Jump to content
Online Baptist

Bouncing Bill

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


News Comments posted by Bouncing Bill

  1. Where I live the large majority of folk see the words 'Southern Baptist' and they think intolerant, bigoted and racist. Just the work Baptist is a negative. We have struggled with this for years and have considered dropping the word 'Baptist' from our church title. We haven't and I doubt we will. There are some Baptist churches who have given us a hard time as we are very diverse racially. We welcome all as we believe all need Christ. 

  2. On 10/15/2020 at 6:03 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

    Bill, I hope you are old enough to understand that socialism is the precursor to communism. No more reply to you, so you may as well stop contacting me. Communism 'the form of government' not some obscure situation you may have personally encountered is godless. People living under communism who desire Christianity want to leave their country for that reason.  I reject your left wing ideas out of hand. You on the other hand, although deceived, may very well be a nice guy.

    P.S. I voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence already.

    I am saddened that our society has degrades and forgotten the art of conversation. People can disagree and still be friends and can learn from each other. 

  3. 9 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

    Bill, I honestly answered you. I could never associate with politicians who have divorced God from their party platform and move toward a Godless America. Communism is a Godless form of government. This forum for discussion would not be here if the socialist-communist preference of the liberal-progressive agenda were to come to fruition.  Bill, I hope you're not in their camp, I'm not. Psalms 34:21 + Psalms 7:16 + Romans 1:28 (these verses are meant for those who espouse the liberal-progressive-socialist-communist agenda NOT you, I pray).

    I respectfully disagree with most of your reply. Yes, Communism is philosophically a Godless philosophy and most, but not all members are godless in their belief ... or lack there of. I met a young woman in China in 1995. She was a party member, but had accepted Christ while studying in Germany. She was in a quandary about what to do. Her job depended on being a party member and her mother and father were party members. We had a long talk over several days. My final advice to her was that is was possible that she was exactly where God wanted her to be. In that job she would be able to influence positions and policy in ways that would be impossible if she was in another job. I told her to wait, continue to do her job with her Christian beliefs leading how she worked. In other words, to wait until God told her to move on. This seemed satisfactory to her. She returned to her home. Several years later she did move on to another job, one not dependent on her being a party member. 

    I assume you do know there is a difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism, unlike Communism, is not a godless philosophy.  The two philosophies are not one and the same, though there are some tenets that are the same. I do not see either the right or the left pushing for Socialism. Neither are saying the government should determine prices or production levels. 

    The central tenets of Communism are;

    • Central banking system.
    • Government controlled education.
    • Government controlled labor.
    • Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles.
    • Government ownership of agricultural means and factories.
    • Total abolition of private property.

    I do not see the right or the left pushing for these policies. Thus I reject the right-wings statement as you stated above. Please do not buy into either the propaganda of the far-right or the far-left.

    All that aside, thought I think this is an interesting topic I fear it is a fruitless one to discuss. The waters have been so muddies and people have bought into the extreme ideas that a rational discussion is almost impossible. I have been saddened as our society has lost the art of conversation. I hope we can rediscover that ability. I remember a time when it was possible. Below it is expressed fairly well.

    Image may contain: 2 people, text that says 'When real Democrats and Republicans were running our country; we didn't hate each other. We didn't vote for parties. We voted for ideas that came form both parties that made us better as country. We didn't label ideas or parties as racist, sexist or un-American. We did what we thought was best for "WE THE PEOPLE" And accepted the winner as a united country!!!'

  4. 4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    This statement is a misrepresentation of my position, and as such is a false accusation.  I have indeed indicated that those who WILL NOT work (that is -- the "unworthy lazy") "should not be given food."  However, I have also indicated that welfare is "supposed to be FOR those who CANNOT work."  Consider the following:


    When Paul made the statement about being given food, who was he directly speaking to?

  5. 15 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:


    Could you demonstrate where in his interpretation that he used a “liberal” interpretation, you seem to be the one using loose and “liberal” interpretations of scripture.

    Scott has actually exegeted the biblical texts you have attempted to proof text and rather than actually giving any kind of substantial interaction with the text or his exegesis of it you just dismiss it as being a “liberal” interpretation. That is true classic proof texting.

    Yes, he takes the verse out of context and to me implies that this is a universal statement saying that anyone who "will not" or "cannot work" should not be given food. Proof-texting is dangerous. We can prove anything by taking verses out of their contest. Also, by taking this one verse out of context multiple passages in the Bible are ignored at best or implied to be meaningless at worst. I am neither impressed nor pleased with proof-texting. [All this very gently said.] 

    I could show the logical conclusion this out-of-context verse leads to but I do not want to infuriate some on the board. 

  6. 33 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Ah, I see. Then I must contend that you are falsely accusing me. A "liberal" interpretation" would be one wherein the Scriptures can be handled "fluidly," allowing for the redefining of terminology and for an allegorical understanding of passages.  In Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th edition, the #4 definition for "liberal" is as follows -- "not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict [a "liberal" interpretation of the Bible]."  (Politically, such is the manner with which liberals are handling the Constitution of the United States.) 

