And we let them do it again

Hahahaha...annd what will calling one's church to complain about something that doesn't involve them accomplish? Unless of course the church is a cult and the pastor the leader/dictator then I suppose they'd attempt to run your life and what you say on internet message boards.

 

Attacking somebody's age is called an ad hom attack. The statement above qualifies as an indirect ad hom and fully on "poisoning the well," by alleging that, because a person is younger than you, they understand less. Please refrain from using fallacies of argumentation to make your points.

The fact that you feel some strange compulsion to read persons' profiles and make such statements says something about your character. If the best you can muster is a comment about another's age, then all you are showing us that you can use fallacies of argumentation. Please stick to the content of person's posts not the content of person's profiles. </font>[/QUOTE]please explain this "poisoning the well," statement, i can agree with some of your post but at the same time i think you are misdirecting and trying to read into what a persons intentions are.
you seem to be judging her by some type of psychology

 

Yes. We Christians are often hypocritical in our actions, judgements, and thoughts. As a Christian, I find it imperative that we deal with the logs in our own eyes when discussing the specks in others.

And I, too, have an obligation to point out our own errors of hypocracy. A broken leg cannot serve a healthy ox.

You have yet to point out any unbiblical or "liberal" points of mine in this thread. BTW, I'm sure you'd agree that if something is of a biblical position, it should not be discarded simply because a liberal position also agrees with it. </font>[/QUOTE]did i say that you had said anything unbiblical in this particular thread?
how ever your post in this thread seems symptomatic of an on going un biblical positions. we obviously disagree in most areas concerning doctrine, politics and probably many more subjects. please do not lure me into a lengthy exchange concerning your biblical positions and politics, i grow very weary of exchanges of unreasonableness.

 

Then you agree that I've said nothing unbiblical in this thread.

Then I repeat my previous request. Point out what I've said here that's unbiblical. The answer is NOTHING.

Really? Surprisingly, I tend to agree, at least in general, with many of your positions on such. I think you're making a generalization.

Actually, if you do a search, you'll notice that I tend to stay out of the threads containing political debates, so your presumption is a false one. I rarely make my political positions known, especially during elections years. In fact, I had one email from someone on the board calling me a liberal for saying I supported Kerry. Yet I've never made any comments concerning any of the presidential candidates at all. I think the most I've ever said about the topic was that GW Bush is a saved individual.

 

Attacking somebody's age is called an ad hom attack. The statement above qualifies as an indirect ad hom and fully on "poisoning the well," by alleging that, because a person is younger than you, they understand less. Please refrain from using fallacies of argumentation to make your points.

The fact that you feel some strange compulsion to read persons' profiles and make such statements says something about your character. If the best you can muster is a comment about another's age, then all you are showing us that you can use fallacies of argumentation. Please stick to the content of person's posts not the content of person's profiles. </font>[/QUOTE]please explain this "poisoning the well," statement, i can agree with some of your post but at the same time i think you are misdirecting and trying to read into what a persons intentions are.
you seem to be judging her by some type of psychology </font>[/QUOTE]Poisoning the well is when you say something like, "Oh you're young, therefore you don't understand." or "You're young, you don't understand. I understand better." It is a fallacy of argumentation because it assumes that, being young is somehow bad or a cause of lack of understanding, therefore anything that has been said or will be said by that person is invalid. In other words, it assumes a negative and then casts doubt on the validity of anything that person might say. This isn't psychology, it is an actual logical fallacy taught in literature, debate, and philosophy, both secular and religious, including evangelicalism. The definitions of these fallacies can be found at www.carm.org. Just type a search for "fallacies of argumentation." It strikes me as strange that she pulled the information from my age from my profile. She defended it by saying that she is a moderator at this board, therefore it is her duty. However, she is not a moderator of this forum. She is a poster at this forum. That is what tells me that she was poisoning the well.

She does the same thing by mentioning the name of my pastor, under whom I was an intern (which she does not know) and calls him a great man of God who would not support some of the ideologies about which I've written. In fact, by adding the words "Do you want to stop this now?" she is making an appeal to force, as if she's somehow threatening to call the church and "report" me. Like I said, she knows the number if she was a member there.

What ideologies? All I've pointed out is that where religious iconography is at its most prevalent, in the history of the church, the church has been at its most decadent and most complacent. Therefore to act as if the Ten Commandments being taken down is a victory for Satan is the end of the world should be taken for what it is, a testimony against the world system. We would make better use of our time doing the works of evangelism and discipleship. Historically, the early church thrived when it was at its most persecuted. I've not said I think they should come down. I'm simply saying that I'm not going to let the world's actions mean more than what they are. My God is bigger than that.

