Link: Gay Pastor in Austin, TX accuses Whole Foods of homophobic slur on cake.

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
One more thing here and I'll shut up (and the whole board says, 'Yeah, right):

it is unfortunately human nature that we pick and choose the right or wrong things to focus on. Which passage at the expense of which passage. Let me give just one basic example - baptism.

Baptists (my own forbears) - has to be by dunking and by believers only; sprinkling doesn't count nor does infant baptism

Churches of Christ - if you aren't dunked and the preacher doesn't say the words 'for the remission of sins,' you go to Hell

Presbyterians not named Trump - baptism replaces circumcision in the OT as a sign of a covenant relationship and therefore it is to be done to children

Presbyterians named Trump - baptism is a really wet thing. I know when I was baptized, I was really wet. Nobody was baptized quite like I was. I've always been for baptism as found in the book of Hezekiah, where Sarah, David, and their twin sons and daughter, Luke and Leia, were really baptized. I mean REALLY baptized you know. Really baptized.


Point out to Presbyterians there's not a single passage of an infant baptism anywhere and they'll tell you it is logical to assume that when 'the whole house' in Acts 16:31 was baptized that SOME of them must have been children. Church of Christ folks will say that the Bible doesn't say that ANYWHERE and then turn right around in passages where people were saved but NOT baptized (or its not mentioned) and they.....just like the Presbyterians.......will then find it 'logically' by saying that since it DID happen in Acts 2:38 and 22:16, whatever other passages mean they CANNOT mean that the person was not baptized. Meanwhile, back at the INSP network, the Baptists will somehow work refusal for a person raised a Methodist into the implication that if he or she doesn't they are disappointing God and are less than full Christians.....all while telling everyone you cannot lose your salvation.


I mean - is this a great show of unity or what? I can't deny some of the criticisms leveled.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
One more thing here and I'll shut up (and the whole board says, 'Yeah, right):

it is unfortunately human nature that we pick and choose the right or wrong things to focus on. Which passage at the expense of which passage. Let me give just one basic example - baptism.

Baptists (my own forbears) - has to be by dunking and by believers only; sprinkling doesn't count nor does infant baptism

Churches of Christ - if you aren't dunked and the preacher doesn't say the words 'for the remission of sins,' you go to Hell

Presbyterians not named Trump - baptism replaces circumcision in the OT as a sign of a covenant relationship and therefore it is to be done to children

Presbyterians named Trump - baptism is a really wet thing. I know when I was baptized, I was really wet. Nobody was baptized quite like I was. I've always been for baptism as found in the book of Hezekiah, where Sarah, David, and their twin sons and daughter, Luke and Leia, were really baptized. I mean REALLY baptized you know. Really baptized.


Point out to Presbyterians there's not a single passage of an infant baptism anywhere and they'll tell you it is logical to assume that when 'the whole house' in Acts 16:31 was baptized that SOME of them must have been children. Church of Christ folks will say that the Bible doesn't say that ANYWHERE and then turn right around in passages where people were saved but NOT baptized (or its not mentioned) and they.....just like the Presbyterians.......will then find it 'logically' by saying that since it DID happen in Acts 2:38 and 22:16, whatever other passages mean they CANNOT mean that the person was not baptized. Meanwhile, back at the INSP network, the Baptists will somehow work refusal for a person raised a Methodist into the implication that if he or she doesn't they are disappointing God and are less than full Christians.....all while telling everyone you cannot lose your salvation.


I mean - is this a great show of unity or what? I can't deny some of the criticisms leveled.
You completely left off the group that believes we don't have any chance to change what "IS TO BE" / predestination. It dumbfounds me that people who either believe in predestination or a numerical limit for those that can enter still feel the need to go door to door "evangelizing". Not trying to pretend to be a scholar just a logical human.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I'd be troubled by the number of church leaders (insert Jimmy Swaggart reference here) who commit things just as easily spelled out in the same chapters sometimes as sin and yet are permitted to return and hold their pastoral offices under the notion of 'God fer-gave 'um!'
My mother was largely confined to house the last ten years or so of her life. Always religious, she became a big fan of Swaggart, Bakker, etc. She just refused to believe their transgressions, even as they tearfully confessed them on TV. By then, I knew better than to try to argue with her about it...
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,637
12,551
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
One more thing here and I'll shut up (and the whole board says, 'Yeah, right):

it is unfortunately human nature that we pick and choose the right or wrong things to focus on. Which passage at the expense of which passage. Let me give just one basic example - baptism.

Baptists (my own forbears) - has to be by dunking and by believers only; sprinkling doesn't count nor does infant baptism

Churches of Christ - if you aren't dunked and the preacher doesn't say the words 'for the remission of sins,' you go to Hell

Presbyterians not named Trump - baptism replaces circumcision in the OT as a sign of a covenant relationship and therefore it is to be done to children

Presbyterians named Trump - baptism is a really wet thing. I know when I was baptized, I was really wet. Nobody was baptized quite like I was. I've always been for baptism as found in the book of Hezekiah, where Sarah, David, and their twin sons and daughter, Luke and Leia, were really baptized. I mean REALLY baptized you know. Really baptized.


