1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=jediwill83;1619980]Part two of two.

I see what you're saying and I see you crafting your argument and its not something I can really argue back n forth but I keep thinking...Why would the expression of shame be forbidden on this way?

You say at the beginning of that last paragraph Why would the expression of shame be forbidden on this way? In what way do you see the forbidding of the expression of shame? If you think it has been me who shows this 'forbidding', then you misunderstood what I've been trying to say.

To respond (to what I may wrongly think you are asking) consider the following: I do not attempt to show that a man should not respond to shame by covering the head. The response to embarrassment is a God-given action, by the instinct. He places the instinct in Man for a reason, purposely. I do not see it as something which should be avoided.

I do see people should be avoiding doing that which brings them into embarrassing situations. To further use the Elijah example, he would not have been in an embarrassing situation needing to cover his head in shame, had he faced Jezebel. The mistake was in not facing Jezebel. It was not a mistake to be embarrasssed about not wanting to face her. Had he not been embarrassed, then he should have been.The embarrassment he did have was a natural reaction and not a wrong reaction.

When shown his mistake of not facing Jezebel (this is seen by reading between the lines. This is not stated in the Biblical text) he was ashamed of himself. God had shown himself great, but Elijah runs.The error was not facing Jezebel. It was not an error to cover his face.

Though an error to run from Jezebel it was not a sin to do so. It just was inappropriate to do so. It was not a sin to run and not a sin to cover his face. (God gives us emotions. Anger is one. It is not wrong to be angry. God has been angry many times. It is wrong to respond wrong when angry. It is right to respond correctly when angered, when you are in control of a godly response. Shame is an emotion which must be responded to in the right manner. Shame is. Happiness is. Happiness is neither righteous nor sinful. It is just a response humans have. So with shame.)

********

Plz, Jediwill, reword that last paragraph. You are saying a lot and using few words to do so, making it unclear. Rewrite it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Dude, put down the catnip, seriously.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

😅 almost like he should have opened with "Brothers and Sisters of the forum! I bring heavy words of ridicule and accusation against the heritic that dared grace my post with 2 words!"

Almost like hes arguing to an audience instead of addressing each as an individual.

This aint court.

Nobody is pleading a case before a judge.

We are all in this flesh experience knowing in part and prophesying in part and I promise you that ALL of us when we get "There" are gonna be so thankful for a merciful God that loved us despite how clueless we were.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

All posters are readers, but not all readers are posters. Most understand that all readers sit in judgment of some sort, of the words of every post.

Many will wonder the reason why long-time posters with great experience make no efforts to post refutations of the iv, more than : 'you're crazy' or 'your formatting doesn't meet standards'.

They realize that the silence of the vastly experienced ones means 'no contesting what the opponent says can be made'.

Do you call William Branham brother?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Do you call William Branham brother?

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You are replying to me Don.

[Esaias]

Fat meat is still greasy and YES you should thoroughly chew your food when eating.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Fat meat is still greasy and YES you should thoroughly chew your food when eating.

Don eats his steak very well done.