Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > In Honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Forum Quick Jump

83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/27/2002 2:15 PM (GMT -6)

By the way, I might not have gone back to those other topics after commenting. I am not sure what they were about. It takes a lot of time to comment and read everything and I don't put much effort in things after I loose interst in them. But that's just me.

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/27/2002 2:39 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
We will just have to disagree on this whether we agree to or not. One thing is for sure, if we have both believed Romans 10:1-13 and 1 Cor 15:1-4 we are brothers in Christ, whether you like it or not. Maybe you can say, "Who, him? Yeah he's family, but he's a little strange."

We can all definitely agree on this one rb. Regardless of color, beliefs, bible version

or any other division, you will always be my brother in Christ, and I will love you as such.

Kyle Essary

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/28/2002 1:16 AM (GMT -6)

Kyle, whether Rb wants to go all the way down the road he's on, or not (to hiw credit if he doesn't) it is the view that actually hindered missions for centuries. That view was the "explanition" for the inferiority of the "cursed" sons of Ham (Gen.), and the continuation of slavery, and even its formation of a kind (due to the permanence of a curse) that was far worse than the Romans had.

On the levels of theology and praxis, what he is saying is condemned by Dispensationalists (as Bob Hill) and non-dispensationalists alike. His view is a recapture of a "law" into re-slavery. If there was any force behind some "dispensation" of Noetic details--if this separation was a covenenat...which I'm not saying it was--then it follows that it would be set free by the New Cocevenant. So If he quotes Romans 10:1-13 he has some work to do reconsiling the rest of his theology to it!

Non-dispensationalists simply refuse to go in for the non-sense he's preaching--and he's preaching nothing less than divisive bondage to law. peter and Paul comdemned it.

Speaking of Peter... I'd liken it to when Peter tried to do a flip-flop and follow the law as external again.

So, to everyone -- "standfast in the liberty...!"

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/28/2002 5:24 AM (GMT -6)

I definitely disagree with the dispensational rhetoric as a defense for his views. I disagree that their is division in the body of Christ.

quote:
Ephesians 4:15-16 (ESV)
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

Yes, there are arms and legs, etc. in the analogy, but no divisions because we are all one body.

quote:
Ephesians 2:19-22 (ESV)
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

We are all one in Christ. There isn't a Caucazoid wall, a Negroid wall, and a Mongloid wall, because they are joined together! Black with white, brown with yellow, red with tan, we are all joined together with Christ and in Christ!

Kyle Essary

"Say 'Dodgers' and people know you're talking about baseball. Say 'Braves' and they ask, 'What reservation?' Say 'Reds' and they think of communism. Say 'Padres' and they look around for a priest." - Tommy Lasorda

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 3/1/2002 1:06 PM (GMT -6)

kyle,

Don't you find it interesting that this racist can call POW a brother in Christ, but he can't do the same? Strange indeed!?

Marriage is not salvation, if that could be understood then there would be less of a problem here.

POW is also falsly accusing me, I have written a couple of times that I have witnessed to blacks, semites, and whites, but POW thinks that I have a problem with the "son's of ham". Hey POW, just what was that "mark" that GOD placed upon Cain? It would have to be distinctive, setting him apart from others.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 5:38 AM (GMT -6)

Rb:

I see that you posted on "Problems with the System?" And since it is not only the discussion, but since ALSO the focus of this thread has long since moved over to the "Problems with the System?" thread--and left Dr. King's work (to resting in past pages), I'm going to move over to there too. I'll bring some quotes from THIS thread along with us.

BTW -- Your last post was very scrambled.

You, Rb said: POW thinks that I have a problem with the "son's of ham". Hey POW, just what was that "mark" that GOD placed upon Cain? It would have to be distinctive, setting him apart from others.

Here's the scrambled part. When you said "...POW thinks that I have a problem with the "son's of ham"." since you were refering to ahw was said in my post, lets see what actually using what I said make YOU to be saying. Shall we?

1. Saying, "...POW thinks that I have a problem with the "son's of ham".". . .
2. actually makes you to say: "...POW thinks that I have a problem with "the 'explanition' for the inferiority of the "cursed" sons of Ham (Gen.), and the continuation of slavery".
3. Which means: that you DON'T "have a problem with "the 'explanition' for the inferiority of the "cursed" sons of Ham (Gen.), and the continuation of slavery"."
4. Which would mean that you hold to "the inferiority of the "cursed" sons of Ham (Gen.)," which, as I've suggested is associated with "the continuation of slavery".

That would have you saying that preaching an inferiority of Blacks is Biblical and Godly. Its not! But it really appears that you are saying that. And THAT is not of Christ. It flies in the face of the entire whole message of the Bible. )And who ever taught you it should be ashamed.)

But I'd REALLY like to think that you don't hold the view that the "sons of ham" (I've heard that equating that with Africans is a stretch, anyways.) are cursed, inferior, and usbject to slavery by the will of God" I'd really like to believe that.

I sincerly hope that it is not true.

As to the sort of "scrambled-ness" in the last post, I've unpacked the contracistion above. But I'd likek to share with you that when you (1)appeal to be regarded as a brother; but yet (2) throw up offensed too... then the message is scrambled. Your last post was a good example of a "mixed" message.

Especially troubling was where you said: "Hey POW, just what was that "mark" that GOD placed upon Cain? It would have to be distinctive, setting him apart from others."

In that sentence you confirm that a "mark" and a "setting part" is on those who you regard as "sons of ham".

Sooooo..... see you on the other thread.

PoW

Edited by - potonwheel on 03/02/2002 2:53:19 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 8:46 AM (GMT -6)

.

Edited by - potonwheel on 03/02/2002 2:54:17 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 8:59 AM (GMT -6)

.

Edited by - potonwheel on 03/02/2002 2:10:39 PM

83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:16 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual