Hi From Cincy

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evan, your straw man argument is what is truly invalid. I am not speaking for any of these things you mention. Thank you for aquainting me with this form of deception, but I'll pass on participating in it with you. I know you have stated that this is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate form of argument....but kindly refrain for the sake of pursuing peace and holiness with the members of the body, which is of Christ.

The straw man was really when the topic of law and regulation was introduced which Ohio started and missed the topic about symbolism. I was talking about symbolism, Ohio introduced the topic of law/regulation, accused me of being a Pharisee, and then claimed that I "admitted scriptural truths". This whole line of argument from Ohio is a straw-man by definition.

I have not condemned anyone for their opinion, I have not condemned any denomination, there is no sentence I have written that anyone can quote to support such allegations. I have not even condemned StG's church for using wrong symbols and made no reference to any law or regulation that I know of regarding what symbols should be used.

To be clear, to take a legal approach would be to say "the scripture says we must use unleavened bread", when there is no such rule to my knowledge. This is the line of approach Ohio took, and misunderstood me. Rather, I am saying that "unleavened bread better represents Christ rather than leavened bread".

There is no scripture as you said, so it is really a matter of conscience and spiritual discernment. I believe it is acceptable to have differences of opinion on this matter. However, such symbols used might offend my or someone else's conscience, and the scripture says something about that.

Romans 14:15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.