.
I say let all choose their path, but I am arrogant, while IT says the majority of Chirstians are doomed for hell unless they change their ways.

:
So are you on here saying that you are too weak to spread the good news? So you are wasting bandwidth?
Where have I said the marrried cannot be good Christians?
You do not even know what you read.

In a time when people NEED and SHOULD to come back to church they run into people like you who look down upon them and condemn them with self righteous diatribes about how they are "too weak" because they are married. You must be a real treat as a spouse and life partner. Have you shared with your significant other that they are your punishment for being weak in the eyes of Paul, who coincidentally did NOT die for your sins. I am not the one condeming whole denominations for their beliefs.
I can tell you first hand that I have friends of many Christian denominations, and they all find individuals like ItallianScallion to be an embarassment to Christianity.
I have mentioned his type many times, and they just roll their eyes.
Catholic, liberal Protestant, conservative Evangelical, all feel his type is to be avoided like the plague.
The term 'Hollier than Thou' was coined for his type.
I have encountered some Baptists that would be right at home with him.
Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind.

Yes, if there is a denomination that is prideful and arrogant as a group, it would be the Baptists.

I am not the one condeming whole denominations for their beliefs.

[QUOTE]
Yes, if there is a denomination that is prideful and arrogant as a group, it would be the Baptists.

I think the contradiction here is fairly obvious....

Who is IT and who has said that there are not catholic, amish etc Christians?

You ‘believe’. No reference. No scripture. Nothing in what Paul says indicates this.
Paul does not say ‘For some of you I have a special message…’.
You believe because that is what you want to believe.

Yo, BeHereNow - When you were asked

How about you? Are you, were you "strong enough" to avoid the weakness and distraction of marriage?

You replied:

For many years, yes. Ultimately, no. The best of both worlds.

Thus, by your own admission, you, sir, are incapable of meeting the expectations that Paul calls for in the discourse that celibacy is preferred over marriage. So the question is what really is your point? To try to get non-married believers to remain unmarried and celibate when you couldn’t even do it yourself? Are you not attempting to use Paul's writings to impose some sort of "legalism" here? If so, why stop at celibacy?

Sheeesshhhhhhhhh!

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
IT says the Amish are not Christian because of serious doctrinal differences, and no one bats an eye. On top of this, neither are the Cathlics, for the same reasons, when the Amish are the very embodiment of the Reformation and split from the Catholic church. Essentialy this person says he is the only Christian in the world, and that's just fine.
I point out the obvious Biblical truth that Paul favored celibacy over marriage, and I'm a heritic.
When the kool-aid is passed around, I'll pass.


That's because you don't understand it nor do you listen to folks who are trying to help you to, WOMAN! :love:
What's wrong with wives submitting to their husbands? Apparently, you really don't understand what the word "submit" means because, actually, husbands should submit to their wives at times also. I don't want a subservient girlfriend or wife. I want a partner equal to me.

The other problem is, we've gotten sooo far away from God's will that the Bible LOOKS like it is wayyy ridiculous and outdated when, in actuality, it's still very accurate and we will ALL be judged by it's words one day.

And old story comes to mind about that very thing:
One foggy rainy night a ship captain who saw what he thought was another large boat's light, announced on his loud speaker: "alter your course, you're in my path."
A voice answered back: YOU alter your course!
The captain said again: you alter your course, I'm an ocean liner!
The other voice said: You alter your course....I'm a light house!
This is how it is with some people & God. They think He needs to change what He's doing and what the Bible says but, it's actually they who need to change because He does NOT change.

Round 3 baby! Hello sugar! :howdy:
What are "non-compulsory rounds"???
We damn no one. We repeat what God says and, if one can't fit His mold, they damn themselves. We're only messengers.
If you add works, you've just eliminated Ephesians 2 v 8, 9.


BHN: OK So that's what you meant by Pick and Choose Christians. I'm sorry I didn't defend the Amish, since they are pretty obviously not here to defend themselves...But you must be new here if you think I have never defended the Catholics.

Further, thanks for "poking the bear". I was looking for an interesting discussion of doctrine...not another round of "fix the Church goers". You can deal with the consequences, I'm going to go eat ice cream pie.

IT: I am not in for another round your game of "I'm Right And You're Damned". and BTW....The Amish are too true Christians!

You two carry on (and on and on and on).....

Have a nice day!:buddies:

Your only allowed to have Ice Cream if your God (Your Husband) deems you worthy of it.


note: I too am poking the bear, since you are told to worship your husband as he is to worship Jesus, Your (Wife) God is your Husband

C'mon Nucklesack - you should know better than that! The man is always supposed to have the last word when he speaks to his wife. Here are some pointers:

"Yes Dear."

"As you wish my love."

"Yes Dear."

"I'll get to it right away Honey."

"Yes Dear."

"Yes, you really do look good in that outfit."

"Yes Dear."

"Anything you wish sweetheart."

"Yes Dear."

P.S. Prevents alot of marital conflict.

