Lover of Experience over Biblical Authority: "I think I'll post on a RM site today and try to convey how wrong everybody is about how they do church."

Lover of Experience over Biblical Authority's RM Post: There is no such thing in the Bible as apostleship, just in case you wanted to know.

Other RM posters: Why would you say something like that?

Lover of Experience over Biblical Authority's Post in response: "I will not acknowledge your mean spirited posts anymore."

Other RM posters: But we just wanted to know what you were talking about.

silence.....

Lover of Experience over Biblical Authority: I think I'll post a new thread and let all those male-chauvanists know that I know more about Scripture than they do.

WELL, YOU GET THE PICTURE....

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000

Answers

Michael......GREAT POST!!!!!!

John....if you want such a forum go to www.LiberalDemocrats.com....because whether you are or not....that's what your post sounded like.

A forum is supposed to a battlefield of ideas (otherwise, how does one ever come to truth)?

Might I remind you of the words of Jude 3 "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered."

The Greek word for "contend" is "to brawl or fight." The word was often time used of the sparring that went on in a ranky, stinky, gym.

I'm afraid the church of our day would rather "Switch....than fight."

Really John, your post has more of the current American culture in it....rather than Bible.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2000

One more thing John,

It is impossible for two people to ever come to agreement when one does not take biblical authority seriously.

In a very talented and humorous way.....Michael's post points this out.

Another sign of our current American culture.....the inablity to laugh. Lighten up.

And I might ask.....Nelta has been doing this for A LONG TIME.....why did you wait until now to post your displeasure, especially under the thread of an individual who takes biblical authority very seriously??

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2000

Just to show you how much of a gentleman I am.....

I graciously disagree with both John and Kathy.....but I'm doing it with a smiley face. :o)

I still say the sentiment reeks too much of current American culture.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

By the way Nelta.....

Notice the equal opportunity disagreement......

I disagreed with both the lovely Kathy Combs (a female).....and John Wilson (a male).

See....I can disagree equally with people of both gender!

Sorry John....I've never seen you in person so I can't tell whether you are lovely or not.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Sure Nate.....

From Webster's...."Reek"...."Vapor...or steam".....thus a smell exudes from.

My point being.....that this....as well as so much other love sentiment I hear reeks of current American culture.

Watch any of the T.V. news talks shows....to disagree with homosexuality.....means your're a "homo-phobe".....to disagree with welfare...means your're for starving widows and children.....to disagree with affirmative action....means you're a racist....ad naseum.

I get the feeling from a number of statements that have been made....that to disagree (no matter how nicefully done) is equal to...."non-love."

I could not agree more that we deal with each other in love. And I Cor. 13 teaches us that "Love rejoices in THE truth."

I also agree with Jesus who said the greatest commandment is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength." To love the Lord with all my mind means....with all my thought processes....I must love the Lord and His truth.

The SECOND greatest commandment is to "love my neighbor as myself."

You see, love of truth is even more important (Jesus said it Himself)....than loving my neighbor.

In fact, I cannot love my neighbor correctly according to biblical standards until I first love God and His truth.

So again.....I have no problems when things getting heated. In fact, I challenge you to read Acts 15 (the Council of Jerusalem) and the debate that took place there, and after reading certain words there in the text, not come away with the feeling there was some serious, heated debate.

That's what I mean.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Nate....

To love the Lord my God "with all my....mind"......necessitates, logically, that I love His word...(i.e., His truth).

How could I love the Lord with all my mind.....and yet say...."but that part of His word I do not agree with?"...i.e., I have allowed a part of my mind to think that it is acceptable to reject part of his truth. Could this be what Paul was getting at when in Colossians he states, in essence, "Let every thought be captive to Christ?"

So in order for me to say that my mind is in subjection to Christ....it must be in subjection to his truth, and in order to be in subjection to it....I must love it.

Let me break it down in simplistic terms....

God's word says that homosexuality is an abomination.

But....in the name of love.....I say to a homosexual....it's OK....God accepts you in spite of who you are.

Have I not broken the Greatest Commandment.....to love the Lord God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength?? And even though I did it falsely in the name of "love"......I still broke the commandment.

However, if I would have kept the greatest commandment.....I would have said......"I'm sorry....but you are wrong....your lifestyle is wrong....and unless you repent....you have no hope of eternal life."

With that last statement.....I fulfilled both commandments.

What I see today Nate in modern American Church culture......is so much concern about the second.....they are willing to sacrifice the first....and in God's eyes....both have been broken....because "love rejoices in the truth."

To me it is abundantly clear and the result of sound exegesis.

However, I cannot claim originiality with that. It came from Dr. Jack Cottrell in his Book...."The Authority of God's Word."

If I'm not making it clear....that's not the Bible's fault...it is my human frailty to explain it.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Nate.....

Couple other things that came to mind......

1) Asking for me to quote you a Scripture where Jesus said "The truth is more important than loving people".....was equivalent to me of the statments....."Show me where Jesus said abortion....or homosexuality is wrong."

I've read enough of your posts to know that you know.....that sound hermeneutics and logical thought (carrying an ideal all the way through) has much to do with biblical interpretation.

2) And this is not for you....but for everyone.....I don't think it is for any of us to decided what is/is not....petty. To me....using such a word in reference to someone's post is only what is known in logic as "poisening the wells."

What I may consider "petty" may be the source of a serious spiritual battle in someone else's mind.

Just food for thought.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

I'm sorry folks....I got to say it.....

my wife's last post was brilliant!!!!!

Her concerns are real....someone keeps changing definitions.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Kathy....

I'm glad you asked me an easy question....I'm on my way to teach classes.

Anyway....."as far as devouring one another, etc.".....that has to do with what most church fights are over.....(as you know).....things that don't matter....i.e., praise choruses or hymns....chairs or pews.....choir loft or no choir loft (ha!!).

Again Kathy.....we are talking about a woman who rejects the authority of the eldership in a church. If that is allowed to slide as just something "petty".....good grief....what does it take to be important???

The logical result of her attitude (and one that our society is aiming for)....is anarchy.

On things that don't matter.....i.e., choruses vs hymns...etc.....you'll NEVER see me getting worked up like this.

I consider biblical authority and the biblical eldership.....crucial.

Is that fair enough??

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

In other words Kathy.....

I don't disagree with the verses.....but the application of them to this particular discussion.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Michael.....Great job!!

Sammyboy.....I agree with you. Calling David or Jesus "whitie"......is a bunch of nonsense!!!

John....IMHO......Michael Keaton was the best Batman!!!! The other guys pale in comparison.

And to all.....a good night!

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Gentlemen, and ladies, isn't it about time we stopped the mean spirited namecalling, the satirical "plays" and all the other childishness? I think Paul would have pleaded about now as he did for those quarreling sisters, Syntyche and Euodia, to stop the senseless bickering and agree to disagree in the spirit of Christian love. This forum is degenerating from a place that lifts up Jesus to a place I am almost embarrassed to show my friends. Lets all call an end to this war and bury the hatchets (and not in each other). Shalom, brothers and sisters! Jesus is near!

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2000

Don't get me wrong: I also take Biblical authority very seriously, and I also seldom agree with Nelta's posts. But it just seems that by continuing this, by continuing to be baited by Nelta and others, we are just dragging this forum down into the mud, thats all. No offense intended to Mr. Demastus or any of the other posters.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2000

Oh, and Danny ... FYI I am a registered Republican, and a rather conservative one at that. (I think Rush is to liberal LOL). :P

God bless everyone!

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2000

Hey gang, does this have any bearing on your spirits? "But if you bite and devour one another,take care lest you be consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh." Gal 15:15,16 I believe that maybe this is what John may be referencing to when it comes to our demeanors in this forum. Just thought U all may like to know that there are a few reading (lurking) to try to understand the truth being spoken about in various threads. I know because I've reccomended this site to quite a # of folks that we made contacts with and I can tell you this that some of you are "clouding" the truth w/ your petty responses. Just keep that in mind when posting. Of course I am not saying that ALL arguments should cease so please don't read that into it.....just be careful about the approach. Up til recently this has been a very effective tool for the Lord. I still definitely want to be able to refernce others to this forum so that they can "pick your brains" as well as ours. Thanks for your help in the past concerning matters...keep going guys (gender neutral there)! Yea but a vessel! Kathy C. ><>

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2000

Thank you, Sister Kathy, and a hearty Amen! (Good verse, too; wish I had thought of that one! ) I think you captured exactly the essense of my post. I too was merely pointing out my concern at the level of pettyness that some of the posts from otherwise honored men (and women) of faith had seem to have fallen lately.