    Whereas, a "literal" interpretation would be one wherein the Scriptures are taken with grammatical and contextual precision, such that the precise wording of Scripture is honored as that which God the Holy Spirit precisely intended.

    Now, the PRECISE wording that the Holy Spirit inspired in Matthew 25:40 is as follows -- "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."  Again, the PRECISE wording that the Holy Spirit inspired in Matthew 25:45 is as follows -- "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."

     The precise wording that the Holy Spirit inspired includes the phrase "of these MY BRETHREN" in Matthew 25:40 and the phrase "of these" (a demonstrative pronoun pointing back to the previous group mentioned) in Matthew 25:45.  I did not add those phrases.  The HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD precisely inspired those phrases.  It is only for me to literally and precisely take the Holy Spirit at His word on the matter.  Such is "rightly dividing the word of truth."  Even so, the passage and the judgement about which is prophecies concerns how we treat the Lord's BRETHREN (not any one else).

    I was thinking more of your take on the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3:10. To pull that out of context as a proof text is to take a liberal interpretation or at least imply one. 

  7. 3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Matthew 25:31-46 -- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the leftThen shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.  Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye [personally] have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren [note that the specific recipients here are not just any poor and needy, but are specifically the Lord's own BRETHREN], ye have done it unto me.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these [the word "these" is a demonstrative pronoun grammatically indicated the same ones mentioned earlier], ye did it not to me.  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."  

    Helping any poor and needy is NOT the relevant factor in this judgment.  Rather, helping the poor and needy OF THE LORD'S BRETHREN is the relevant factor in this judgment.  (Now, the question does remain whether in this context the Lord was speaking concerning His Jewish brethren, or His Christian brethren.  In either case, whether one does or does not help unsaved, non-Jewish poor and needy, it has NO bearing on THIS particular judgment.)  

    I see you take a liberal interpretation of this. I respectfully disagree. 

  8. Do you think God would put many more references into feeding the hungry if he did not mean it? 

    The final judgement says nothing about being judged because you fed and took care of people. Rather judgement is against those who did not feed the hungry. Was God serious about this or just jesting?

  9. 7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    In relation to my own God-given responsibility of stewardship over the material wealth that the Lord our God has entrusted to me, I must determine the answer to that matter for each case through the entire body of principles in God's Word concerning work ethic versus laziness, as well as through prayerful submission to the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

    Tell me about the 'entire body of God's Word' word. What is the criteria for determining whether an individual would be allowed to have food or not? What would you look at in  making such a determination.

  10. 22 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Actually, it is best to seek obedience unto God's Holy Word in ALL matters, both in helping the genuine needy, as well as in confronting the unworthy lazy.  The precepts and principles of God's Holy Word are not to be compromised either on the right hand or on the left.  When God's Word states -- "If any WOULD NOT work, NEITHER SHOULD he eat," God's Word is providing a clear instruction concerning our behavior toward the unworthy lazy.  Any individual, group, or program that does not seek a legitimate application of this Biblical principle in its giving policies toward the poor and need is not following God's own standard in the matter.  Obedience to God's Word matters!!

    Just curious, who determines how much or little work meet the criteria for no food?

  11. 18 hours ago, heartstrings said:

    2 Thessalonians 3:10............ if any would not work, neither should he eat................

    And our country is rich enough that no one who is ill or going hungry should be neglected. Yes, there will be some fraud. It is better to err on the side of feeding and aiding people than to let innocent go hungry or to die. 

  12. 2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

    What is said in the final judgement? So it is true you shall be judges on how you treat others and feeding them is one of the criteria in the judgement. 

    Matthew 25:35 

    For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

    Proverbs 19:17 

    Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

    Proverbs 22:9 

    Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.

    Proverbs 28:27 

    Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.

    Isaiah 58:10 

    If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.

    Luke 3:11 

    And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”


  13. I agree. There were no programs such as WIC or food stamps when I was a kid. I went to school with kids who were almost always hungry. When I was preschool a person had to have ration stamps to buy many items. I never saw a candy bar or chewing gum until WW II ended.

    We are who we were when and where we grew up. There were poor houses where people were sent. Those days and experiences probably influence my view of helping others through government programs. Yes, there is inefficiency and fraud. That would be true of non-government programs also. I do not see that as an argument against helping others.

    I also believe that churches, synagogues  should cooperate with each other. The church I attend is part of a consortium of 6 churches and synagogues. Together we run a food bank. There is government surplus food as well as food bought by the churches. We also cooperate together housing homeless people during the winter. 

    I find it sad that suddenly a trillion dollars can be found to help business, but not 100 million to help people. I am not saying that businesses do not need help during this time of Covid-19 ... but so do many people caught innocently during this time of pandemic. I have little sympathy for companies who money from the pay protection program (PPP) to repurchase their own stock. I also have no sympathy for companies who gave their executives large bonuses with this money that was supposed to protect workers pay. 

    Our country is rich enough that no one should go to sleep hungry cold. Our country is rich enough that no one should die needlessly for want of medications or surgeries. But it happens. I've seen it at the free clinic where I volunteered for a number of years. 

    We Christians should work hard to help others both materially and spiritually. 