This :love:

Instead of :smack: :boxing: :duel:

You're only allowed to have Ice Cream if your God (Your Husband) deems you worthy of it.


note: I too am poking the bear, since you are told to worship your husband as he is to worship Jesus, Your (Wife) God is your Husband

Grammar check (and counter bear poke):howdy:

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
IT says the Amish are not Christian because of serious doctrinal differences, and no one bats an eye. On top of this, neither are the Cathlics, for the same reasons, when the Amish are the very embodiment of the Reformation and split from the Catholic church.
I gave a list of biblical requirements for Christianity. If you don't agree with them, take it up with Jesus NOT ME!
Look up what the Amish believe and then tell me your issue.

If there is any pride or arrogance on this board it is from IT who boasts that he is a 'true Christian', when Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, some Pentacoasts, and even the Amish are not Christian.
I will have to admit that I have heard just about every sect and denomination identified as being 'not true Christian', EXCEPT the Amish. That is a new one on me. And no one even questions his comment.
I am sure we could add just about every denomination of Christianity except his own.
Pentacoasts?? :lmao:
Real Christians have no problem with what I said; YOU DO. Again, Einstein, stop your exaggerating and find out the facts (something you've failed miserably to do with your belief system).
I never said ALL of the above mentioned folks are NOT Christians.
BTW, Bible Christianity is my belief system. I do not follow any denomination.
Check out what the Amish believe about Jesus and salvation. Might be an eye opener for you...

I say let all choose their path, but I am arrogant, while IT says the majority of Chirstians are doomed for hell unless they change their ways.
I am not the one condeming whole denominations for their beliefs.
I can tell you first hand that I have friends of many Christian denominations, and they all find individuals like ItallianScallion to be an embarassment to Christianity.
I have mentioned his type many times, and they just roll their eyes.
Catholic, liberal Protestant, conservative Evangelical, all feel his type is to be avoided like the plague.
The term 'Hollier than Thou' was coined for his type.
I have encountered some Baptists that would be right at home with him.
Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind.
Yes, if there is a denomination that is prideful and arrogant as a group, it would be the Baptists.
Satan loves fools like you...his own dear child you are! "Let all choose their own path"??? Is that you Oprah?
"...they just roll their eyes"? You need new friends...
Hey genius: I'm not a Baptist and neither is Jimmy Swaggert. You're such a mess! God bless you though!

Who is IT and who has said that there are not catholic, amish etc Christians?
:howdy: I'm "IT" but I never said that.

IT: I am not in for another round your game of "I'm Right And You're Damned". and BTW....The Amish are too true Christians!

You two carry on (and on and on and on).....

Have a nice day!:buddies:
Do you still love me though??? :diva:

:howdy: I'm "IT" but I never said that.

Do you still love me though??? :diva:

No more or less than I ever have, my friend. :flowers:

I gave a list of biblical requirements for Christianity. If you don't agree with them, take it up with Jesus NOT ME!
Look up what the Amish believe and then tell me your issue.

Pentacoasts?? :lmao:
Real Christians have no problem with what I said; YOU DO. Again, Einstein, stop your exaggerating and find out the facts (something you've failed miserably to do with your belief system).
I never said ALL of the above mentioned folks are NOT Christians.
BTW, Bible Christianity is my belief system. I do not follow any denomination.
Check out what the Amish believe about Jesus and salvation. Might be an eye opener for you...

Satan loves fools like you...his own dear child you are! "Let all choose their own path"??? Is that you Oprah?
"...they just roll their eyes"? You need new friends...
Hey genius: I'm not a Baptist and neither is Jimmy Swaggert. You're such a mess! God bless you though!

:howdy: I'm "IT" but I never said that.

Do you still love me though??? :diva:
I have encountered your type many times.
You are always willing to say that although the belieifs of a particular denomination are not "Christian", any particular member many not be true to the beliefs of thier denomination, so MIGHT be Christian, despite the denomination they belong to.

You are just another delusional, self proclaimed, Bible believer, and as I said, when the kool-aid is offered, I will pass.

No more or less than I ever have, my friend. :flowers:
I'm not sure how to take that but thanks for the flowers....I still love you :love:
I have encountered your type many times.
You are always willing to say that although the belieifs of a particular denomination are not "Christian", any particular member many not be true to the beliefs of thier denomination, so MIGHT be Christian, despite the denomination they belong to.
You are just another delusional, self proclaimed, Bible believer, and as I said, when the kool-aid is offered, I will pass.
Suit yourself....:howdy:

Friggin Your/You're/Yer as well as Their/There/They're are my acchilles heel, friggin english language

FYI:

Friggin is the shortening of Frigging. When used in the like manner as you posted, please be sure to add an apostrophe at the end next time. See the following example:

Friggin'

:buddies:

P.S. I can imagine the choice words you have for me right about now. LOL

Friggin Your/You're/Yer as well as Their/There/They're are my acchilles heel, friggin english language

So I hope you don't teach English (or at least I assume you teach from your signature line):whistle:

Nah my signature line is about Hessian, who is a history teacher, and his racism he gladly embraces disguised as political dissent.

OK. Relieved and informed..I don't hang around in most of the forums enough to know the inside jokes. :blushing: