Rorschach Post
by Ted Slater on 01/27/2008 at 8:00 AM
The gift of singleness, as it were, has subtle associations with the intricacies of both climate change and certain individuals' concern over social justice. Some might argue that there's merely a correlation, with no causation, but both global warming theorists and progressive activists would disagree. In fact, because some marry in their teens, and others marry in their mid- to late-30s, the consequences are much more dire -- especially for those who've chosen to "date" rather than "court." And especially especially among the "marriage mandate" crowd. Factoring in to the entire equation is the polemical political talk coming from both the liberal wing of the Democrat(ic) party (which some would associate with Nazism) and the far right wing of the Republic(an) party (which some would associate with Nazism). The introduction of children, whether intramarital or extramarital, further complicate the matter. As do aliens, both illegal and extraterrestrial, some of whom support the practice of capital punishment in certain instances. And puppies.
Discuss.
1. k. said the following at 8:11 AM on Jan 27:
Time to put down the Jagermeister, Ted! :)
2. Stanhope said the following at 9:49 AM on Jan 27:
To paraphrase John Edwards:
Could we hear from someone who represents the grown-up wing of the Boundless editorial staff? I'm looking at you, Tom Nevern.
3. m said the following at 11:15 AM on Jan 27:
For those wondering what the heck is going on, here is the wikipedia article on the Rorschach test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test
This post looks like an inkblot in word form including a number of key words. Global Warming, Marriage, Courtship, with Nazis, aliens and puppies thrown in for good measure.
You also better respond soon with your first impressions. A long response time is supposedly an indicator of depression.
4. JB said the following at 11:20 AM on Jan 27:
Glad to see you're coming over to our side, Ted.
5. kaarina said the following at 12:28 PM on Jan 27:
The gift of singleness, as it were, has subtle associations with the intricacies of both climate change and certain individuals' concern over social justice.
I'm not sure where social justice comes into this. Defining social justice as taking care of the poor, the hungry, the prisoner, the wrongly accused, the widow, the orphan, the stranger in our midst, and the oppressed, what part does singleness play into the "intricacies" of these concerns? I strongly believe in social justice and focus most of my charitable and awareness-raising activities on social justice for "the oppressed".
6. Laur said the following at 1:00 PM on Jan 27:
i see a paragraph that is too long for this forum. does that make me an editor?
7. Rachael said the following at 2:05 PM on Jan 27:
:)
Isn't it fun to discuss ideas....
In the first chapter of Ecc. (vs. 16-17): "I said in my heart, 'I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.' And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind."
:)Meaningless, meaningless...
Yet the author concludes in the second to last verse of the book that "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." A good reminder that our chief aim is to know and love God...the God who knows everything, and certainly knows our hearts better than we do. Isn't it refreshing to rest in the fact that "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:25). If we, like Paul when he was with presumably the people in Corinth, "decided to know nothing among [them] except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (2:2), as opposed to using "lofty speech or wisdom" in "proclaiming ...the testimony of God" (vs. 1).
We will never have all the answers, but what a relief to have faith that the God we serve does...
Yet in the meantime (=until...fill-in-the-blank)...let's... discuss :)
8. keightie said the following at 2:30 PM on Jan 27:
hehe...are you just posting this to see who will get all hot and bothered about it? Good thing I just learned about satire in AP English. Can't fool me. >: )
9. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:42 PM on Jan 27:
Hey Ted...just what is it that you wish to accomplish here?
You've already allowed Debbie Maken to publish a one-sided slapdown of male singles on this blog, and in so doing have fomented an already hostile church culture that treats Christian singles like deviants.
What other damage do you wish to do?
10. John said the following at 3:55 PM on Jan 27:
Since it has been erroneously decided to not post this on another thread,
http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/01/join-a-church-t.html#comments
this is a perfect place for it:
In the spirit of Colossians 2:8, Titus 1:9 and 2 Corinthians 10:5 this post should be added to the thread because the assertions and questions should be addressed.
1) Peter Wells is a sad example of what passes for argument on this blog by those not interested in growing in wisdom. You are more than likely a product of a government indoctrination system which is communist and preaches that American/Anglo heroes were evil Christian white European men who wanted to take over the world and kill, rape and destroy all who were different from them.
Fraud? Good job being a parrot of your communist social studies teachers and texts.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/11/08/mccarthyism_the_rosetta_stone_of_liberal_lies
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/12/05/theyll_never_forgive_you
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/12/12/joe_mccarthy_invented_the_internet
Based on the way you spell "realise", I am guessing you learned about McCarthy somewhere out in the Commonwealth. I'm sure you went real in-depth with that, considering they don't want to teach about Churchill anymore.
As far as the "volentary" (sic) socialism of the early church, I guess you don't see the difference between "volentary" (sic) and forced "sharing". Do you know what an oxymoron is? Apart from that fact that that it is not neither a command nor necessarily an example that is applicable outside of that context.
You're last statement is so asinine as to not merit any sort of response.
Mandi,
I'm associating unbiblical, non-Christian ideas and policies with not being Christian. Government controlled health care IS an example of such ideas. I'll let you connect the dots. Andrew believes that government controlled health care is not communist AND that it is in fact biblical. It is not. He also writes on this blog many non-Christian, unbiblical, and thereby, sinful thoughts and ideas. What is to be desired is LESS government intrusion, NOT more!
