You’ll Never Be as Radical as This 18th-Century Quaker Dwarf

1,866 Views | 52 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by 7thGenTexan
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

And I'm not sure what prompted the "I am without the need of a priestly class as intermediaries". I'm not Catholic, and that's certainly not what I'm attempting to be. What you have a need for, as well as all Christians, is brothers and sisters that will hold us accountable when we err and choose the ways of the world.
My experience is that those brothers and sisters are often driven by emotions and their own personal political agendae with which I do not choose to associate.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Ugh, again you clearly do not know what the term "virtue signaling" means. Changing a profile picture on Facebook so everyone sees how "good" I am, but doing nothing in real life is virtue signaling. Holding views that may be unpopular w/ Americanized Christians, but actually living and acting in accordance to those views is not virtue signaling. I'm not taking the role of militant judge. I simply believe those who claim to follow Christ should lead lives that look like Christ. When I fail at that, I pray other believers "judge" me and seek to correct me. It's what we are charged to do. We aren't individuals. We don't live on an island. We are part of the body of Christ, and when one part acts in a way that doesn't bring glory to God, we all suffer. We are to hold each other accountable. It's why I'm critical of false teachers like Robert Jeffress and less critical of atheists. Only one is dragging the name of Christ through the mud.

And I'm not sure what prompted the "I am without the need of a priestly class as intermediaries". I'm not Catholic, and that's certainly not what I'm attempting to be. What you have a need for, as well as all Christians, is brothers and sisters that will hold us accountable when we err and choose the ways of the world.
Nor did I mention Catholicism. I simply said I did not need a human mediator when Jesus is our high priest. Nor do I really care about who or what you critique since such critiques are essentially meaningless. Paul wrote in Romans 14:
Quote:

4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:

Quote:

And I'm not sure what prompted the "I am without the need of a priestly class as intermediaries". I'm not Catholic, and that's certainly not what I'm attempting to be. What you have a need for, as well as all Christians, is brothers and sisters that will hold us accountable when we err and choose the ways of the world.
My experience is that those brothers and sisters are often driven by emotions and their own personal political agendae with which I do not choose to associate.
"Those brothers and sisters"? The ones that would call out something that you may be in error about? How do you know they aren't driven by the Spirit in calling on a brother to cease certain actions or abandon certain views that are incompatible w/ Christ's teachings? Are there some people that seem to be driven by politics rather than the Spirit? Absolutely. But to dismiss people who may have a valid point simply because you question their motive is foolish.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Nor did I mention Catholicism. I simply said I did not need a human mediator when Jesus is our high priest. Nor do I really care about who or what you critique since such critiques are essentially meaningless. Paul wrote in Romans 14:
Quote:

4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Context is important. Read the verses prior to that:

Quote:

1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
This isn't about judging those actions that are incompatible with Christ's teachings. As we see Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth, we are to judge those actions amongst our brothers and sisters on things that are immoral (incompatible w/ Christ's teachings):
Quote:

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindlernot even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
You accusing Christians of being "virtue signalers" because they proclaim things that are seen as "radical" but entirely consistent with what Christ taught is a great example of the judging Paul warned against in Romans. Judging a minister because he's taken the Lord's name in vain by using Him to justify nuclear war is consistent with the kind of judging Paul advised in 1 Cor 5.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:


You accusing Christians of being "virtue signalers" because they proclaim things that are seen as "radical" but entirely consistent with what Christ taught is a great example of the judging Paul warned against in Romans. Judging a minister because he's taken the Lord's name in vain by using Him to justify nuclear war is consistent with the kind of judging Paul advised in 1 Cor 5.


I certainly perceive many most SJW Christians as virtue signalers. Their "radical" stances are largely their own political constructs and have little to do with my faith. During the period of conflict in southern Africa in the mid to late 1970s, mainline Protestant groups were sending aid to armed Marxist guerrilla groups when some of the same clergy in these groups espoused pacifism. I know this because my own Methodist denomination had funneled off money for this purpose until caught by media (60 Minutes) at the time. If you feel the need to continue the discussion that it is fine, but I regard many of those whose major concern is "social justice" as being incorrect and as borderline idolaters. God deals with us as individuals first; we make that confession of faith as individuals and decide as individuals to follow Jesus and the propensity for error in churches is high. I would therefore choose as an individual person to follow Jesus. The Holy Spirit will provide the necessary direction and help avoid the groupthink so prevalent in church organizations.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:

RetiredAg said:


You accusing Christians of being "virtue signalers" because they proclaim things that are seen as "radical" but entirely consistent with what Christ taught is a great example of the judging Paul warned against in Romans. Judging a minister because he's taken the Lord's name in vain by using Him to justify nuclear war is consistent with the kind of judging Paul advised in 1 Cor 5.


