Pastor loses his job because of his views on hell

[Saved7]

Why is it that Universalism is considered by most to be complete heresy but a pass is given on Who Jesus is?

What makes one so far out people flip their wigs but the other is ho-hum?

Amen, when I posted a thread where I quoted a newspaper article where the "pastor" was quoted as all but denying the deity of Christ, which in turn makes one a heretic, my thread was shut down. I'm at the point that I think we aren't allowed to call a heretic a heretic on this board anymore.

[RabbiKnife]

You have access to a dictionary the same as I do.

I've spent hours arguing in a courtroom over an issue only to have the judge finally look at opposing counsel and say, "You've been arguing "X" for 2 hours. Do you even know what the word means? Then, upon the other lawyer giving the definition, both me and the judge cracking up laughing because the guy didn't know the meaning of the 18 syllable word he was using. When the judge explained it, the other guy says "Oh, well, your honor, in light of this new evidence, we withdraw our motion."

Not saying you are like that. I'm just noting that many people use words and then assign their own meanings to them.


Question stands.... How do you define "ambiguous."

[RabbiKnife]

Amen, when I posted a thread where I quoted a newspaper article where the "pastor" was quoted as all but denying the deity of Christ, which in turn makes one a heretic, my thread was shut down. I'm at the point that I think we aren't allowed to call a heretic a heretic on this board anymore.

Different. You can discuss doctrine.

You will not discuss people.

[Firefighter]

Amen, when I posted a thread where I quoted a newspaper article where the "pastor" was quoted as all but denying the deity of Christ, which in turn makes one a heretic, my thread was shut down. I'm at the point that I think we aren't allowed to call a heretic a heretic on this board anymore.

Sure you are. The only thing we do not allow is "pastor bashing" because more often than not, the pastor is not here to defend themselves. I have often quoted a pastor and followed with "This is heresy." without mentioning the pastor's name. We can warn others without mentioning names. Mentioning names can cause the board to have all sorts of legal issues.

[VerticalReality]

Question stands.... How do you define "ambiguous."

My answer still stands. I define it the same way the dictionary defines it; therefore, if you look the term up in the dictionary then you will find the answer to your question.

[Vhayes]

Ok - but can we not say that a universalist is just unaware of doctrine in the same way you have said a mormon is unaware of what mormon doctrine teaches?

[VerticalReality]

Sure you are. The only thing we do not allow is "pastor bashing" because more often than not, the pastor is not here to defend themselves. I have often quoted a pastor and followed with "This is heresy." without mentioning the pastor's name. We can warn others without mentioning names. Mentioning names can cause the board to have all sorts of legal issues.

That's also not considering the fact that I've seen numerous people try to apply a doctrinal position to a person based upon a single sentence when doing so totally took the intent of the preacher completely out of context.

[ProjectPeter]

If I was in a court arguing about the screwed up state of the church today... we'd call this thread Exhibit A.

[Athanasius]

Yes, I read the part where you think I'm selectively applying the argument. I'm asking you also to read this statement: I do not agree with you.

That is fine, now explain why you do not agree.

[VerticalReality]

Ok - but can we not say that a universalist is just unaware of doctrine in the same way you have said a mormon is unaware of what mormon doctrine teaches?

I don't know who you're responding to here, but I would say there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying to a universalist that according to your study of the scriptures you feel like they are missing something. I also believe universalists are missing something. However, I'm also not deceived into thinking I have everything figured out and there is no possible way I could be wrong.

My position on this issue is that it is not salvational; therefore, it should not be causing the division that it is.

[VerticalReality]

That is fine, now explain why you do not agree.

I already have. Again, you are taking my statement without considering the context of it and applying it to everything under the sun.

[Vhayes]

I don't know who you're responding to here, but I would say there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying to a universalist that according to your study of the scriptures you feel like they are missing something. I also believe universalists are missing something. However, I'm also not deceived into thinking I have everything figured out and there is no possible way I could be wrong.

My position on this issue is that it is not salvational; therefore, it should not be causing the division that it is.

I agree with you.

[VerticalReality]

If I was in a court arguing about the screwed up state of the church today... we'd call this thread Exhibit A.

Why? Are you suggesting that debates over doctrinal matters is a new concept?

[ProjectPeter]

Why? Are you suggesting that debates over doctrinal matters is a new concept?

Your post here.. exhibit B.

[VerticalReality]

Your post here.. exhibit B.

Okay. Now, would you mind actually contributing some sort of reasonable substance behind your statement?