Andrew,
This is the last time, barring a miracle that I will write to you on this blog. You are satisfied to hold onto your unbiblical, unchristian and sinful ideas and it seems to only harden your stance when someone points that out to you.
Your attempt to identify a logical fallacy is sadly misapplied. It's, to borrow a phrase from Ted, sophomoric, especially in light of the fact that you commit that very fallacy in the very post in which you accuse me of creating a straw man. Every statement you make is no where found or inferred in any of my posts.
1. I never say that socialism and communism is the same thing. Though they are closely related and one (socialism) leads into the other (communism) and they both have the same economic intent (no private property). I also never said that left/liberal/socialist/communist is the same. I used those terms to describe all the aspects of the Dem party.
2. I never said that socialized medicine=communism. I did say, however, that what the Dems want to do is have the government take over a free enterprise system, the health care system. Our system is already much socialized, transitioning it to fully government controlled would be a simple step into communism.
3. Socialized medicine is not the only socialist aspect of Canada. As an interesting little historical example of other socialist/communist aspect of Canada, check out the story of Casa Loma. It's a sad story but a perfect example of the socialist/communist policies of Canada in a nutshell.
Yes, the Dems want to outlaw all private property, accept as it benefits them, just like communism in Russia, the haves kept what they had, and took from those who had less. Communism is a sinful tactic used to benefit some at the expense of the rest in the name of the reverse. To understand better, read Animal Farm, and then you should get it. It all comes down to our sinful human nature.
Of course the Democrats, the slick ones, are smart enough to disguise there true intentions behind rhetoric that "says" they are doing it to care for the poor, middle-class, environment, etc. It's called eat the rich. Look that phrase up and then you should get it.
Again, just like communism has been played out in other parts of the world, it is a tool to subjugate the masses to the state. This is what the Dems want, whether overtly or covertly, whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether deviously or ignorantly. This is there party platform:
High taxes on higher incomes (socialist)
Greater government control of education, health care, media, etc. (communist)
The party started entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc.)
The nicest of men can cause the worst of outcomes with the best of intentions.
I'll ask you again, even though you've shown that you don't answer questions, would you rather I use ultra-left websites like the DailyKos or simply left leaning liberal sources like the MSM?
Perhaps you are confusing me with some other poster, because I've never responded the way you try to characterize my responses.
I, being Christian, will pray for your salvation.
Why don't the moderators accurately and biblically "tie-off" these threads? Why are ignorant, non-Christians like Andrew and the like allowed to propagate lies unencumbered? They could actually be believed by nondiscerning Christians who happen across this blog. That totally flies in the face of the stated purpose of this blog. Why would you allow for sinful philosophies to be posted unchallenged? There should be conclusions to the threads. They shouldn't simply be pushed off the first page by new threads.
It seems like OP's just go up with little thought after the fact. The exceptions being Ted, Tom and Motte.
Conclusions to threads should be made and if the posts go off topic put them in a new thread.
I've been told that the moderators spend very little time on this blog, THEN WHY HAVE THE MINISTRY?
We should not do thing half-hearted in the name of the Lord.
If you're going to minister through this blog, it should be full time and done completely, NOT just as an add-on to your regular duties.
11. Ellie said the following at 4:03 PM on Jan 27:
I like puppies.
12. Jo said the following at 4:21 PM on Jan 27:
Nicely done, Ted. :P
13. Paul said the following at 4:53 PM on Jan 27:
I'm with k. Ted, I thought boundless was opposed to over-drinking... ;-)
14. Rachael said the following at 6:20 PM on Jan 27:
Hi John,
Re: the close of your comment.
I believe Boundless ministers to a lot of people through this blog and through its articles.
Our comments are moderated. Ted and other blog writers DO post responses in addition to their faithfully writing blog posts for this ministry. It is clear that the contributors devote a LOT of time to this blog. And how BRAVE of them to continually post articles even though the viewpoints sometimes/often get attacked.
I'm certain they don't agree with all of the commenters or tones that come through on this blog. However, they are allowing for an open forum for the exchange of ideas. It's quite clear that the commenters don't all agree with each other and with the staff. I understand your concern for people who read this who may lack discernment in their beliefs; that is indeed wonderful for you to care for others in that manner. To that I would say, though, to remember that God can still work in peoples' hearts and lead them to develop a spirit of discernment for the truth even though they'll be exposed to varying (including..."wrong") viewpoints on certain matters. Often (not always) the matters that people disagree with on here are peripheral matters or grey areas. And as for the really important issues...remember that God is ultimately in charge and can steer people in the right path even though we'll happen across confusion and sin.
Remember...in all things, let us seek to love...even when we disagree. Even when we don't understand some things. Even when we are concerned about certain issues...
Blessings!
Rachael
15. Matthew said the following at 7:27 PM on Jan 27:
I wish that I could come up with something thoughtful to say to John, but that would be feeding the troll.
I was really disappointed that this wasn't a post about Watchmen.
and you forgot about submission and headship, Ted! Silly goose.
16. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 7:33 PM on Jan 27:
John:
...
...
...
...huh?