I certainly perceive many most SJW Christians as virtue signalers. Their "radical" stances are largely their own political constructs and have little to do with my faith. During the period of conflict in southern Africa in the mid to late 1970s, mainline Protestant groups were sending aid to armed Marxist guerrilla groups when some of the same clergy in these groups espoused pacifism. I know this because my own Methodist denomination had funneled off money for this purpose until caught by media (60 Minutes) at the time. If you feel the need to continue the discussion that it is fine, but I regard many of those whose major concern is "social justice" as being incorrect and as borderline idolaters.
You seem to be approaching these same people with your own political constructs. But, I will agree that far too many Christians, right and left, are driven more by partisanship. Heck, the Politics board is a great example of this. But, none of what you mentioned above applies to me or the Quaker in the OP. We aren't islands. We absolutely should care about injustice in society. We absolutely should be willing to walk with the marginalized. That's not being a SJW. It's being an imitator of Christ. I'm still curious as to how the Quaker man or myself are "virtue signaling". You've yet to explain that.

Quote:

God deals with us as individuals first; we make that confession of faith as individuals and decide as individuals to follow Jesus and the propensity for error in churches is high. I would therefore choose as an individual person to follow Jesus. The Holy Spirit will provide the necessary direction and help avoid the groupthink so prevalent in church organizations.
Yes, there can be a lot of error in the church, which is exactly why Paul instructed us to focus our judgement on our brothers and sisters to bring them back from their error. Look at the Jerusalem church in Acts. There's nothing individualistic about it. It's a community and they all relied on each other. The Holy Spirit will provide direction, but that comes from either personal conviction or your brothers/sisters calling out your error to you. Paul is quite clear on that in his letter Corinth. Church discipline isn't an individualistic task, but a group task. This concept of individualism is a cancer in the church.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The concept of groupthink---cultic following of leaders and screechers---is the cancer in the church. Megachurches with these celebrity pastors are probably prime examples.

You may be citing hyper-individualism, which is really a form of gnosticism, rather than individuals who have studied the bible for decades in variety of theological settings. God deals with us as individuals and as groupings, but my experience is that I would rather separate my political beliefs from my church life, whose members tend to operate on emotion rather than a thorough reading of the gospel. And as you know, I am no pacifist.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:

You may be citing hyper-individualism, which is really a form of gnosticism, rather than individuals who have studied the bible for decades in variety of theological settings. God deals with us as individuals and as groupings, but my experience is that I would rather separate my political beliefs from my church life, whose members tend to operate on emotion rather than a thorough reading of the gospel. And as you know, I am no pacifist.
And whether they've studied the Scriptures individually or not, they can still be in error. They often won't see their error either, which is why we're instructed to judge those within the church and correct them when they are in error. Also, our faith isn't something that can be compartmentalized. It should permeate how we view everything. We don't get to take off our Christian hat when we start talking politics. And yes, I am aware that you're not a pacifist and you're aware that I believe you're absolutely wrong on that, along w/ your support of state-sanctioned murder. But that's another thread, which makes it odd that you'd even mention the "pacifism" issue. And no, I'm not "citing hyper-individualism". I'm talking about the very pervasive "individualist" mindset in the American church, which is a reflection on our society's long-time idolatry of individualism.

Also, please explain how the Quaker in the OP or myself are "virtue signaling". You made accusations. Can you please support them?
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
virtue signaling
noun

[ol]
  • the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
  • [/ol]





    Would you disagree?
    PacifistAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    UTExan said:

    virtue signaling
    noun

    [ol]
  • the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
  • [/ol]





    Would you disagree?

    No, and I don't publicly express my opinions w/ the intent that others will see how good my character is. I publicly express them because I'm a Christian and I can't compartmentalize my faith. You are assuming my intent is for others to see how good I am, which implies I'm only "talking the talk" for show. This is a discussion forum, where people share their opinions on a wide range of issues. My views are shaped by my faith, and will be presented as such. It has nothing to do w/ glorifying myself. How can you not understand this? You seem to think that publicly declaring a moral position is "virtue signaling".
    UTExan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    RetiredAg said:

    UTExan said:

    virtue signaling
    noun

    [ol]
  • the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
  • [/ol]





    Would you disagree?