She may be talking about something I said in the thread down below in the General Discussion forum regarding homosexual marriage. Ironically, Dr. Corts, a good friend of mine, does support nondiscrimination against gays in matters of housing, employment, and public accomodation, the same as I do. He opposes gay marriage, the same as I do. My church supports these same positions. Most of our membership also supports a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. These are the only political "ideologies" about which I have written.

The fact that she can only attack my character and has tried to cast aspersions on my character and my writing here, when I've only written 23 posts, this being my 24th, is highly suspect in my opinion.

I have been posting at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries for quite some time, and never before have I seen so many fallacies of argumentation and personal criticism come from one person in so short a time. It would never be tolerated there. Of course, I guess the criticism would just be that they are somehow "liberal." It seems that the word "liberal" is synonymous with "anybody with whom one disagrees." If I was "liberal" I would support gay marriage. If I was "liberal" I'd advocate the removal of religious monuments as a matter of public policy.

I stand with the Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox who recognized the relationship between religious iconography and monuments to the complacency and doctrinal anemia in the Church of their day. I stand by what I've said for that reason.

 

(I will try this again. My first eloquent reply got lost in cyberspace with all the activity on this thread).

Age has EVERYTHING to do with it. And I'll tell you why. It's called perception.

Gene, you made this statement:

That's right, I am upset. When I grew up we had Bible reading and prayer in schools. We had musicals and pageants and plays at Christmas time about the Birth of the Lord. Just to name a few things. We were taught in history about our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Now, you took my comment "The young do not understand. It is not about "praying over lost monuments." Far from it" as a personal attack. It was not meant to be a personal attack, sorry you took it that way. Again, perceptions.

My son is a tad older than you. One reason he was in Christian school for the first few years of his life was because of the fact that prayer and Bible reading were taken out of public school, history was being revised (I remember an 8th grade public school book where it discussed how sad Jefferson was because he owned slaves, for example), and evolution was taught as scientific fact. Your generation and subsequent generations are products of a fully humanistic indoctrinated public school system and that has shaped your perceptions, even about things like the 10C monuments and public religious displays. The ACLU, liberals, and anti-god humanistic regimen has completely taken over our public schools and the public forum and even public displays, threatening local city councils with law suits (which they cannot afford to defend), our court system, and thus, God is being completely removed from our Nation. The Pledge is under attack. Traditional family values are under attack.

At any rate, that is why your perceptions about these things are different than the majority of this older generation. And that's why you guys think we're a bunch of old foggies crying over a silly monument, and you miss the reason we cry.

It is not over the monument itself. It is over what that monument symbolizes, the Christian heritage of the nation you were blessed to be born into, and the God for Whom that monument stands.

That's why age has everything to do with these discussions. Your perceptions have been shaped in part by the educational system and society you grew up in and that is what is so sad. I pray you will think through some of these things instead of parrotting the humanistic philosophy of the world when it comes to these matters.

For what it's worth, my son sees no big deal, either.

 

i do see that you do not engage in heavy political debates for the sake of arguments, i also try to avoid even threads like this as it tends to get me ready for battle. i pray that we will be guided by Gods grace into truth and fairness.
God Bless you johnv

 

Amen. On that I agree.

 

(I will try this again. My first eloquent reply got lost in cyberspace with all the activity on this thread).

Age has EVERYTHING to do with it. And I'll tell you why. It's called perception.

Gene, you made this statement:

That's right, I am upset. When I grew up we had Bible reading and prayer in schools. We had musicals and pageants and plays at Christmas time about the Birth of the Lord. Just to name a few things. We were taught in history about our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Now, you took my comment "The young do not understand. It is not about "praying over lost monuments." Far from it" as a personal attack. It was not meant to be a personal attack, sorry you took it that way. Again, perceptions.

My son is a tad older than you. One reason he was in Christian school for the first few years of his life was because of the fact that prayer and Bible reading were taken out of public school, history was being revised (I remember an 8th grade public school book where it discussed how sad Jefferson was because he owned slaves, for example), and evolution was taught as scientific fact. Your generation and subsequent generations are products of a fully humanistic indoctrinated public school system and that has shaped your perceptions, even about things like the 10C monuments and public religious displays. The ACLU, liberals, and anti-god humanistic regimen has completely taken over our public schools and the public forum and even public displays, threatening local city councils with law suits (which they cannot afford to defend), our court system, and thus, God is being completely removed from our Nation. The Pledge is under attack. Traditional family values are under attack.

At any rate, that is why your perceptions about these things are different than the majority of this older generation. And that's why you guys think we're a bunch of old foggies crying over a silly monument, and you miss the reason we cry.