17. EmmaLee said the following at 7:38 PM on Jan 27:
I have to say... I'm a little uncomfortable with those extraterrestrials which support capital punishment. Perhaps we can use Tom Cruise's sway with them?
18. farmer Tom said the following at 8:21 PM on Jan 27:
I think maybe it's to late to be reading at Boundless. My emotions are getting the best of me. That was one of the most beautifully written paragraphs I've ever seen, I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS.
19. Chris said the following at 8:42 PM on Jan 27:
So lemme get this straight:
If Republican Nazi puppies who tend to vote Democratic would just marry young, it would solve all social justice problems and even global warming.
Oh, and according to John, Canadian Boy has an E ticket for the roller coaster to hell.
Did I miss anything?
Bonus points if you understand the E ticket reference.
20. k. said the following at 8:54 PM on Jan 27:
John - When you make an issue of someone's spelling, you probably shouldn't follow it with "...it is not neither a command .... You're last statement is so asinine as to not merit any sort of response.” Umm, right back at you.
You frequently question others' educational backgrounds, spirituality, reading skills, and general intelligence levels. You rarely engage with the debate at hand, preferring to personally attack people instead. And that's a shame. When a debate is done in the right way (civilly and rationally), it's constructive and worthwhile. You can profoundly (and heatedly!) disagree with someone, yet still treat them with respect. While this is an ongoing lesson for all of us (I know I've fallen short in this, many times), you seem to have never even heard of the concept.
You know, one of these days, you’re going to be sharing heaven with a wide variety of people. And, as C. S. Lewis illustrated in The Last Battle, you’ll probably be surprised at who makes it in. You might practice getting used to that now – because, like it or not, you and I are going to be sharing heaven someday. So are Ted, and Motte, and Suzanne, and Andrew, and Jethro, and sassy sister, and a host of others who profess faith in Christ. And we won't be prying up those precious stones and heaving them at each other, either. We don't have to agree here on earth (fortunately)...but it doesn't hurt to remember that, ultimately, we're on the same side.
21. Fred said the following at 8:58 PM on Jan 27:
Andrew,
Didn't you just prove John's point?
22. Alex C. said the following at 11:39 PM on Jan 27:
*reads post*
wha!?! O_O. *brain melts*
That was the most random post ever. All I can think of to say is...AAML forever!
23. BDB said the following at 11:40 PM on Jan 27:
Hmmmm...this one looks like ink poured on paper, then the paper was folded together...kind of like the last one...
Can I draw a picture of a house instead? I'm going to Home Depot after this assessment...
24. Keb said the following at 12:17 AM on Jan 28:
Kittens are far cuter than puppies.
I think the puppies are conspiring with the nazis and the extraterrestrial aliens to keep me (and half the readers of this blog) from getting married as we're supposed to, as well.
Which was the entire thrust of this entry, as anyone can plainly see.
Can anyone tell me why I see more dinosaurs in the clouds than anything else?
25. Peter Wells said the following at 6:55 AM on Jan 28:
John,
Obviously you had a bit of trouble identifying that I was being entirely facetious.
Given that you're so stereotypically conservative and treat what is now considered to be pointless rhetoric so seriously, it was pretty obvious that it didn't matter what any of us argued, your standard answer was going to be that you are right and we are godless communists who should not be listened to.
I'm more that happy to 'grow' in wisdom. However, I'm more than happy to remain a 'sad example' if it means that I don't accept extremist neo-conservative nonsense. I'm equally against a revisionist view of history, and I see no sense in apologizing for the actions of our forebears.
I hate to break it to you, but God is not a Republican. Nor is He a Democrat. God is not partisan. I'm getting sick of arguing politics and social justice here and having the whole thing reduce to a Republican vs. Democrat debate. That kind of argument is entirely pointless.
I really want to argue some of the points that you've made, John, but it's obvious that you hold such a low view of me that any attempts to do so would be worthless on my part. I don't even want to have to start to correct you on you assumptions about my 'communist' upbringing and how 'close minded' I am.
It seems that a lot of your self-righteousness (and that's how it comes across, which is why Andrew is probably reacting so badly) is disguising fear. I hope that I'm wrong, I hope that you don't fear different ideas. I hope you don't discount failures, because that's how our civilization has made progress.
God bless you, my Brother. I respect the knowledge you have of the Bible. I'm guessing you're probably a little older than the rest of us here on the blog, and you've probably had more opportunity than I to read the great book. But I should point out that just as my circumstances mean I read things a certain 'communist' way, you too will read that book differently as a result of your circumstances. The Bible has been used to justify a lot of plain old misguided and even evil things in the past, and I think we need to be aware of that before we bandy it's verses around in order to justify our arguments. I hope you don't take this to mean I think the Bible is worthless. I mean to say that I believe it has a context that dictates where it should be used.
Anyway, I've written more than I intended. Hopefully none of this will come back to bight me too badly :P
26. kman said the following at 7:01 AM on Jan 28:
LOL.
Ted I started reading the entry without looking at the Author line and thought "I be t Ted Slater wrote this."
:)
27. dana111 said the following at 7:13 AM on Jan 28:
Some of you guys take things WAY too seriously... seriously.
28. P&P said the following at 7:16 AM on Jan 28:
Mixing cold medicine and computers is a bad thing. Don't do NyQuil shots and type.
29. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 7:57 AM on Jan 28:
Fred,
I was not aware that John had a point.
Ted,
Great post. Very stream-of-conscience-esque.
Everyone,
Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure I am a Christian. I consider myself to be one. The following is true:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
born of the Virgin Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
See? I'm pro-Christ. Just in case someone would believe otherwise.
30. Steven said the following at 9:02 AM on Jan 28:
After reading this, I'm thinking Focus on the Family needs to review its drug screening policy.
31. Elizabeth said the following at 9:43 AM on Jan 28:
Ted Slater has mastered the art of Satire. I approve.
32. Sarah P. said the following at 9:47 AM on Jan 28:
I am 24 and single, and I think global warming is just as good to blame for that as anything else. I would blame the puppies, but they're too cute.
33. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 28:
We could use some anthropogenic global warming. I'm getting sick of these cold winters.
34. Tami said the following at 10:38 AM on Jan 28:
I'm still single. Maybe it's because I'm a brunette and under 5-foot-6. Global warming made me that way.
I also blame all this on the Food Network, for ditching Sara Moulton and Mario Batali, and in their places rerunning "30 Minute Meals" and "Dive Bars, Drive-Throughs, and Dirty Dishes" twenty million times a week.
[Well, it makes as much sense as anything else here!]
35. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:43 AM on Jan 28:
Steven: I agree. Whatever Ted is smoking, it needs to be legalized. That should be Ron Paul's first act as President.
36. John said the following at 11:14 AM on Jan 28:
Hahahaha
LOL
:)
37. whs said the following at 12:57 PM on Jan 28:
I want to know more about the aliens. : )
38. Alex C. said the following at 1:19 PM on Jan 28:
I agree with Keb. Kittens are waaaay cuter than puppies!
39. John said the following at 1:30 PM on Jan 28:
For yer all's reading pleasure:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/01/28/history_shows_joe_mccarthys_reputation_is_undeserved
(Yes, I spend too much time on both website!)
40. Tami said the following at 1:33 PM on Jan 28:
E-ticket? Isn't that what you need to get on a plane these days? Or, at least, need if you want to go to Country Bear Jamboree. :)
41. Jo said the following at 2:04 PM on Jan 28:
Peter Wells said to John: "I'm guessing you're probably a little older than the rest of us here on the blog"
I don't get that impression at all. I've always guessed (hoped) he's my age or younger. Question is, how old am I? Actually I think I've answered that elsewhere, oh well.
42. sc said the following at 2:44 PM on Jan 28:
i'm 28 and still single. heck, i've pretty much only ever been single. i blame dr. cloud, josh harris, debbie maken, elisabeth elliott, and nancy leigh demoss (spelling? i can't quite remember her name). anyways, with all of those radically different dating and relating philosophies rolling around in my head it's a wonder i can get up and get dressed every day.
43. Ted Slater said the following at 2:52 PM on Jan 28:
Andrew R. -- you wrote that you concur with the following: "He descended into hell."
Define "hell."
44. Eliza said the following at 3:02 PM on Jan 28:
Ted--
Is that the criteria with which you are going to determine Andrew R.'s salvation ;)?
45. Sara said the following at 3:03 PM on Jan 28:
Oh, man. Impressive and refreshing, but--have mercy--this is too much painful self-awareness to be forced on a Monday! I'm ashamed (though not surprised) that my response was first contempt for the people who 'fell for it', then feeling stupid for not realizing right off that ALL responses are equally revealing, and then finally noting my own familiar, tired response of amateur analysis, anxious feelings, fiddling with words, and general solipcism. Ugh. How meta can you get?
This SO reminds me of a part in (psychiatrist) Robert Cole's "The Mind's Fate" where he talks about our modern obsession with monitering our our mental "stages" and "phases" and "moods" to the point that we focus as closely on them, heaven help us, as we do the Stations of the Cross.
You people who take posts like this quickly and lightly and with a sense of humour, you impress me!
46. Fred said the following at 3:53 PM on Jan 28:
Andrew,
One of the claims John made was that you don't like answering questions.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 5:22 PM on Jan 28:
Eliza -- I've received a few comments about Heather's blog post on hell, and Gary Thomas's article on hell. I've found myself thinking more about it as a result, and am interested in hearing others' thoughts as well. It is notable that it's referenced in the very ancient Apostle's Creed....
48. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 5:54 PM on Jan 28:
Fred,
Yeah, and he's lying. I've answered his questions, just with answers he doesn't like. He's made it clear that he's not talking to me again, so I see no point in responding to him.
Ted,
Not only do I not know the definition of "hell," I now question the Biblical backing behind Jesus descending into Hell. Is it in any of the Gospels.
I know when I was a kid I viewed it as Him going into Hell and He cleanses it and saves everyone from it, essentially destroying it. But now... hmm... you got me there.
I'll be pondering this all night.
Oh, and if anyone wants a cute overload:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/01/26/von.germany.polar.bear.cub.ap?iref=videosearch
49. Becks said the following at 8:30 PM on Jan 28:
John - what have you eaten? I can't believe somebody who can write whole sentences can actually hold ideas such as the ones you profess.
Regarding a public hand in health care: undust your economics textbook, read up on: public goods, private goods, meritorial goods, as well as externalities, rivalry and excludability - and then you should hopefully get it. And you will see that most of your blurb is painfully unscientific, despite your attempts to make it sound otherwise.
I'll pray for your salvation too.
Love, Becks
50. Rachael said the following at 11:18 PM on Jan 28:
I am also curious about why the hell part is in the Apostle's Creed, and I would like to learn more about this doctrine. While it's possible that I may have accidentally uttered that part of the creed before with a congregation, I am not sure if He actually went down to hell as we think of it. Maybe the "hell" in that creed doesn't necessarily mean "hell" as we know it?
51. Matthew Speights said the following at 2:24 AM on Jan 29:
Keb,
I agree that the kittens are cuter, but some have to be Nazi collaborators.
If you see a lot of dinosaurs in the clouds, all I can say is lock your doors and get a gun...a .50 caliber. Then watch Jurassic Park for pointers.
52. John said the following at 5:40 AM on Jan 29:
Fred,
"I was not aware that John had a point."
That says it all. People like that don't have any substance, just avoidance strategies. They don't address arguments directly, they avoid them.
Or they really are so ignorant as not to be able to see truth when it is right infront of them.
We shouldn't be suprised, though, God's word tells us that the prince of the this world blinds the lost and makes them deaf to Him and His people.
53. John said the following at 5:53 AM on Jan 29:
Another thing non-believers and liberals like to do is redefine words to suit their purpose.
For example: the word "troll" as it applies to the internet and forums is defined as a person who goes to websites simply to stir up commotion by posting contrary ideas simply for the sake of creating commotion.
Obviously, I do not fit that definition.
Matt, are you aware of the logical fallacy you are committing.
Let me help you out, it's called, in English, "attack the man".
Because you are unable to address the points, you "attack the man", thereby, in your mind, "winning" the argument, as so many here like to do. But you see, it's not about winning, and even if it were, your attempt at attacking me was extremely silly, especially since you tried to label me with a term that does not even apply to me.
Your label is for posters like Jethro.
54. John said the following at 6:22 AM on Jan 29:
k.
Ah, poor k., another example of not addressing points directly, but simply focusing on spelling and grammar.
Some people just can't help but find something to hide behind.
It is a shame that for so many this is a place to "win" or "have the last word".
Here, let me show you how to directly address people's points:
"You frequently question others' educational backgrounds, spirituality, reading skills, and general intelligence levels."
When have I ever done any of what you say? I never question anyone's any of these. I point out that people misread what I post, but apart from that none of your assertions are even remotely close to anything I've ever done on this blog.
"You rarely engage with the debate at hand, preferring to personally attack people instead."
Again, not true. Show me an example. I should warn you first, you would waste your time trying to find an example, because it isn't there. I always engage with the debate at hand, as I am doing right now, and I never commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
"When a debate is done in the right way (civilly and rationally), it's constructive and worthwhile."
Amen!
"You can profoundly (and heatedly!) disagree with someone, yet still treat them with respect."
Amen!
"While this is an ongoing lesson for all of us (I know I've fallen short in this, many times),"
Yes you have.
"you seem to have never even heard of the concept. "
Clearly I have, because I argue exactly the way you desribe.
"You know, one of these days, you’re going to be sharing heaven with a wide variety of people. "
Amen!
"And, as C. S. Lewis illustrated in The Last Battle, you’ll probably be surprised at who makes it in."
C.S. Lewis was a great apologist, but so is Prof. Bud and he professes Roman Catholicism. So quoting C. S. Lewis doesn't strengthen the point. I won't be surprised at who makes it in, whoever is saved will make it in. Period.
"You might practice getting used to that now – because, like it or not, you and I are going to be sharing heaven someday."
If this is true, than we wouldn't be is such disagreement now OR you're just not reading my posts properly.
"So are Ted, and Motte, and Suzanne, and Andrew, and Jethro, and sassy sister, and a host of others who profess faith in Christ."
Wrong. The bible even tells us that many who profess his name won't be true believers.
Do you really believe someone can hold unbiblical, sinful ideas AND be saved? I'm talking about commission here, not omission. Jerry Falwell's ex-ghost writer believes homosexuality is okay, is a homosexual activist AND believes he's saved. Do you agree?
"And we won't be prying up those precious stones and heaving them at each other, either."
This is true.
We don't have to agree here on earth (fortunately)...but it doesn't hurt to remember that, ultimately, we're on the same side."
It depends on what you mean we don't have to agree about. There are certain fundamental beliefs that, if not agreed upon, means we're not on the same side.
55. John said the following at 7:06 AM on Jan 29:
"Obviously you had a bit of trouble identifying that I was being entirely facetious."
Obviously you did a poor job of that.
"Given that you're so stereotypically conservative and treat what is now considered to be pointless rhetoric so seriously, it was pretty obvious that it didn't matter what any of us argued, your standard answer was going to be that you are right and we are godless communists who should not be listened to."
Where did I say any such thing?
Quick answer-I didn't
What's this called? That's right, straw man!
"I'm more that happy to 'grow' in wisdom."
Apparently not.
"However, I'm more than happy to remain a 'sad example' if it means that I don't accept extremist neo-conservative nonsense."
Good for you. I'm not an extreme neo-conservative myself. So that's good.
"I'm equally against a revisionist view of history, and I see no sense in apologizing for the actions of our forebears."
