Members Dr James Ach Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Excuse me, I don't recall defining it. James, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you failed to "define it" then 1) how do you expect anyone to take your admonitions seriously? and 2) You can't accurately criticize anyone elses response to it if by your own admission you left the conclusion open to interpretation. Should've clarified it the first time around instead of beating around the bush. You know, there ARE men around and we are notorious for not getting a woman's "hints" , but in this case, even other women were questioning what you meant. However, it is the only pro-Palestinian article that has ever been posted on OB, and has a right to be discussed (and disagreed with!). It certainly doesn't show a pattern of anti-Israel rhetoric on this board. So if I show you other posts from Covenanter that are just as pro-Pal as this one will you retract that statement! This is certainly NOT the only such article he has posted. If that were true, I would not base my accusation of racism on just one article. It has been several such articles that have nothing to do with theology and everything to do with attempting to point out the faux pas of Israel. Thus if it was merely his "theology" at issue, it would be easier to address (which I have address THAT portion as well). However, theology does affect ones personal views contrary to what you believe. Hitler was a racist because his THEOLOGICAL VIEWS justified it. Calvinists didn't mind enslaving blacks because their THEOLOGICAL VIEWS told them that God gave them providence over the Africans (Calvinist Free Mason from Geneva John Anderson even gave God the credit and glory for helping them become so prosperous off of the black churches in Africa) Aryans feel the way they do because their THEOLOGY says so-it's called "Christian Identity". And I have refuted Covenanter on NUMEROUS threads about Replacement Theology. This is just more evidence that you are not paying attention. Why do you think so many others are agreeing with me on this? Because they've been following the threads-YOU HAVEN'T. Now if you've simply not had the time, then that's one thing. But if that's your excuse, then don't make the claim that I haven't made other attempts to confront Covenanter and others because that presumes that you know something that you did in fact have the time for. If it ever seems like the mods are getting upset at certain people, I'd suggest taking a look back at recent postings and seeing whether those folks are displaying a pattern of disregarding moderator instructions. This board does have an authority structure, and anyone who is unwilling to submit to it is disruptive to the board, no matter how good their theology. So the mods are allowed to get upset and blame the members, but if we get upset it's "not Christ-like"? And because you are a moderator that gives you blanket immunity from scrutiny when YOU are the ones that are in the wrong? So now authority structure trumps the importance of theology and doctrine? Is that anything like the US Congress is more important than its constitution? I'm certainly not knocking the need for order, rules and authority, but when those in charge are willing to compromise the integrity of Scripture to maintain their authoritative superiority, it's not only time to challenge their views, but to demand a regime change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 I left a church, three years ago, where the pastor had been reciting, almost word for word, the sermons of John Piper, When I confronted him, he scolded me, accusing me of accusing him of 'stealing sermons' when that wasn't my contention at all , He denied being Calvinist while defending Piper, but I read on his blog later where he admitted delving into Calvinism. Our church had a mentality that speaking against or even disagreeing with, a pastor was 'touching God's anointed" but falsely accusing a layman was OK. So, the question I would have, as a member of an actual church, not just an internet forum, is: Would my church permit someone like Covenanter, Invicta, or Genevan to preach behind it's pulpit or teach a Sunday School class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dr James Ach Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 I left a church, three years ago, where the pastor had been reciting, almost word for word, the sermons of John Piper, When I confronted him, he scolded me, accusing me of accusing him of 'stealing sermons' when that wasn't my contention at all , He denied being Calvinist while defending Piper, but I read on his blog later where he admitted delving into Calvinism. Our church had a mentality that speaking against or even disagreeing with, a pastor was 'touching God's anointed" but falsely accusing a layman was OK. So, the question I would have, as a member of an actual church, not just an internet forum, is: Would my church permit someone like Covenanter, Invicta, or Genevan to preach behind it's pulpit or teach a Sunday School class? Nailed it. And that is similar to what I asked on another thread: If the header of the forum read "Independent Baptist Community-We tolerate and accept Calvinism, Post Tribulationism, Anti King James Critics and Replacement Theology" would they have joined the forum? NOBODY has debated that question, and the one you just asked is a show stopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Salyan Posted June 5, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2014 Well, if you refuse to listen to the mods, don't complain about them not doing their jOB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bravo, brothers! Once again, I am out of "likes" but I couldn't agree more with what both of you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dr James Ach Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Well, if you refuse to listen to the mods, don't complain about them not doing their jOB. Well now that you've made it clear that doing your