    No, and I don't publicly express my opinions w/ the intent that others will see how good my character is. I publicly express them because I'm a Christian and I can't compartmentalize my faith. You are assuming my intent is for others to see how good I am, which implies I'm only "talking the talk" for show. This is a discussion forum, where people share their opinions on a wide range of issues. My views are shaped by my faith, and will be presented as such. It has nothing to do w/ glorifying myself. How can you not understand this? You seem to think that publicly declaring a moral position is "virtue signaling".
    Nothing specific comes to mind, but your rather absolutist and militant pacifism and your condemnation of people like Robert Jeffress ("false teacher") might qualify.
    PacifistAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    UTExan said:

    RetiredAg said:

    UTExan said:

    virtue signaling
    noun

    [ol]
  • the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
  • [/ol]





    Would you disagree?

    No, and I don't publicly express my opinions w/ the intent that others will see how good my character is. I publicly express them because I'm a Christian and I can't compartmentalize my faith. You are assuming my intent is for others to see how good I am, which implies I'm only "talking the talk" for show. This is a discussion forum, where people share their opinions on a wide range of issues. My views are shaped by my faith, and will be presented as such. It has nothing to do w/ glorifying myself. How can you not understand this? You seem to think that publicly declaring a moral position is "virtue signaling".
    Nothing specific comes to mind, but your rather absolutist and militant pacifism and your condemnation of people like Robert Jeffress ("false teacher") might qualify.
    "Militant pacifism"? It's just called pacifism. I'm a pacifist because that's what I believe is the way of Christ. If I believe it's the way of Christ, why wouldn't I be staunchly for it? There's nothing "militant" about it. Adding words like that, or as Tampa used to add 'hyper', is nothing more than a weak attempt to dismiss my position.

    And Robert Jeffress is a false teacher. Anyone who uses God's name to justify nuclear war is a false teacher. Any "teacher" who says "absolutely not" when asked if he wants the president to embody the Sermon on the Mount, is a false teacher. Anyone who uses a church building to promote idolatry of their nation is a false teacher.

    But, thank you for admitting that nothing comes to mind. And no, being a pacifist and thinking someone like Jeffress is a false teacher is not "virtue signaling". You may disagree with me on those, but it's certainly not virtue signaling.
    UTExan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    And Robert Jeffress is a false teacher. Anyone who uses God's name to justify nuclear war is a false teacher. Any "teacher" who says "absolutely not" when asked if he wants the president to embody the Sermon on the Mount, is a false teacher.
    You must really hate Ezekiel 39:

    Quote:

    39 "And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh,[a]Meshech, and Tubal; 2 and I will turn you around and lead you on, bringing you up from the far north, and bring you against the mountains of Israel. 3 Then I will knock the bow out of your left hand, and cause the arrows to fall out of your right hand. 4 You shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who are with you; I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and to the beasts of the field to be devoured. 5 You shall fall on the open field; for I have spoken," says the Lord God. 6 "And I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in security in the coastlands. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.
    PacifistAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    UTExan said:

    Quote:

    And Robert Jeffress is a false teacher. Anyone who uses God's name to justify nuclear war is a false teacher. Any "teacher" who says "absolutely not" when asked if he wants the president to embody the Sermon on the Mount, is a false teacher.
    You must really hate Ezekiel 39:

    Quote:

    39 "And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh,[a]Meshech, and Tubal; 2 and I will turn you around and lead you on, bringing you up from the far north, and bring you against the mountains of Israel. 3 Then I will knock the bow out of your left hand, and cause the arrows to fall out of your right hand. 4 You shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who are with you; I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and to the beasts of the field to be devoured. 5 You shall fall on the open field; for I have spoken," says the Lord God. 6 "And I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in security in the coastlands. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.

    Yes, I am aware that there is a ton of culturally conditioned understandings of God and His supposed commands in the OT. Compare that to what Christ said, since He's the One we are to listen to (those pesky "love your enemies" type of teachings). If it doesn't look like Christ, it isn't of God. BTW, I don't hate Ezekiel 39. I believe all Scripture is God-breathed (not God-dictated). I believe all Scripture points to the crucified Christ. When a surface reading portrays something hideous and evil (genocide or whatnot), then we have to look beneath the surface to find how it points to the crucified Christ.