Good for you.
"I hate to break it to you, but God is not a Republican. Nor is He a Democrat. God is not partisan. I'm getting sick of arguing politics and social justice here and having the whole thing reduce to a Republican vs. Democrat debate. That kind of argument is entirely pointless."
I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are Godless, and the Republicans are not far behind, unfortunately. That's why, the arguments end up coming down to partisan differences. THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT IDEALS. But it is good to know that you understand God is not a registered voter:)
"I really want to argue some of the points that you've made, John, but it's obvious that you hold such a low view of me that any attempts to do so would be worthless on my part."
Quite the contrary. That's what I am hoping for anyone here to do, it's the lack of good constructive argumentation that is lamentable on the part of the liberals who post here. So, by all means, address the points.
"I don't even want to have to start to correct you on you assumptions about my 'communist' upbringing and how 'close minded' I am."
Did you go to a government school? If you don't want to hear truth, than that is the definition of "close minded".
"It seems that a lot of your self-righteousness (and that's how it comes across, which is why Andrew is probably reacting so badly) is disguising fear. I hope that I'm wrong, I hope that you don't fear different ideas."
Non-believers react badly to the Word of God, that's the falling nature of man. I fear God and nothing else. What do you mean by "different ideas"? Non-biblical, unchristian, sinful or whether to sing contemporary vs. traditional worship music? The latter is not a big issue for me, of course the former is.
"I hope you don't discount failures, because that's how our civilization has made progress"
Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
"God bless you, my Brother"
Unless you just don't understand what I've posted, we're not brothers.
"I'm guessing you're probably a little older than the rest of us here on the blog, and you've probably had more opportunity than I to read the great book. But I should point out that just as my circumstances mean I read things a certain 'communist' way, you too will read that book differently as a result of your circumstances. "
As it concerns certain important truths from His revelation, "interpretation" is irrelevant. Truth is truth. We all have blind spots, but it is important to make sure God is removing them from us so that we get His truth unadulterated.
"The Bible has been used to justify a lot of plain old misguided and even evil things in the past, and I think we need to be aware of that before we bandy it's verses around in order to justify our arguments."
Amen! Doesn't apply to what I've posted, if you mean to refute anything I've stated, but it is true nonetheless.
"I hope you don't take this to mean I think the Bible is worthless. I mean to say that I believe it has a context that dictates where it should be used."
What is that context? Would you care to elaborate?
56. John said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 29:
Rachael,
The fact that the moderators didn't even post a replay to my comments nor email me, as I have asked, shows that they either don't care or are too busy to give this blog the proper attention.
They almost always just post thread after thread after thread, with no conclusion to previous threads. I know not all things can have conclusions, nice and neat, but many can. Topics should be carefully considered, chewed on and discussed, not just thrown out there to allow people to post whatever without addressing seriously misguided arguments that are clearly unbiblical.
A ministry like this is a full time job, not something to be done as an add on. I requires to much time and attention to be done right for it not to be full time.
57. Eliza said the following at 7:30 AM on Jan 29:
Ah, fair 'nuff, Ted :).
58. Adam T. said the following at 9:41 AM on Jan 29:
Oh, and if anyone wants a cute overload:
Cute. But did you see the other video on there, the one about stealing kidneys from the poor? That's sick.
59. Tami said the following at 9:52 AM on Jan 29:
Hey Canadian Boy -- That has puzzled me too. I just saw this in my studies this morning. Maybe it's some insight for both of us. :)
In some NT translations, "Hades" (Strong's G86) -- defined by scholar Spiros Zodhiates as "the region of departed spirits of the lost, including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ (Lk. 16:23)" -- was mistranslated as "hell." ["Geenna" (Strong's G1067) = hell, "the place or state of the lost and condemned".] So it follows that Jesus descended into Hades, and rescued those who were in Him (i.e., those who believed in Him and His future coming) but died prior to His death and resurrection.
[I love my "Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible"!]
60. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:18 AM on Jan 29:
:::begin sarcasm:::
It's in the Apostles' Creed. Ergo it must be true.
:::end sarcasm:::
61. KC said the following at 11:40 AM on Jan 29:
Here's a couple sites that addresses the doctrine of Jesus' descent into Hell.
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/descend.html
The second one has a good bibliography at the end of it.
The chief thing to keep in mind, I think, is that the Greek word translated as "hell" isn't Gehenna or Tartarus but simply a word that means "the lowest things" (i.e. the tomb or the earth). So it might be better translated "He descended into the lowest parts." But I could be wrong. Let me know what you think.
62. KC said the following at 11:53 AM on Jan 29:
Rats! Tami beat me to it! Hooray for Greek and Hebrew Bibles!
What really intrigues me about the Apostles' Creed is that the word translated for "hell" isn't even Hades, though it might be synonymous with it. The word in question is τα κατώτατα, which my Liddell & Scott lexicon defines as simply as the superlative "the lowest."
You can find another good discussion of the terms "Hades" here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.i.i.html
Here's a question I'll throw out: where does the English word "hell" come from? Why do we use it instead of Gehenna or Tartarus?
