This happens a lot here but I'm going to pick one example to make a point. Recently in another forum where there was a heated exchange occurring, a Christian poster used James 4:4 to, I presume, call me spiritually adulterous and an enemy of God. I say presume, because the poster (jospehw) refused to clarify what he meant, despite repeated requests to do so.

Now I've been called many unpleasant things in these forums, but as a Christian myself I would say that this was probably the nastiest piece of passive-agressive invective that I've personally experienced. I'd put it up there with "son of satan" "worse that satan" and being told I deserve to burn in hell for not believing in the teaching of burning in hell. However these were not accompanied by scripture, or scripture was not used to make/say them, is more accurately what I mean.

My view is this: disagreement is a normal part of the human experience, so is arguing. But as Christians who believe that the Bible is special, holy, the word of God etc, it should not be used to fire cheap shots at people you don't like on the Internet.

What people's thoughts are on using the Bible in this way?

Originally posted by divegeester
This happens a lot here but I'm going to pick one example to make a point. Recently in another forum where there was a heated exchange occurring, a Christian poster used James 4:4 to, I presume, call me spiritually adulterous and an enemy of God. I say presume, because the poster (jospehw) refused to clarify what he meant, despite repeated requests to do ...[text shortened]... le you don't like on the Internet.

What people's thoughts are on using the Bible in this way?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

So are you a friend of the world?

Just kidding. What is the thread where this happened? Maybe you said something to provoke him.

Originally posted by divegeester
It was in the "Memo" thread in the gf.

Oh I'm sure I said something to provoke him; I can't believe that Jospehw would say something like that unprovoked.

What's your thoughts on the principle being presented.

Originally posted by divegeester
This happens a lot here but I'm going to pick one example to make a point. Recently in another forum where there was a heated exchange occurring, a Christian poster used James 4:4 to, I presume, call me spiritually adulterous and an enemy of God. I say presume, because the poster (jospehw) refused to clarify what he meant, despite repeated requests to do ...[text shortened]... le you don't like on the Internet.

What people's thoughts are on using the Bible in this way?

I do see quite a lot of cases of people quoting the Bible to insult, and it is usually done in order to absolve themselves from taking responsibility ie they say 'look, if you have a problem, take it up with God, he said it not me.'

Also common is using the verse about taking the log out of your eye. The funny thing about it is that practically any use of that verse contradicts the verse.

Originally posted by Rajk999
What is the thread where this happened? Maybe you said something to provoke him.

Originally posted by Rajk999
There is nothing wrong with pointing out certain Bible passages if it suits the situation. But this must be done to help rather than insult. Again I dont know what exactly went down between you two.

Originally posted by FMF
divegeester made a quip to wolfgang59 - a non-Christian - about Grampy Bobby's behaviour. josephw made a comment about divegeester's "strange bedfellow" and then tossed James 4:4 into the discussion but steadfastly refused to explain how he thought or intended it to apply to divegeester and wolfgang59.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Ok , I had a read of those pages and it seems JW overreacted. James 4:4 is uncalled for and irrelevant. Apparently JW appears not to approve of Dive's siding with much of what you say about Christians and other things in general. Some Christians take it personally when you dont openly support them in discussions with non-Christians, From the viewpoint of man ...[text shortened]... of the world, and not supporting Christians is worldly in their eyes. hence the James 4:4 quote.

Originally posted by divegeester
Josephw didn't like me quipping to wolfgang59 about Grampy Bobby's posting style, it was nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever. Moreover if your premise is correct, then how come josephw never sides with me (a Christian) against anyone about anything at all? (Not that I expect him to, nor wish him to).

For example when RJHinds told me that I dese ...[text shortened]... of the other abuse I get because of a lack of ability of my detractors to process disagreement.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Plus one of the most basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity is guaranteed eternal life for all Christians and eternal torment for all non-Christians.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it most definitely is not. That may be a doctrine of some large groups of Christians, but it is far from universal in 'mainstream Christianity'. I am fairly sure it is not standard Anglican doctrine and am certain that the Anglicans I know don't believe it.

As for the Roman Catholics, the Pope has apparently said that atheists can go to heaven too.

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

As for the Roman Catholics, the Pope has apparently said that atheists can go to heaven too.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah, by 'coming to know god' via 'doing "good" works'... in other-words by realising the 'error of our ways' and becoming believers.

So, no, not so much.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are over doing the 'in other words'. Certainly I know of no explicit doctrine in either the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church that atheists are automatically destined for hell.

... We’ve been getting a lot of email asking us if we heard the exciting (?) news that Pope Francis said atheists don’t necessarily go to hell. A few days later, the Vatican hastened to assure us that — yes, ha ha, that infallible pope, he’s a kidder all right.

Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica has now issued an “explanatory note” stating:

…they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her.

So for instance, Francis would say something like this:

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?

Which sounds really nice and open minded, except that a few days later some Bishops scurried up behind him to “clarify” this remark:

Pope Francis’ remarks reiterate Catholic teaching that the Church is open to all people, including those with same-sex attractions, but homosexual activity is contrary to the Gospel of Christ — just as all sexual activity outside of marriage would be. A priest must be able to live a healthy, celibate lifestyle, whether or not he has ever experienced same-sex attractions.

Which is absolutely nothing new! What did you think that “love the sinner but hate the sin” stuff was that you’ve been hearing from every Christian, ever? It means that we are all fallen, depraved, unclean, terrible… but don’t worry. By accepting the salvation of Jesus, you can be forgiven. Homosexuality is still bad, but the pope’s not the judge of that. God’s going to judge you. Just recognize that it’s a sin.