It is not over the monument itself. It is over what that monument symbolizes, the Christian heritage of the nation you were blessed to be born into, and the God for Whom that monument stands.

That's why age has everything to do with these discussions. Your perceptions have been shaped in part by the educational system and society you grew up in and that is what is so sad. I pray you will think through some of these things instead of parrotting the humanistic philosophy of the world when it comes to these matters.

For what it's worth, my son sees no big deal, either. </font>[/QUOTE]Apology accepted.

However, I am NOT a product of the public education system AT ALL. That is an assumption you made. You used to live in winston-Salem, so these words will be meaningful to you, while for others they may not.

I went to Salem Baptist Christian School from first grade through twelfth. I graduated Valedictorian. I graduated from Wingate College, a college of the NC Baptist State Convention, before it became Wingate University, where I majored in history and religious studies and graduated magna cum laude. I then attended SEBTS. I was the last pastoral care intern at Calvary, serving under Dr. Corts and Reg Alderman, and I have always supported the conservative reformation of the Southern Baptist Convention. For you to say that I, or people my age, are shaped by the public education system is just, frankly a naive assumption on your part.

Granted, I've been through a lot since then, but I believe what I believe because of my understanding of church history, as well as my understanding of American history. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't advocate that these symbols be torn down. However, I do recognize that there is great truth in what the Reformers did when they removed the monuments and icons from the landscape. I see these monuments very like they did. If you disagree then sobeit. My position is related to church history and theological history, and I say that as an orthodox, evangelical conservative, and yes, Calvinist Southern Baptist. I can't help but look at archaelogy too. We have found ruins of Old Jerusalem from Jeremiah's time in which Scripture verses were on jewelry (actually, that's some of the oldest OT Scripture manuscript evidence we've ever found, but God still let the pagans overrun Jerusalem.) God is still on His throne. Jesus is still Lord, and the church has always thrived under such conditions.

Judgment will come one way or the other, and the gospel will thrive one way or the other. "Crying about it," may be your response, but it is not mine, not because I don't think it's right to cry and I don't understand the heritage of this country, but because I prefer to walk with God step-by-step day by day. Tomorrow has enough worries for itself, let the Lord take care of them. He's not gone anywhere.

Look at the state of modern American Christianity. Even the SBC is complacent. Like I said, maybe the reason these monuments are coming down is to get us off of our collective duffs and back into the business of evangelism and discipleship. God is ALWAYS at work around us. Romans 8:28!

 

if you feel your the stronger Christian then consider this&gt;&gt;&gt;1Cr 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

That applies to matters of adiaphora, about which this is one. This is also addressed in Romans 14. Paul actually, in 1 Cor. 8 takes the side of those of stronger conscience. They were eating the food because they did not feel there was any real deity behind the idols for which the meat had been used for sacrificed. Paul agrees with them. He says to keep silent until those of weaker conscience would grow and mature in their faith.

The point of what he is saying is that we should not sacrifice the unity of the body for the sake of such things that are dialogoson...matters of opinion or dialogue. He effectively is telling BOTH sides, not just the ones of stronger conscience to either stop the practice when those of "weaker" conscience are present or not to practice at all, if that is the level to which the conflict rises.

In other words, Paul's word there is not only to one of the two parties, it is to both parties not to criticize each other in a way that causes a rift. He explains this in Romans 14 very clearly because he says basically that the world looks in on us and sees that we let petty issues divide us while we claim the message of life and salvation, so strife beyond a certain level gives the impression that our family is no better than their system.

This is a message board. We are encouraged to express our opinions. We are not to attack each other for holding them. I felt LadyEagle was doing that. She has apologized for creating that perception. I have accepted her apology, and, I hope explained to her why I hold to my position. That is the nature of dialogosnos. I am not trying to divide the body. However, I'm simply pointing out why I believe what I believe. Given the nature of this board, that is acceptable. We should never attack the character of others, use appeals to force or throw around words like "liberal" in a perjorative manner. That said, I don't think any of us today can claim altrusim, do you?

 

Thank you for your post. I hope you will not be so paranoid about me making ad hominum personal attacks from now on, reading more into my post than my intent, and hope you understand where I'm coming from on some of these issues before you get worked up.

If you served as an intern under Dr. Corts, you were truly blessed. He is a fine man of God whom I was privileged to have as my pastor and friend. I pray he is in better health now.

Salem Baptist - Did you go to the AWANA program there? My son did. Maybe you knew him. Fond memories of Winston-Salem. Loved those Moravian cookies from Old Salem. Loved the people at Calvary. Many whom you know, no doubt.