63. Tami said the following at 12:44 PM on Jan 29:
Thanks for the added insight, KC! Including both your sources, I think we've done some triangulation to support our theses. :)
From the Online Etymological Dictionary (www.etymonline.com) (hope it's OK to quote!):
O.E. hel, helle "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *khaljo (cf. O.Fris. helle, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place," from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell). The Eng. word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *khalija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology Loki's daughter, who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"), a death aspect of the three-fold goddess.
As to why we use "Hell"? I place that on Ye Olde King James. :)
64. Becca said the following at 1:42 PM on Jan 29:
While we're playing editor, I'd like to point out that ad hominem does not actually mean "attack the man" in English, but rather "to/toward the man" - or, in its full form, argumentum ad hominem, "argument to/against the man".
The Wikipedia article is worth reading - it seems there are a variety of subtypes of this particular rhetorical device.
Ah, AP English Language...
65. k. said the following at 4:53 PM on Jan 29:
John -- If criticizing others' grammar and spelling is unacceptable, then why did you do it to Peter? You corrected his spelling and then told him his statement was asinine -- it's fair game to point out that so is your grammar. If you're not prepared to have your own words scrutinized, then don't nitpick over others' errors.
Are you still sore about my comment that you entered a battle of wits, unarmed? A battle of wits isn't a real battle, you know...that saying just means that when you engage in a debate, don't go in unprepared. Which, during that particular discussion, you did. That happens to all of us at some point -- just shrug it off and move on.
Of course a debate isn't about winning...and it's certainly not about having the last word. As I told my debate students, if you've ably defended your views while attacking the other person's arguments (NOT the person), then you've done your job.
You asked for examples of when you've attacked someone personally, or questioned their spirituality, or insulted their intelligence. Certainly. You've said:
And that's in just one comment!
Do you seriously think that you are treating people here with respect and civility? Seriously?
66. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 8:16 PM on Jan 29:
k.,
I think you need to add an "o" to your name.
(As in "ko." or "knock out.")
(No?)
(Well, I thought it was funny)
67. k. said the following at 9:09 PM on Jan 29:
Andrew - thanks. ;)
68. k. said the following at 10:10 PM on Jan 29:
John -- Also, it's worth pointing out that it is NONE of my business (or yours either) to run around assessing who's Christian, and who isn't. God's the only one who knows that for sure. While I might be very skeptical (and I am) that people like Ted Bundy are going to be singing in the alleluia chorus, I don't know that. And, short of serial killers and genocidal tyrants, I'm leery of even going there...I *certainly* don't sit here and question whether other posters are really Christian. For one thing, it doesn't matter...God isn't twiddling His thumbs, saying, Hmm, I think this person is Christian, but what does k. say? When He judges Mel White, He won't be soliciting your input, either.
The Pharisees spent a lot of time discussing and observing laws...they loved to keep an eye on other people's sins. But you already know about the bad press they got from Jesus for that: among other things, He said they were extremely good at following the rules, while neglecting the more important matters of the law—-justice, mercy and faithfulness.
Honestly, that should make you stop and think before you go around slamming other posters and offering to pray for their salvation.
69. John said the following at 5:25 AM on Jan 30:
Becks,
I'm already saved sweatheart. So don't waste your prayers. I've never given any reason to think otherwise on this blog, so you should be more careful when you make statements like that.
Socialized medicine is still bad. Sorry if you don't like that.
70. John said the following at 5:49 AM on Jan 30:
"John -- If criticizing others' grammar and spelling is unacceptable, then why did you do it to Peter? You corrected his spelling and then told him his statement was asinine -- it's fair game to point out that so is your grammar. If you're not prepared to have your own words scrutinized, then don't nitpick over others' errors. "
I didn't "nitpick" anything, I quoted his post. The statement that a refered to as asinine had to do with the fact that it made no sense. Perhaps, technically, a grammatical issue, but really, for me, more of a meaning issue.
I would never "attack" or focus on spelling and grammar, especially since both of mine are lacking to a degree that I'm not proud of. My grammar is better than my spelling, but I need a lot of improvement in my spelling.
So, again, you're mistaken.
"Are you still sore about my comment that you entered a battle of wits, unarmed? A battle of wits isn't a real battle, you know...that saying just means that when you engage in a debate, don't go in unprepared. Which, during that particular discussion, you did. That happens to all of us at some point -- just shrug it off and move on. "
LOL. Two words for you, arrogance and naive. If it makes you feel better to think that you "win" arguments, than be happy, but you'll never mature that way. You'll miss lots of opportunities to for growth, which, by that statement shows not only your insecurities but also your immaturity.
"Of course a debate isn't about winning...and it's certainly not about having the last word. As I told my debate students, if you've ably defended your views while attacking the other person's arguments (NOT the person), then you've done your job."
You say this, but you don't do it.
"You asked for examples of when you've attacked someone personally, or questioned their spirituality, or insulted their intelligence. Certainly."
I only asked for examples of when I've attacked someone personally. Questions about questioning spirituality or insulting intelligence have never been asked on my part. Which most likely negates your list, but we'll check it out anyway.
You've said:
Peter is a "sad example" (Attacking him personally.)
I did not say Peter was a "sad example", I said his post and arguments were sad examples.
"Good job being a parrot." (Attacking him personally.)
Wow, you really don't know what a personal attack is. Saying someone is parrating others is not a personal attack, but a statement of opinion, which, I believe or I would not have said it, is probably true.
