Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbear
Pam,
This is my take on what has taken place.
You have held two positions on this thread.
1) Races should not intermarry
2) Believers should not marry unbelievers
This is a KJBO, largely fundamentalist forum. We have asked you for scriptural evidence to back up your assertions. You have provided no relevant scriptural support for either position. We tired of your fast and lose "style" of exegesis and after many, many, many posts back and forth we want to leave it be until you have at least one relevant verse to back up your opinion. Have you any respect to our desire to put it to rest? Not exactly. You come back with a close-ended question designed to be answered with a 'yes" or a "no".
Are you suggesting that you can make a Bible command where one doesn't exist because you feel there should be one?
I notice you have the bad habit of phrasing your questions in such a way as to elicit the answer you are looking for.
In Him,
Jennifer
|
It was my understanding that we would all go back to the race issue after this discussion was completed. And, no the discourse is NOT complete when one party asks questions and receives no answers...only more questions and accusations!
It is almost humorous that this is a "KJBO, largely fundamentalist forum," and yet the most simple yes-or-no question causes people to bristle! The "answer [I was] looking for" is
YOUR answer...I made it very clear that I was posing a simple question! To just answer the question would have taken you much less time and effort than to write the response that you did. Why have you and George just tried to identify my "bad habits" instead of staying on the subject?
I do not have any problem answering your question addressed to me quoted above: my simple answer to your yes-or-no question is
NO!!! The explanation for my answer (or what I
AM "suggesting") is as follows:
The Bible is full of unmistakable principles that constitute "commands," not just suggestions! A couple of examples: Since we are dispensationalists and realize that we must take our doctrine from Paul, we must note that Paul DOES NOT expressly "command" us to abstain from beastiality. There are Bible principles about "uncleanness," "lasciviousness," "going after strange flesh," defiling your temple, and such...but Paul never "commands" a believer not to engage in beastiality! Or how about what kind of car to drive? There are Bible truths that support the idea that it would be wrong (or at the VERY least, absurdly frivolous) for a saved person to buy a Ferrari (sp?): principles of stewardship, having no debt, and using money for God's glory (mission work, etc.)...but again, the Lord never gives any "commands" about what kind of car to drive. There is no scriptural "command" that plainly states that today's Christian cannot have tatoos put on their body or one that "commands" us not to burn our children in the fire as in OT times...We do not have liberty in Christ to do these things just because there is not A VERSE that says not to! This is my whole point!
Also, to address the accusation that I am using scripture out of context, keep this in mind - If we stay STRICTLY in the context of each of the passages I have listed and withdraw ourselves and turn away (separate) from lost people like the Bible says (in the individual context of each portion of scripture,) we could never get attached enough to a lost person to consider a marriage relationship with one - you would have to associate very closely in order to get to know someone that well which, of course, would be in violation of the scriptures I previously posted! In light of this, it is impossible to postulate that various Bible verses about separation of saved and lost people (in different contexts) are not relevant to this discussion!
This is not a desire to go "back and forth" as you say, nor is it a desire to argue as George has repeatedly accused me of...I am simply asking questions and requesting answers (with, I hope, a sufficient amount of clarification) just like I expect y'all to ask me questions and request answers...isn't that what constitutes a forum discussion?
Also, I would like to thank you because (unlike George) you have attempted to have a polite discourse with me (I am assuming here that you sincerely believed [albeit mistakenly!] that I was wresting the scriptures)...we have both used a little sharpness, but that just keeps things lively, I suppose!
Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com