Believe me, I have absolutely nothing against vigorously defending the faith! But one thing I have learned in dealing with cults and Christian counterfeits for the past 25 years is that we can -- in fact we need to -- contend vigorously for the faith once delivered, without becoming contentious. If we make the most sublime arguments for the faith, but have not love or do not show it within our arguments, it avails us absolutely nothing. Like Paul's clanging cymbal, we simply will not be listened to. It has been my experience that once negative emotionalism comes in through the door, logic always flys out the window.

Thats basically all I was trying to say (and perhaps I said it poorly): as Christian brothers and sisters, let us all please try to guard our hearts and minds, put a little more love and a little less contentiousness in our posts, and bring this up to a level more glorifying to our Lord.

And, to clarify a previous misconception, I said I was *almost* embarrassed to show my friends. But I think this is a great tool, I enjoy reading the posts and have learned from them, and I still maintain a link on my church's website! =)

May God richly bless you all!

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Danny,

Could you please expound on your statement of "Reeking?" I am not sure I follow your argument.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

I guess I am confused. In Matthew 15, the disciples brought to Jesus' attention that he had " offended the Pharisees." Judging from his response he wasn't concerned about it. Two chapters later he uses what appears to be sarcasm when he told Peter to get the coin out of the fishes mouth so as "not to offend them." (the pharisees) I am real sure that Jesus was not "21st century American culture nice" when he overturned the tables in the temple. Nor was Paul to Peter in Galatians when he got in Peter's face and told him he was wrong. Peter was "not nice" to Simon the sorcerer in Acts when he said "May your money perish with you." You get the picture. When one's salvation is at stake "nice" or what we think as love doesn't cut it. Had Peter used our modern ideas of nice or love to the sorcerer would he have repented of his wickedness?

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Danny,

You said...

"I also agree with Jesus who said the greatest commandment is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength." To love the Lord with all my mind means....with all my thought processes....I must love the Lord and His truth.

The SECOND greatest commandment is to "love my neighbor as myself."

You see, love of truth is even more important (Jesus said it Himself)....than loving my neighbor."

IMHO I believe this first statement to be your opinion of what the scripture says and it sets up your later statements for concurrance. But IMHO a conclusion based on an assumption is not a fact but merely an opinion. This is false and twisted logic much the same as the following...

"God is love." "Love is blind." "Ray Charles is blind." Therefore, "Ray Charles is God."

Please show me where Jesus says that love of truth is more important than love of your neighbor. I cannot find it. Now if it is your OPINION that that is what Jesus is saying, then please be more clear on that point.

Now understand, that I am not disagreeing with you concerning what the world thinks about people who disagree with them. I also agree that I have nothing against heated arguments, but when things break down into petty arguments that have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand and become personal attacks against people then I have a problem with that. Let's all stick with the subject matter and not become personal.

I also believe in holding people accountable to what the Truth is. However, Holding their head under the water until they agree with me... just makes them mad and serves no useful purpose other than making me all wet. If I slowly (with love) share my understanding of the scriptures with those who are misled then they don't get their back up and we don't fight. I can lead more people to the scriptures that way than by hitting them over the head with the "Truth" and giving them a headache.

In Love,

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

We have now added a new word "petty" to add to my confusion. We are not arguing here over what color of carpet should the Christian church have, or whether we use praise choruses or hymn books. Thats petty. We are talking about in this case, a women who refuses to accept the authority of the biblical eldership. In N.T. times...such rejection of authority called for the discipline of the church. I'm not being facetious here. It doesn't seem to bother Danny but it does me. I am truly confused. I can't talk about anything anymore. I no longer discuss home schooling issues with people, I've considered not attending Sunday school anymore and you can't discuss the issues on this forum anymore. Why? Because I am afraid of being considered unloving, not nice and now petty. The definitions are no longer clear. Not just here but anywhere. One lady expressed her opinion in a very loving way yesterday in Sun School. One man was angry with what she said and got up and left. See what I mean? Someone please tell me the rules!