"You're last statement is so asinine..." (Attacking his intelligence.)
No, again, addressing his statement. Intelligent people can make very asinine statements.
"...your unbiblical, unchristian and sinful ideas" (Attacking his spirituality.)
Man, I'm glad you posted a short list, this is tiresome. Otra vez, I'm making a statement about his ideas, which I later state that there is a disconnect with someone espousing such ideas and claiming Christ.
"I, being Christian, will pray for your salvation." (Attacking his spirituality...and, in the process, reeking of pride and self-righteousness.)
The only thing that reeks is your reading comprehension and emotional projection. I'm making it clear that I am a believer who will pray for him, since, it is something he likes to state often, even though he is not saved.
"...Why are ignorant, non-Christians like Andrew and the like..." (A triple whammy: attacking Andrew personally, attacking his intelligence, and attacking his spirituality)
Ignorant used in its true meaning, meaning not knowing, not as an insult. I can see where this might be taken the wrong way. My assessment of him is not a personal attack, but simply that, an assessment based on his unbiblical beliefs. No mention of intelligence there and I've already addressed the spirituality statements.
I am truthful and direct. People don't like that, that doesn't mean I'm not being civil or disrespectful.
71. John said the following at 5:57 AM on Jan 30:
"John -- Also, it's worth pointing out that it is NONE of my business (or yours either) to run around assessing who's Christian, and who isn't. "
You're right, but I will "go around" assessing statements as biblical or unbiblical and help point out where someone is incongruent with their professed beliefs, ESPECIALLY ON A PUBLIC FORUM!
If you're so concerned, you SHOULD stop and think before you try to "rebuke" me and really read what I've been posting.
I'm countering unbiblical philosophies that are espoused by individuals claiming Christ. THAT is biblical.
You're trying to prevent me from doing that. What does that say about you?
I've not "slammed" anybody, but I will, as the Word tells us to do, continue to counter the arguments of the world.
Lastly, try to avoid straw man argumentation. Almost everything you've stated and attributed to me has nothing to do with my message.
72. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 9:38 AM on Jan 30:
John,
you said Why don't the moderators accurately and biblically "tie-off" these threads?
They certainly have a right to do that, as the owners of the site, but I don't think they should. Here's why:
One of the defining features of protestant churches is that there is no one (except the Lord) who has the "final say". This is at once one of the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of protestant churches. Greatest strength because each believer is free to come to his/her own understanding of the Bible, instead of being required to accept what the priests/pope says (note to Catholic readers: I'm talking pre-Reformation here). Greatest weakness because a multiplicity of interpretations can (and have) arise, which can interfere with unity--and truth.
This is no insult to the Boundless editors, but I don't think any of them have the authority to say "This is the last word, and all Christians must accept it."
Scripture needs to be interpretted, and there are some places where the task of interpreting is difficult enough that differing views have arisen. Some of these debates (between genuine Christians), will more than likely last until Jesus returns. Such as pre-millenialism vs. post-millenialism (that seemed like an apt example).
Of course one position must be correct (and the others false), but until this corruptible puts on the incorruptible, I don't think all Christians will reach agreement on all issues. Those of us who have accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and been born again through faith in Him are true Christians even if we get some of our theology and politics wrong.
Consider that when the apostle Paul wrote to Christians with mistaken beliefs or practices he still addressed them as "brothers."
73. John said the following at 8:26 AM on Feb 1:
This should make for some good discussion.
I haven't studied it thoroughly, just came upon it from a simple google search, but from a general skimming, it makes a good case against sinful socialism and communism.
http://www.intouchmission.org/biblical_principles_government.htm
74. Fred said the following at 9:18 PM on Feb 2:
Hi Andrew,
I realise you might not read this and I apologise for responding late but you said,
"Fred,
Yeah, and he's lying. I've answered his questions, just with answers he doesn't like. He's made it clear that he's not talking to me again, so I see no point in responding to him."
I can appreciate that (I don't know who is right) but the problem was that you did respond by saying
"John:
...
...
...
...huh?"
Hence why I said something.
Hi John, I apologise for the late response.
You said, "That says it all. People like that don't have any substance, just avoidance strategies. They don't address arguments directly, they avoid them."
The problem is that alot of people don't post on blogs to debate, they just want to have their say which does get really frustrating. Just keep praying about the right way to respond.
75. J.Wo said the following at 8:01 AM on Apr 16:
Ted, while your post was pretty funny, I find this never ending "debate" between John, Andrew, K. and others hilarious! They are arguing over such silly, silly things and it doesn't seem like anyone can be the bigger person and just give up the last word. While the comedy of this virtual exchange is so entertaining, real life is calling. So, I am now signing off to go and do my best at being a living example of Christ to my husband and two young boys. And we're all going to have some new friends, a young, single mother and her son who do not know Jesus, over for lunch and some playtime. Hopefully the joy we bask in as children of the King will spill over onto Jess and Jayden while they're with us, and we will have allowed Christ to use us to get His work done.
76. niki said the following at 8:57 AM on Apr 18:
Can someone unpack the element of humour associated with the idea of Nazism? I don't get it.
77. Lola said the following at 9:56 AM on Apr 18:
I pray that The Lord will continue to sanctify and unite us all.