Really? Do you remember who/where?
Yes, I do; I hope lel doesn’t mind being outed here? I haven’t got the quote, and I’m not saying she’s signed all the way on board. She just said that H4E made her reconsider literalism/inerrancy, I believe.
All right, I’ve been outed as a reconsiderer. 
(I tried looking for the post too, but couldn’t find it either. Anyway, I know that I did mention it, at least in terms of Biblical statements regarding homosexuality.)
Approximately three months ago, perhaps a bit before H4e was well-known upon these boards, I noted here that I was not one to judge whether or not the Bible was favorable or not towards homosexuality. After being spurred to rereading of Biblical passages mentioning homosexuality (which I would have to say was at least indirectly a result of the presence of H4e), I can’t see the Bible being favorable towards homosexual acts. This by no means means that I know the mind of God or something like that, merely that I believe that the Bible, is not favorable towards homosexuality. Then again, this is all well and easy for me to say with the temptation towards sexual acts not being something that tempts me much at all, but if I were tempted sexually more than I currently am, I don’t know how I’d handle it. At any rate, I believe that what the Bible says about homosexuality doesn’t have to, and in my opinion shouldn’t, lead to discrimination against homosexuals – there is that bit about love in the Bible too.
As for inerrancy, I probably shouldn’t be posting this on a public message board, but I don’t think I will understand Biblical inerrancy. I can see where one would say that the Bible is not intentionally errant and is divinely inspired, but that it has to be accurate in every minute fact?
I am reconsidering things, but I do that all the time. Yes, H4e has provided me with food for thought and my opinions have slightly changed due to such. I don’t believe that she’s having no influence here and I would love to see her stick around.
My last post in this train wreck. I’ve never had any dealings with H4e on purpose. I’ve read many of her postings, but have not bothered to respond. This is a person that is extremely outspoken and oft times incorrect in the method of witnessing that she uses. I will not correct her ideals nor will I argue with her on her beliefs. But this is what gives Christians a bad name and bad experiences in witnessing. You DO NOT force your beliefs on others, nor do you argue with them. When asked, or if an opportunity presents itself in a calm manner that you can tell someone your beliefs and why you believe that way then by all means that is the time to do so if the person is receptive. H4e appears to be a relatively new Christian, or she would be experienced in this. This is the case with many newer believers. They are over-zealous and on top of the world. As time goes by, this changes to the deep, abiding, inner peace type of faith that does not need to be proclaimed at the top of the voice all the time. but is experienced by showing how you live to others to be the path that you have chosen. Of course there are sins in the Bible that are explicit. But it also says that each man shall work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Not all that you hear from others, be it laymen or ministers, is truth. You listen and then through the aid of the Bible, your own personal relationship with God, and studies through others, you work out within your own being what is right for you.
Sorry folks, forgive me this is not intended as witnessing, but I did have to respond to H4e this one time. My one and only time.
Carry on.
Ultress: You left out the fact that H4E is incorrect in what she says about the groups she hates.
Well Monty, I was trying to be very general in my statement. I am not trying to attack her or her beliefs. In the end, she will be the one that has to defend them, not me. Tunnel vision is an enemy to all. I cannot begin to tell you how the people of this board have opened my eyes to areas that I had tunnel vision in. Living in a small rural town in the middle of North Carolina of course does not subject you to the same lifestyles and such that living in a place like New York City would. I am very fortunate in having a pastor that emphasizes that we live in a very tiny small part of a large world and we should strive not be close-minded or narrow-minded. I try.
Hey, hey! Calling this thread a train-wreck does a disservice to train wrecks everywhere!
This thread is more like a freight train wrecking with a payload of sewage, gasoline, and matches.
You mean the kind that Joe_Cool exhibits after 22 years as a Christian?
amen;)
Polycarp,
I am a bit puzzled by your post apparently addressed to me (12/6, 10:33AM EST). It does not appear to be connected to anything we’d been discussing, and I am unsure if it is in connection to my response to cjhoworth or is a general comment of some sort. In light of this, it is difficult for me to know how to respond or if indeed a response is called for at all.
But FWIW, I will say that I am not intending to debate Christian theology with you (or anyone) so have no comment on your first 3 numbered points. But the rest of your post - to the extent that I can make sense of it - seems to be saying that you are viewing - and treating - the posts of JD, JC, & H4E as being part of the “counsel your brother or sister” provision of Christianity. And, to the extent that you feel they are lacking in regard to the proper fulfillment of this provision (either lack of a “mandate” or lack of prior relationship, i.e. improper methodology) you are criticizing them from your vantage point as expert in “appropriate moral behavior for Christians”.