Thank you for clarifying what you believe. Some of your (few) posts seemed contradictory as coming from an "orthodox, evangelical conservative, and yes, Calvinist Southern Baptist" point of view. But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.

I can see your point of view about the monuments, but don't agree with it. But we may have to agree to disagree, don't you think?

BTW, welcome to the board.

John, was that for my post or massdak's? Or both? Just kidding, I knew it was for massdak.

 

LadyEagle, I've found myself agreeing with you a lot recently... I must not be feeling well

 

I do that frequently. Gene, get used to it.

I, like massdak, call on all liberals to resign from your pulpits and government positions. Right massdak?

 

That applies to matters of adiaphora, about which this is one. This is also addressed in Romans 14. Paul actually, in 1 Cor. 8 takes the side of those of stronger conscience. They were eating the food because they did not feel there was any real deity behind the idols for which the meat had been used for sacrificed. Paul agrees with them. He says to keep silent until those of weaker conscience would grow and mature in their faith.

The point of what he is saying is that we should not sacrifice the unity of the body for the sake of such things that are dialogoson...matters of opinion or dialogue. He effectively is telling BOTH sides, not just the ones of stronger conscience to either stop the practice when those of "weaker" conscience are present or not to practice at all, if that is the level to which the conflict rises.

In other words, Paul's word there is not only to one of the two parties, it is to both parties not to criticize each other in a way that causes a rift. He explains this in Romans 14 very clearly because he says basically that the world looks in on us and sees that we let petty issues divide us while we claim the message of life and salvation, so strife beyond a certain level gives the impression that our family is no better than their system.

This is a message board. We are encouraged to express our opinions. We are not to attack each other for holding them. I felt LadyEagle was doing that. She has apologized for creating that perception. I have accepted her apology, and, I hope explained to her why I hold to my position. That is the nature of dialogosnos. I am not trying to divide the body. However, I'm simply pointing out why I believe what I believe. Given the nature of this board, that is acceptable. We should never attack the character of others, use appeals to force or throw around words like "liberal" in a perjorative manner. That said, I don't think any of us today can claim altrusim, do you? </font>[/QUOTE]

i had to look up that word &gt;&gt;&gt;altrusim&lt;&lt;&lt;
now your statement on that could create a whole new debate, which i would be least to engage you with your writting skills and zealous motives.

 

Dr. Corts is, how can I put this, doing better now, but he looks better than what he is, if that makes any sense. Let me put it this way. Although he walks with a cane, he looks weightwise like what he did around 1992/3. The Lord has brought him along much more quickly than they thought (and probably much further than any of us ever thought). Guy Hipp had a heart attack himself back in November/December though. It wasn't as bad AT ALL, as Mark's first one was. Guy is already back in the pulpit and teaching Sunday School. Plus he's not nearly as uptight as he used to be LOL.

I didn't do "AWANA" per se in my early years because we were at a different church and my parents were also divorced, so Wednesday nights just weren't good nights for my Mom after work. She was a nurse (Director of Education at Forsyth Hospital) back then, so when her day was done, it was done. I was involved the high school youth program at Salem. I joined Calvary in college and have been there since. Honestly, I prefer Southern Baptist churches' youth programs to independent churches because they are less insular. SBC kids get exposed to missions and have more opportunities to meet kids from other churches more than independent churches, in my experience at least.

Regarding my point of view...the "Calvinist" part should be the dead giveaway. When you look at the history of Reformed thinkers up to the time of Jonathan Edwards in particular, there is a remarkable anti-iconographic stand. The older I get, the more like them I become I think. Did you know that the members of Edwards' church used to follow his sermons/lectures reading not from the English Bible but from their own copies of THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?!!! I read that not long ago and immediately felt like a totally ignorant slob. We spend time on the KJVO argument here on this board I see. "How quaint," compared to our brothers and sisters from the First Great Awakening!

My dream for the next generation of Christian youth is for us to begin teaching them New Testament Greek as part of either home schooling and/or their youth programs. Jewish children are taught Hebrew in Hebrew School. I think we'd do well to do the same with NT Greek for our kids. Maybe then, we'd have a generation of believers that really, really, REALLY knew the Bible!

 

I do that frequently. Gene, get used to it.

I, like massdak, call on all liberals to resign from your pulpits and government positions. Right massdak? </font>[/QUOTE]yes, i almost forgot about my call for liberal religionist to resign and leave thier office.

 

Yes, nothing new down there right now, to be honest. Check out the ones at www.carm.org. Now THOSE are some debates. We've got folks from aalllll over the world on those over there. That debate is for the young, to borrow LadyEagle loosely. .

 

LOL, you're typo has it right, massdak, sometimes it IS indecent, LOL.