Christians who defend the indefensible!

[Tarheel Baptist]

Many Freebird Christians often put themselves in a position to defend the indefensible!
I find it humorous that on Facebook many of them are having conniptions over the Chick FIL A argument.....they had rather defend the liberal attacks on CFL than agree with so called legalists!

The same thing happens here....some actually defend evolution, homosexuality etc rather than be on the same side of an issue with the fundys!

I don't understand this illogic.....

 

[T-Bone]

Many Freebird Christians often put themselves in a position to defend the indefensible!
I find it humorous that on Facebook many of them are having conniptions over the Chick FIL A argument.....they had rather defend the liberal attacks on CFL than agree with so called legalists!

The same thing happens here....some actually defend evolution, homosexuality etc rather than be on the same side of an issue with the fundys!

I don't understand this illogic.....

I know this happens...my approach has always tried to be that I stand on what I feel is biblical truth, and care very little who stands there with me.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I don't know if this is the case, here, but sometimes fundies misinterpret a merciful attitude for defending the indefensible. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I don't know if this is the case, here, but sometimes fundies misinterpret a merciful attitude for defending the indefensible.

Point taken.

This thread was prompted by a post on Facebook.
A pastor posted that he wouldn't befriend those who regularly posted nudity, profanity etcon their FB profiles.

A Freebird from the Old FFF posted that skin cells weren't evil, a reference to nudity, I would assume.
I understand the reaction to the excess of legalism, but don't understand why the only option is liscence!

 

[Reformed Guy]

It's funny how the Free-Birds who carry on about their "liberty" are the ones who are first to get their knickers in a knot when someone expresses a view they don't like.

 

[Reformed Guy]

A Freebird from the Old FFF posted that skin cells weren't evil, a reference to nudity, I would assume.
I understand the reaction to the excess of legalism, but don't understand why the only option is liscence!

That's just Free-Bird obtuseness.  There wasn't anything evil about fruit "cells" in the Garden either-- but it does not compute that any attempt to circumvent any regulation on the comsumption of certain fruit with such an argument would not hurl mankind into sin, death & misery.

Free-Birds like to insist that they can hold fire in their bosom and not get scorched.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

This is the exact quote some Freebirds took exception to:

Just a simple announcement: If your fb page regularly contains swear words, near-nude pictures, and celebrates alcohol, rock music, etc. then don't be shocked when I won't accept your friend request.

...and if you accuse me of preaching at you, please remember my chosen vocation in life.

Ephesians 5.1

 

[Castor Muscular]

You really didn't give us enough detail and context to know who was closer to being right. 

I would agree that there's nothing wrong with nudity itself, which is what the person may have meant by saying skin cells aren't evil.  The question is, is a particular instance of nudity art?  Is it your wife/husband in the privacy of your own bedroom?  Is it porn?  The context makes a difference. 

As for Chik-fil-a, I agree with Cathy on both counts, including his attitude toward serving all customers with dignity and respect. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

Just a simple announcement: If your fb page regularly contains swear words, near-nude pictures, and celebrates alcohol, rock music, etc. then don't be shocked when I won't accept your friend request.

Nothing wrong with that.  I don't share that convention, but each to his own. 

 

[Miller]

This is the exact quote some Freebirds took exception to:

Just a simple announcement: If your fb page regularly contains swear words, near-nude pictures, and celebrates alcohol, rock music, etc. then don't be shocked when I won't accept your friend request.

...and if you accuse me of preaching at you, please remember my chosen vocation in life.

Ephesians 5.1

 

[Fresh Air]

Point taken.

This thread was prompted by a post on Facebook.
A pastor posted that he wouldn't befriend those who regularly posted nudity, profanity etcon their FB profiles.

A Freebird from the Old FFF posted that skin cells weren't evil, a reference to nudity, I would assume.
I understand the reaction to the excess of legalism, but don't understand why the only option is liscence!

...apparently balance is as hard to find on the freebird side as it is on the X'er side.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

This is the exact quote some Freebirds took exception to:

Just a simple announcement: If your fb page regularly contains swear words, near-nude pictures, and celebrates alcohol, rock music, etc. then don't be shocked when I won't accept your friend request.

...and if you accuse me of preaching at you, please remember my chosen vocation in life.

Ephesians 5.1

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And, I agree with the gist of your post.