jOB towards others depends on MY OBedience to your authority, I'll consider not complaining. Not making any promises, and as a natural born Jew, I am entitled (and prOBably will) to change my mind anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Nailed it. And that is similar to what I asked on another thread: If the header of the forum read "Independent Baptist Community-We tolerate and accept Calvinism, Post Tribulationism, Anti King James Critics and Replacement Theology" would they have joined the forum? NOBODY has debated that question, and the one you just asked is a show stopper. Yes but, James, this is an internet forum; not a local church. Is it the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Salyan, this article is perfectly in line with Covenanters position and I would be surprised if this is the only article like this he has posted. He certainly has presented material like this before. Go to the site he himself links and you find language from the people themselves that is plainly anti - Israel. That is his position, although I would not say Covenanter has shown himself to be militantly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Covenanter Posted June 6, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 Has anyone noticed the title of this thread? A Christian family seeking to use their farm to speak for peace between nations - including Israel & the Palestinians (please don't argue that Palestine isn't a nation - they are people living there.) They refuse to be enemies, but that doesn't protect them. It seems peacemakers are seen as enemies of the Israeli state. Psalm 120:6-7 It seems to that simply by posting "We refuse to be enemies" I have become the enemy of the forum. No, I do not count you folk as MY enemies, but I ask you to consider carefully what I post as I (almost) always seek to support what I write by Scripture. The great difference between my attitude to Scripture & others (regarding Jews & the nation of Israel) is that I give precedence to the NT & the teachings of Jesus & his Apostles. I see Scripture fulfilled in & by Jesus. In this Gospel dispensation believing Jews & Gentiles are one people of God, children of God by faith in Jesus. Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. ..... 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Gal. 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high The promises to Abraham for Israel are fulfilled in Jesus, Abraham's seed, and are appropriated by faith in Jesus: Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? If it is "replacement theology" to believe that the Gospel of Jesus is for all nations, including Israel, and that all believers become one body, one family in Christ by individual, pesonal repentance & faith, then I don't think I am out of line with true IFBs. But make sure you accuse me for what I write, not some invented definition that I have consistently rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted June 6, 2014 Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 I already pointed out that the website itself uses anti Israel terms, showing their bias. The story is biased. It is not a truthful representation, and I still wonder what the truth is behind the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Covenanter Posted June 6, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 I already pointed out that the website itself uses anti Israel terms, showing their bias. The story is biased. It is not a truthful representation, and I still wonder what the truth is behind the issue. Which website? I linked to a news report & various Rabbis' comments. Sorry Dave, but I cannot be responsible for everything written on a website when I quote from one report. Nor can you reject a report as "not truthful" when you are "still wondering what the truth is behind the issue." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted June 6, 2014 Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 Which website? I linked to a news report & various Rabbis' comments. Sorry Dave, but I cannot be responsible for everything written on a website when I quote from one report. Nor can you reject a report as "not truthful" when you are "still wondering what the truth is behind the issue." The website for the mOB themselves. You can tell when the truth is not presented without knowing what the truth is. And there are plenty of indicators of false representation. As I said before, there are always three sides to every story - his, hers, and the truth. You have presented an OBviously biased side, but not the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Covenanter Posted June 6, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 This is the Israeli POV: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted June 6, 2014 Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 This is the Israeli POV: Covenanter, the Israelis do not have one point of view. If you know any Jews, you will find this to be fact. This article is very biased and clearly shows one side of the story. The liberal media is just spewing it's nonsense once again. Sadly, you buy into it hook, line and sinker. BTW, have you read the articles I posted from the Huffington post, on these Rabbis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted June 6, 2014 Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 OK then - The Israel defence force removed 300 trees (not 1500) planted 10 years ago from land which is not owned by the Nasser family, and which they illegally cultivated on land not theirs. The injunction said to have been lodged has no official record and the Nasser family refuse to produce any proof of lodgement. But they go to international press with the information you referenced first up. Put this together with the general tenor of the TON website, and I think the truth becomes slightly more apparent. Whose 'facts' are true? THAT is the big question - but I think I know which side is closer to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.