07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Yes, I do. And when I see you have dodged or deflected or you've tried to answer a different question of you're own making, I ask again.
Do you not read the replies?
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You deleted 20 words from the sentence you quoted and left only three. The full sentence was "When I see you have dodged or deflected or you've tried to answer a different question of you're own making, I ask again". This puts a different spin on what your repetition of "And again" retort 5 times, what it is basically conceding, and therefore what my repetition is in aid of.
<...I ask again.>
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfI didn’t delete anything; I copy-and-pasted the only part of your post I thought it was worthwhile to respond to
You deleted 20 words from the sentence you quoted and left only three. The full sentence was "When I see you have dodged or deflected or you've tried to answer a different question of you're own making, I ask again". This puts a different spin on what your repetition of "And again" retort 5 times, what it is basically conceding, and therefore what my repetition is in aid of.
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You copy pasted a three word fragment of a sentence. You therefore edited out what the sentence you were supposedly replying to actually meant. I'm not saying it's a mystery why you did it; I'm saying, when you bear in mind what the whole sentence was, it sheds a different light on your trite answer.
I didn’t delete anything; I copy-and-pasted the only part of your post I thought it was worthwhile to respond to
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfYes, let’s debate my copy-and-pasting for the next 50 years.
You copy pasted a three word fragment of a sentence. You therefore edited out what the sentence you were supposedly replying to actually meant. I'm not saying it's a mystery why you did it; I'm saying, when you bear in mind what the whole sentence was, it sheds a different light on your trite answer.
<I'm saying, when you bear in mind what the whole sentence was, it sheds a different light on your trite answer.[/b]>
Yes, the different light is, why did I bother replying to three words in lieu of ignoring the post altogether?
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You didn't get away with the little bit of message board deceit. I called you on it. Further debate about it is certainly not necessary.
Yes, let’s debate my copy-and-pasting for the next 50 years.
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Go for it. I support you on this. People will make what they will of my observations and questions, and they will also make what they will of your inability or unwillingness to respond to them in a "substantive" way.
Yes, the different light is, why did I bother replying to three words in lieu of ignoring the post altogether?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfYes, I was being so deceitful in quoting only part of a post immediately above my excerpt. Why I never imagined anyone would discover what I had done. Thank goodness you’re patrolling the threads, Deputy Fife.
You didn't get away with the little bit of message board deceit. I called you on it. Further debate about it is certainly not necessary.
Originally posted by @romans1009Your attempted banter doesn't change anything.
Yes, I was being so deceitful in quoting only part of a post immediately above my excerpt. Why I never imagined anyone would discover what I had done. Thank goodness you’re patrolling the threads, Deputy Fife.
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Do you think 1 Timothy 5:8 (back to the OP) obliges you ~ as a Christian ~ to care for your mother?
Huh?
You see no distinction between providing for someone and being their caretaker? Hope you don’t have kids,
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Feb 18
5 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe question is a fair one.
'Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.' (1 Timothy 5:8)
Is neglecting our family worse for God than not believing He exists?
I think 1 Timothy 5:8 is about disgracing the Christian testimony before the world. That is being such a bad example that the faith is brought into disrepute before men.
In 3:7 Paul speaks of a good testimony to those who are "outside", meaning outside the household of community of faith.
Concerning church overseers and deacons:
"And he also must have a good testimony from those outside, ..."
The elder should be publically without reproach:
"The overseer then must be without repraoch ...'
Then he goes on to enumerate typical examples.
Deacons should have "a good standing".
"For those who have ministered well obtain for themselves a good standing ..." (3:13)
In Titus he also talks about church behavior that will prevent the world from saying anything evil about "us".
Don't you get the impression that in this letter Paul is concerned with the public testimony of the church before the world ?
Even in the matter of slaves Paul is concerned with reputation towards the world:
"As many as are slaves under the yoke should regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, lest the name of God and our teaching be blasphemed." (6:1)
I think his words "he is worse than an unbeliever and has denied the faith" is about bringing the testimony of the church into disrepute rather than before God the man has committed a worse sin then disbelief in God.
In the final words of Revelation 21:8 the head of the list of the lost is the "cowardly" and "unbelieving".
Some have said that the "cowardly" refers to those who really know that Jesus is the Son of God, but for the sake of fear of people, will not confess Him to be saved. And the "unbelieving" are those who just reject believing in Christ.
I think of Internet infidels saving face before each other and vying with each other to show unbelief in the Son of God.
"But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all the false, their part will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev. 21:8)
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipDoes being "worse than an unbeliever" mean that such a believer in Christ [who does not provide for his or her relatives] faces "damnation" [according to 1 Timothy 5:8 ] ?
I think what Paul is speaking to in [b]1 Timothy 5:8 is about disgracing the Christian testimony before the world. That is being such a bad example that the faith is brought into disrepute before men.[/b]
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Would you mind doing so in a different thread?
<...I ask again.>
And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
07 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipThanks for the considered reply. Will come back to this later today.
The question is a fair one.
I think [b]1 Timothy 5:8 is about disgracing the Christian testimony before the world. That is being such a bad example that the faith is brought into disrepute before men.
In 3:7 Paul speaks of a good testimony to those who are "outside", meaning outside the household of community of faith.
Concern ...[text shortened]... lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev. 21:8) [/b] [/quote][/b]