While I might not agree 100% with the philosophy and standards of the FB poster, I defend his right to have such a standard....and the rights of those who might oppose him.
But, for a Christian to defend the posting of swear words, nudity, etc. seems somewhat disingenuious to me.

With the uber-freebirds, it seems that the only sin one can identify is actually identifying a sin......[/quote]

So basically you will defend the rights of Christians to have different standards than you but you'll question whether someone who has different standards than you is a Christian.

:

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And, I agree with the gist of your post.

While I might not agree 100% with the philosophy and standards of the FB poster, I defend his right to have such a standard....and the rights of those who might oppose him.
But, for a Christian to defend the posting of swear words, nudity, etc. seems somewhat disingenuious to me.

With the uber-freebirds, it seems that the only sin one can identify is actually identifying a sin......

So basically you will defend the rights of Christians to have different standards than you but you'll question whether someone who has different standards than you is a Christian.

:
[/quote]

Where did I question whether anyone was a Christian?
In fact, the irony of the OP was Christians positioning themselves to defend sin.....duh!

Being true to your MO, I see...... :

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And, I agree with the gist of your post.

While I might not agree 100% with the philosophy and standards of the FB poster, I defend his right to have such a standard....and the rights of those who might oppose him.
But, for a Christian to defend the posting of swear words, nudity, etc. seems somewhat disingenuious to me.

With the uber-freebirds, it seems that the only sin one can identify is actually identifying a sin......

So basically you will defend the rights of Christians to have different standards than you but you'll question whether someone who has different standards than you is a Christian.

:

Where did I question whether anyone was a Christian?
In fact, the irony of the OP was Christians positioning themselves to defend sin.....duh!

Being true to your MO, I see...... :
[/quote]

But, for a Christian to defend the posting of swear words, nudity, etc. seems somewhat disingenuious to me.

dis

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You really didn't give us enough detail and context to know who was closer to being right. 

I would agree that there's nothing wrong with nudity itself, which is what the person may have meant by saying skin cells aren't evil.  The question is, is a particular instance of nudity art?  Is it your wife/husband in the privacy of your own bedroom?  Is it porn?  The context makes a difference. 

As for Chik-fil-a, I agree with Cathy on both counts, including his attitude toward serving all customers with dignity and respect.

These were public postings on FB....but I can't speak to the specifics, but I assumed he was regerring to soft porn pics.

I saw pictures associated with the Magic Mike  movie all over FB that were somewhat offensive, IMHO!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And, I agree with the gist of your post.

While I might not agree 100% with the philosophy and standards of the FB poster, I defend his right to have such a standard....and the rights of those who might oppose him.
But, for a Christian to defend the posting of swear words, nudity, etc. seems somewhat disingenuious to me.

With the uber-freebirds, it seems that the only sin one can identify is actually identifying a sin......

So basically you will defend the rights of Christians to have different standards than you but you'll question whether someone who has different standards than you is a Christian.

:

Where did I question whether anyone was a Christian?
In fact, the irony of the OP was Christians positioning themselves to defend sin.....duh!

Being true to your MO, I see...... :

But, for a Christian to defend the posting of swear words, nudity, etc. seems somewhat disingenuious to me.

dis

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]
Exactly right, insincere.....they defended the indefensible.
I think you're disingenuious in some positions you take....but don't question your Christianity!

Deflect away....[/quote]

So you are calling someone an insincere Christian but not questioning their Christianity?

Would you like me to pull down that definition as well?

 

[rsc2a]

You really didn't give us enough detail and context to know who was closer to being right. 

I would agree that there's nothing wrong with nudity itself, which is what the person may have meant by saying skin cells aren't evil.  The question is, is a particular instance of nudity art?  Is it your wife/husband in the privacy of your own bedroom?  Is it porn?  The context makes a difference. 

In fact, everything that he took offense to (swearing, nudity, alcohol, music) is highly dependent on context.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]
Exactly right, insincere.....they defended the indefensible.
I think you're disingenuious in some positions you take....but don't question your Christianity!

Deflect away....

So you are calling someone an insincere Christian but not questioning their Christianity?

Would you like me to pull down that definition as well?
[/quote]

A Christian can be insincere in some of their actions or attitudes without their Christianity being questioned. You know that, of course, you're just being a little disingenuious in your 'incomprehension'.

Deflection doesn't bother me....it simply makes me look like a prophet!