• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TitanTiger last won the day on November 28 2018

TitanTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,255 Sterling

About TitanTiger

  • Rank
    Secretary of Crowd Control

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,848 profile views
  1. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

  2. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    And I changed it back. Not here for one of his snit fits.
  3. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    I couldn't get it to play.
  4. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    And others squeal like a stuck pig when they get called out on their idiotic arguments and comments.
  5. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    This x1000.
  6. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    False equivalency is one of PT's favorite go-to moves.
  7. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

  8. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    These are hilarious.
  9. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

  10. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

  11. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    Because you're a normal, well-adjusted adult.
  12. TitanTiger

    Take That Pelosi

    There's no excuse for your ridiculous reaction to it. It was a joke and the solution is not on him changing what he says, it's on you to remove the gigantic pointy stick from your butt.
  13. It's nothing of the sort. Jesus affirmed the sexual ethic of the Old Testament, not loosened it. If anyone thing he made it tighter- such as His statements on lusting in one's heart being on the level of adultery. Or saying that even though Moses, because of the hardness of the people's hearts, allowed a man to divorce his wife simply by issuing a certificate of divorce, whereas Jesus said from the beginning it was not like that and that divorcing your spouse other than for adultery was wrong. This hippie 60s free love Jesus might make people of the Sexual Revolution feel nice, but He bears little resemblance to the actual Jesus.
  14. Seriously though, the HuffPo thing reads like they just singled out homosexuals. The actual agreement is broader than that and says this: I understand the biblical role of Immanuel Christian School is to partner with families to encourage students to be imitators of Christ. This necessarily involves the school’s understanding and belief regarding biblical morality and standards of conduct. I understand that the school reserves the right, within its sole discretion, to refuse admission to an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student if the atmosphere or conduct within a particular home, the activities of a parent or guardian, or the activities of the student are counter to, or are in opposition to, the biblical lifestyle the school teaches. This includes, but is not limited to contumacious (i.e. openly rebellious) behavior, divisive conduct, and participating in, supporting, or condoning sexual immorality, homosexual activity or bi-sexual activity, promoting such practices, or being unable to support the moral principles of the school. (Lev. 20:13 and Romans 1:27.) I acknowledge the importance of a family culture based on biblical principles and embrace biblical family values such as a healthy marriage between one man and one woman. My role as spiritual mentor to my children will be taken seriously. Now you don't have to like Christian teaching on sexual morality, but they aren't just being mean to the homos here. They include all sorts of sexual immorality which means straights are expected to live by this too. And they don't just harp on sex, they discuss other matters as well.
  15. Yeah, of the three "solas" of the Reformation, that one is the most problematic to me. Because the problem is, you can say "Scripture alone" but that Scripture has to be understood and interpreted. And while the basics of salvation and such are clear on a cursory read, there are deeper things there that require some time, study, education and so on to really gain understanding - and that's not even counting the illumination of the Holy Spirit. But when you truly anchor down on sola scriptura you essentially trade one Pope for billions of popes. Each person becomes a Pope unto themselves, sending forth on what they think this or that passage means and all claiming they are getting it from the Holy Spirit. I think a better way of expressing it would be something like prima scriptura. What I mean by that is is two things. First, it's that we read the Scriptures not as individuals but as the Church, and not just the Church in our own era, but the witness of the Church over time. What did the earlier church fathers believe about the doctrines we find in the Bible? What did they teach about what certain passages meant? And did this interpretation remain essentially the same through the last 2000 years? Was it widely taught and believed across the church or just in small, regional sects? That, I think, gives us a better shot at understanding what the deeper doctrines and teachings are. We aren't relying on just us, or just our pastor or era to know these things, but the consensus of the body of Christ over the course of the last 2000 years. Is it 100%? No. We're still fallible, have our blind spots due to being people of our time and place, due to our sinfulness, and so on. Second, what it means is that Scripture is "prime" or first. It's not "alone," but none of these interpretations we come up with can be obviously contradictory to what the text says. Does that make sense?