Point out to Presbyterians there's not a single passage of an infant baptism anywhere and they'll tell you it is logical to assume that when 'the whole house' in Acts 16:31 was baptized that SOME of them must have been children. Church of Christ folks will say that the Bible doesn't say that ANYWHERE and then turn right around in passages where people were saved but NOT baptized (or its not mentioned) and they.....just like the Presbyterians.......will then find it 'logically' by saying that since it DID happen in Acts 2:38 and 22:16, whatever other passages mean they CANNOT mean that the person was not baptized. Meanwhile, back at the INSP network, the Baptists will somehow work refusal for a person raised a Methodist into the implication that if he or she doesn't they are disappointing God and are less than full Christians.....all while telling everyone you cannot lose your salvation.


I mean - is this a great show of unity or what? I can't deny some of the criticisms leveled.
Selma

Appreciate all the responses but there is no way I can go point by point on the wall of text from the previous post so I'll just point out 1 thing that bothers me about both posts.

That is that your posts point out extremely clearly, especially this one, that there is no solid understanding of any of this. The bible is said to be the ultimate truth and yet even Christians disagree on many points as you clearly illustrate. I say it changes with the times, you say the earlier people where simply "wrong" in the end it doesn't matter even slightly. By default there is absolutely no way that all of you can possibly be right when you all don't agree, it really is that simple. Brings me back to the Pascall's wager argument and its critical flaw that it assume a binary choice when that doesn't exist, even among Christian sects. It's not a choice of belief in him or not. it's belief, plus pick the right belief and then believe even further that your particular interpretation is 100% correct. As you show all of that matters. I was raised sudo Catholic, according to them I've been going to hell since I was 7 and had a piece of Pepperoni Pizza at Jewish friends house on a Friday during lent. Your example shows slight variations in baptism ritual as determining if someone will suffer in anguish for eternity based on semantics, translations and interpretations. And yet, most of you believe with 100% certainty the you just happen to be in the exact right sect, but ironically not because you chose it (though some do) but because you were born into it. How lucky for you that you were born into the one true version. Be a shame if you had to spend eternity in hell because a scribe in 640 AD accidentally mistranslated a passage.
 
Last edited:

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,570
18,354
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
You completely left off the group that believes we don't have any chance to change what "IS TO BE" / predestination. It dumbfounds me that people who either believe in predestination or a numerical limit for those that can enter still feel the need to go door to door "evangelizing". Not trying to pretend to be a scholar just a logical human.
I can somewhat speak for "that group". Not as a scholar but as someone who struggled with sweat and tears (literally) with the concept of unconditional election. But to directly answer your question. For the "Reformed believer" evangelizing is done out of obedience not out of our ability to save anybody. There is a tension that exists throughout the Bible regarding the sovereignty of God's choice and man's will. To deny that is being blind and naive. To say that before He put His will into play God looked down the portals of time (before creation) and knew who would choose him and those that wouldn't, is basically saying that God's will was subject to man's choice. Which is simply not the case. God's will is not subject to anything man does or wills. NOTHING. The implied reaction you get from Paul's audience when explaining this concept in Romans is the EXACT same reaction "you" get today when teaching that same thing.

But either way, evangelizing for the reformed Christian is done out of (or should be done out of) obedience and love for the Father. Not out of our ability to convince someone to convert. We do not have the power or the ability to convert anybody, even with the message in tote. God is the one who regenerates hearts and brings them to life. Not us.
 

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,344
39
167
Shiner, TX
My mother was largely confined to house the last ten years or so of her life. Always religious, she became a big fan of Swaggart, Bakker, etc. She just refused to believe their transgressions, even as they tearfully confessed them on TV. By then, I knew better than to try to argue with her about it...
Can anyone really blame Jim Bakker for knocking boots with Jessica Hahn? Must be something in the water with powerful men in Louisiana and the temptation of redheads...

I hope Jimmy saved her soul and exorcised the demons from her. ;)
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Can anyone really blame Jimmy Swaggart for knocking boots with Jessica Hahn? Must be something in the water with powerful men in Louisiana and the temptation of redheads...

I hope Jimmy saved her soul and exorcised the demons from her. ;)
I don't think she traveled that far in her faith in them. And, sadly, pancreatic cancer claimed her anyway...
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas

The best part of the story, and...............crickets. I'm surprised. (By the crickets, not the rest of what is being posted.) (BTW, I hate WFM. Mainly because I let a former "financial adviser" talk me into selling my stock.) (OK, it is mainly because they charge too much. For unsalted foods. I have to pay extra to not eat salt? That stinks.)
 

crimson fan man

Hall of Fame
Aug 12, 2002
5,441
344
202
Athens Al
In this Country's environment he thought that his sexual orientation was enough to get him a lot of free cash. He is not a man of God but a pretender that should be shun by any believers of Christ. He don't believe in God because if he did he would fear doing something like this. I know I would.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
One of the stories that I read speculated that his reason may have been he is deeply in debt. And came up with what he thought was a plausible scam, to make a buck.

Yeah, he lives in Austin, and really thought that scam was going to fly. You can't fix stupid.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.