    Sad that you seem to be defending using God's name to justify a nuclear strike that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, brutally oppressed people, including many followers of Christ.
    UTExan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Sad that you seem to be defending using God's name to justify a nuclear strike that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, brutally oppressed people, including many followers of Christ.
    I do not, actually. But you often mistake a simple citation for issue advocacy . I am pointing out the inevitability. And the fire referred to there may be referring to the West and not the East. Gods judgment is incremental; He is not willing that any should perish and sends prophets and signs to the people to warn them of impending destruction. The turbulent moment we are in right now might be such a warning. The good news is that God is still in control, for to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

    That is my hope and focus.


    PacifistAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG

    Quote:

    I do not, actually. But you often mistake a simple citation for issue advocacy
    Except you accused me of "virtue signaling" for criticizing Jeffress for advocating such an anti-Christ view, then you shared a verse that appeared to be an attempt to provide biblical support for it. If it were a "simple citation" that wasn't defending Jeffress' obscene comments, then there would have been no need to add "you must really hate Ezekiel 39". Perhaps it's the nature of the internet, but you sure seemed to be goaltending for him.

    UTExan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    RetiredAg said:


    Quote:

    I do not, actually. But you often mistake a simple citation for issue advocacy
    Except you accused me of "virtue signaling" for criticizing Jeffress for advocating such an anti-Christ view, then you shared a verse that appeared to be an attempt to provide biblical support for it. If it were a "simple citation" that wasn't defending Jeffress' obscene comments, then there would have been no need to add "you must really hate Ezekiel 39". Perhaps it's the nature of the internet, but you sure seemed to be goaltending for him.


    No. I am neutral on Jeffress, but once again you confuse defense with a simple citation. You spoke about nuclear war and I referenced Ezekiel 39 as related thought. I doubt Jeffress has ever used it, being a Baptist, but the description is close to the effects of nuclear war. It appears to be a mass casualty event, as do both chapters (Ezekiel 38 and 39).

    I have heard him speak on the Calvary Satellite Network and he appears to offer some good Biblical counsel, but beyond his current post, I don't know much about him.

    And yes, I think you are virtue signaling and appear to take every statement as if it is about you when it could be a stream of consciousness moment as I think through a response. If you are feeling some disrespect somehow then maybe you need to re-read the comments because that is not my intent or purpose. I might also suggest some time with the Psalms of David. They are comforting and spiritually encouraging. Another source for encouragement is the Bible Gateway Charles Spurgeon Devotional under their STUDY section. Still another is private devotional and praying in tongues---I usually like to walk up my local canyon on a 3-4 mile hike alone and have my devotional time then.
    PacifistAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    UTExan said:


    And yes, I think you are virtue signaling and appear to take every statement as if it is about you when it could be a stream of consciousness moment as I think through a response. If you are feeling some disrespect somehow then maybe you need to re-read the comments because that is not my intent or purpose. I might also suggest some time with the Psalms of David. They are comforting and spiritually encouraging. Another source for encouragement is the Bible Gateway Charles Spurgeon Devotional under their STUDY section. Still another is private devotional and praying in tongues---I usually like to walk up my local canyon on a 3-4 mile hike alone and have my devotional time then.

    Again, how am I virtue signaling? I don't say what I say, or do what I do, so people will think I'm good. I do it because I genuinely and earnestly believe it's the way of Christ. Even earlier you said you couldn't come up with any examples. The ironic thing is the last half of your above comment is so much closer to what virtue signaling is than anything I've ever posted on this site. You are talking from both sides of your mouth. You accuse me of virtue signaling, then say you're intent wasn't disrespect. But when pressed, you couldn't come up with any examples, and only meekly threw out "possibilities" that are not even remotely close to virtue signaling. So you make a baseless accusation, can't support it, make it again, then claim you mean no disrespect. Then you pull that sanctimonious nonsense at the end. It was a classic "I'll pray for you" response, which is actually virtue signaling.

    All because you misused a term to try and insult someone for taking a stand against slavery. Telling. No point in continuing.
    7thGenTexan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    The dwarf forgot to read the book of Philemon. If only he had followed the teachings of Christ he might not have been a cave dweller subsisting on squirrel food.
    Refresh
    Page 2 of 2
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.