  14. 53 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Although I believe that such programs have administrative problems (bureaucratic inefficiency, fraud, etc.), I do NOT stand directly against such programs.  When I was a child, my family was a recipient of WIC.  As an adult, I have purposefully refused to take the benefits of such programs (even though my yearly income would have made us eligible).  I believe that it is my responsibility first and foremost to support my family through diligent work and careful financial management.  Furthermore, I believe that if my family can live comfortably thereby, then it is simply wrong for me to take "welfare" help from the government.  Indeed, I believe that governmental "welfare" help is supposed to be for those who CANNOT, not for those who WILL NOT.

    I agree. 

  15. 3 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    And in relation to the idea of "pooling" our material wealth through a government program of charity, I have previously stated the following:

    Yet this is NOT the character of governmental liberalism, even as I have previously presented:

    Even worse, as I have also indicated previously, the present movement of governmental liberalism in our country is very much anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Indeed, throughout the historical record we find that governmental liberalism in its various forms is quite usually anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Such is NOT a governmental movement that is worthy of support from the godly.

    Are there any social government programs in force at the moment you support, such as food stamps, WIC?

  16. 6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Now I have to wonder if you have even been paying attention throughout our discussion in this thread, for I have ALREADY defined Biblical liberality in my previous postings.

    In my first posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:

    In my second posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:

    In my third posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:


    Thanks for the reply. I agree and I believe part of that liberality is being willing to pool our money, through tithes to the church and taxes to the government to support programs that help the those who are ill, hungry, ill clothed, in prison, etc.

    I would rather my tax dollars go to help people than to kill them. 


  17. 1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    You might want to read again, for I never used the phrase "Biblical liberalism."  Rather, I purposefully used the phrase "Biblical liberality." 

    The "ism" at the end of "liberalism" indicates that it is a system and movement of set beliefs.  Whereas the word "liberality" simply indicates a particular activity of generous giving.



    ok, what is Biblical liberality?

  18. 1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    There is probably not very much among the values of governmental liberalism that I would support.  However, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: I am not talking about the values that they promote only with their "words," but about the values that they actually drive with their agenda.)

    There is probably even less among the values of doctrinal liberalism that I would support.  However again, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: Since I would stand against the majority of the values among both governmental liberalism and doctrinal liberalism, I would not support or join with either of them as whole movements.  Rather, I would stand in public opposition against those movements.)

    I would stand in total agreement with the values of Biblically defined liberality, although I may not always walk in perfect obedience to those values.  (Note: I am talking about that which is truly defined from Biblical truth, not that which claims to be Biblical truth, but is actually the distortion of Biblical teaching.)

    In the fourth case above, since I did not list it, I am not presently aware of it or considering it.  If you have something that might fit in this question, then you would need to specify it in order that I might place my consideration upon it.


    What is your definition of Biblical liberalism?

  19. 51 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Are you asking what values of governmental liberalism would I support?

    Or are you asking what values of doctrinal liberalism would I support?

    Or are you asking what values of Biblical liberality would I support?

    Or are you asking what values of something "liberal" that I have not listed would I support?

    All of the above. 

  20. 13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    I was saying that I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to reprove Brother 1Timothy115 in the following manner:

    Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of this thread's original question.  Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of your own original posting in this thread discussion.  Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement served as a direct response toward your own statement about "divorcing God" from the lives of those in governmental roles.  Thus I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to instruct him not to "go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks."


    By the way --

    I myself would indeed support Biblical values in governmental liberalism IF they actually existed in governmental liberalism.  However, as a whole governmental system, governmental liberalism is anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Indeed, taking up the scope of this thread's original question -- I most certainly would not and will not vote for the movement of governmental liberalism in this country.  When I vote, I begin with the principles of Biblical morality in order to discern the direction of my voting options.  The movement of governmental liberalism in this country does NOT find a place therein.

    What 'liberal' values would you support? 

  21. 12 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Hmmm. I believe that Brother 1Timothy115's comment is indeed within the scope of this thread discussion's original question as posted by Brother Morales -- "I believed, that all christians that do vote, we're all voting conservative. For there is no more in the middle, when it comes to voting. My question is, do christians really know what it is to be a liberal voter, and what it stands for, or supports?"

    Furthermore, I believe that Brother 1Timothy115's comment is indeed within the scope of your (Bouncing Bill's) OWN first posting in this thread discussion, as per the following: 

    Bouncing Bill, your own original posting in this thread discussion included, not only the matter of Biblical liberality and charitable giving, but also the matter of ungodly racism in government.  If you yourself can deliver such broad political comments in the discussion, then I see no reason why others should be restricted from doing so also.  As for myself, I will not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to deliver such restrictions.

    As a traditional Baptist I do not accept anyone having any authority to stand between me and God. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in your last sentence. Please enlighten me. Thanks. 

  22. 17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

    No ones divorcing God we're divorcing a group of socialist-Marxist God hating politicians.

    You are changing the subject. How can a Christian who says they believe in Christ's teachings on how we should treat people not support those same values in government?

    Please don't go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks. Thanks. 

  • Create New...