I would suggest that this - if this is indeed your intention - is inappropriate on your part. Essentially what you are doing is precisely what the others are being criticized for - attacking people based on their non-adherence to what you believe are proper religious principles. In fact, I would consider what you are doing to be far more offensive than what the others do, in that the others are merely asserting their opinion that “Christian teachings are X”, while you are saying “You are not properly living up to your proper obligations as a Christian”.
Personally, I incline to think that abstract discussion of right vs. wrong is fine, whoever it might negatively reflect on, whereas direct attacks on other posters based on your own religious beliefs are wrong. I am aware that many people apparently disagree about the former. But certainly the latter is a lot worse.
Izzy, that post was an attempt to explain my rationale in connection with your previously expressed confusion about my stance in the exchange we had had prior to that.
And I think you mistake my position once again.
I am in no way criticizing anybody for their failure to adhere to some moral principles that I feel everyone ought to comply with.
I am being critical of three people who have, like me, made their claim to be Christians for their failure (in my view) to adequately perform the commission which they have in consequence of their claim to be Christians.
It would work like this:
Suppose you and I joined the Loyal Order of Aardvarks – and one of the principles of this fraternal order is that we must each week contribute a specific sum to the Aardvark Fraternal Fund for the Needy (AFFN).
Now, suppose in MPSIMS you note that you have been so busy that you have done absolutely nothing at the Aardvark Hall and have not sent any money in since the first of the year.
For me to criticize Joe Cool or Ultress or iampunha for their failure to contribute to the AFFN would be the ultimate in judgmental tackiness – they have never claimed to be Aardvarks, and have no duty to do so. In fact, the AFFN, being the work of the brotherhood, would return their proferred contributions since only we Aardvarks are privileged to contribute to it.
But you would have been derelict in your duty, and as a fellow Aardvark it would be my responsibility to encourage you to make the contribution you have agreed to make each week, or ask for release from the promise (as our by-laws permit when, for example, you are faced with the expenses of caring for a chronically ill mother-in-law as you in this hypothetical scenario are).
It is my duty and privilege to call His4Ever to fulfill her responsibilities towards our Lord, keeping His commandments, because she and I are sister and brother in Christ by adoption and grace. And it is hers to do the same for me. And that too goes for Joe and Jersey.
Those who make no claim to be Aardvarks, I cannot judge – though I can encourage them to join and enjoy the fun of our meetings and outings and the sense of fulfillment that comes from the good work that we do with the AFFN.
Does that make sense?
Aardvarks, huh?
Your views intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hey, you just stop rubbing your aardvarks into my face! Or something… wait…
That didn’t come out right.
Esprix
I thought aardvarkin’ was what got this thread started in the first place.
Yeah, well I suppose you aardophobes can afford to laugh . . . now. But you just wait.
Polycarp,
If your fellow Aardvark agreed that he was being “derelict in [his] duty” and considered it a failing on his part, your analogy would hold. But if the other Aardvark held to a different interpretation of the rules, and it was merely your opinion that he was being derelict then you are merely being a hectoring annoyance.
There is no inherent difference between people who belong to a different religion and people who subscribe to an alternate version of the “same” religion. Bottom line is that you don’t agree with them, they don’t agree with you, if you both like arguing about the principles involved by all means go at it, but otherwise you leave them alone.
Fine. Would you please explain to His, Joe, and Jersey, and DDG, Andygirl, lel, RTFirefly, Mangetout, Jodi, Lib, and Triskadekamus while you’re at it, that they don’t believe in the same God as I do? That there are no valid grounds to base our understanding of what He commanded?
It would be fun seeing us all on the same side for once!
I don’t know what you mean with this. 
It’s not that tough, Izzy. You’re suggesting that no one has any room to pass any moral judgements whatsoever on anyone else, because it’s all opinion. Poly disagrees, and has explained why quite eloquently and in no uncertain terms.
Like this, Izzy:
If I claim to be a duck, you have a reasonable expectation of seeing me quack and have webbed feet. If I have eagle claws and an avocet’s beak, and sing the Bell Song from Lakme instead, you have the right to call me out as a poor imitation of a duck.
If I don’t claim to be a duck, then expecting me to meet your expectations of what a duck is and does is wrong. But if I do so claim, then I ought to live up to what is expected of ducks.
Now, your opinion of proper duck behavior may be based on the domestic fowl, someone else’s on mallards, and somebody else on spectacled eiders. But there will be a common thread of “proper duckness” present in the three views.