[Linux4christians] Baptists (was Re: Ex-Muslim's college, speech disrupted by arson.)
Fred A. Miller
fmiller at lightlink.com
Wed Dec 16 19:30:23 EST 2009
On 12/16/2009 03:37 PM, Billy Staggs wrote:
> It occurs to me that I failed to answer your real life scenarios, so let
> me state my "opinions".
> Case 1: I would say that the husband is guilty of abandonment and/or
> possibly adultery (depending on how far he has gone with the "likes men"
> thing), therefore I would not exclude her from an office based on this
He had been "seeing" men while married to her and NOT known to her.
> Case 2: This one is easy for a redneck Christian like myself. Anyone
> who would perpetrate a sexual crime on a child, let alone is own child
> deserved to die. Therefore she is a widow and not excluded from the
> office. :-) Seriously, this would also fall under the immorality clause
> of Mat 19:9.
That is my judgment as well. She is free to marry, etc. as well. She
supported her 2 children, 1 of each flavor, on her own. The dirt bag
wasn't prosecuted nor did he ever pay any child support.....state of
> Paul gave several qualifications for the offices: blameless, one wife,
> vigilant, sober, good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not
> given to wine, not greedy, not quarrelsome, not covetous, etc. Someone
> (whatever governing body that be) is going to have to make a judgment
> call upon said candidate and should do so from a Biblical understanding
> of the qualification in light of each individual case. Your point is
> well made.
> I have seen times when the "One that ruleth well his own house, having
> his children in subjection with all gravity (1Tim 3:4)" should have
> excluded someone, but that's a whole different subject.
SOCIALISM is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance
and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal
sharing of misery. -Winston Churchill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Linux4christians