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

I had an experience once that I want to share & get some imput from U- all. I was involved with an individual who was from a faith-only background & started coming to church with me @ my invitation. Loved the preaching & teaching & was hearing the truth in the gospel message. This person was struggling with the fact that their security of salvation wasn't biblical (after believing for many years that they were saved). While struggling with this, their participation & fellowship in the church became more frequent & of course wanted to place membership (identity) with this congregation, yet was still struggling with past teachings about salvation. In the meantime they got to know the preacher & was very intimidated by the personality of this man. I had asked this person a few times to seek counsel of the scriptures from this preacher & the struggling soul said this to me ..."What and have him spit scripture back in my face?!?!" So my question is this ...who had the greater problem? Yes I have my opinions about the entire situation but this 1 incident has haunted me for yrs now & I'm just wondering what good is having the truth without the love?? This was the first time I came to truly understand 1 Cor. 12:1,2. I do not believe this person "saw" the truth beyond the presentation. And I've always wondered how that preacher would respond knowing his attitude toward faith-only "seekers" affected this person. BTW, they never did make a decision to be immersed. So what are your thoughts about this gang?

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Bro. Danny: You disagree with me....so how do you reconcile what Paul said in that passage I cited about treating one another? Is there not in fact any correlation of that passage to the point about being petty & sarcastic when both my NOT be called for?!?! And what I refer to has nothing to do w/ my views of being politically correct or softening the truth for the sake of agreement. I believe you know where I stand on those. And BTW "lovely"?!??! I blush! :) Thanks dude! Kathy C ><>

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Danny;

You said, "I graciously disagree with both John and Kathy.....but I'm doing it with a smiley face. :o) "

This is really all I was asking, and I was seeing way too little of it lately. And is it really too much to ask? Thank you, Brother. =)

And, btw, my nickname is "Batman" or "Mr. Batman," because many have said they think I somewhat resemble Michael Keaton. Whether or not you think Michael Keaton is lovely, I don't know, but you can take a look at my picture and you be the judge. (But not just after you've eaten!) But in Christ I am sure that both you and your lovely wife are both "lovely."

Shalom to all.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

As far as someone who rejects the authority of the eldership, I agree this is a very serious matter. "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching" (1 Timothy 5:17). My personal opinion on the subject would be that such a person shouldn't even be in the fellowship. God did not appoint any of us to be "Lone Ranger" Christians. (Except, perhaps, for the late Clayton Moore, who recently traded in his mask for a crown. )

But ad hominem attacks are really beneath us, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be dragged down to their level, should we?

Now, to be fair, I have been in a church where the congregation was forced to rise up and remove several elders for their worldly and unbiblical "leadership." But it is another thing entirely to remove worldly elders than to reject the authority of elders entirely. That is just unconscionable. IMHO.

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Kathy,

Perhaps it is inappropriate for me to even answer your question regarding your friend since I don't know her, the evangelist or the situation. It has been my experience though that in matters esp. regarding baptism, that because grandma wasn't baptized, I'm not either...and don't confuse me with scripture cause my mind is made up. They can not defend their position and they are intimidated with the preacher who can and therefore view the preacher as "a mean man." Perhaps she really doesn't know the man and honestly never really gave him a chance. Like I said I don't know I've just seen this happen in the past. Incidently, you know scriptures well, why could you not convince her??

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Danny,

You articulated it better than I. What you say makes sense because it fits with what I have seen in scripture. I just read in Titus 1:10-13. "For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers...they must be silenced because they are ruining whole households...Therefore rebuke them sharply. I don't have time to write the whole thing but you get the idea. So someone else help me out. What does "rebuke sharply" mean. Are we mistaking rebuke sharply for ad hominem???

John, other than Nelta, can you show me where I, Danny, Lee Saffold, Kathy, anyone has used ad hominem?? I don't recall any. BTW... check out the Isaac thread...My husbands not on that one...Its getting pretty heated....Someone called someone elses theology/belief nonsense...is that wrong??? I don't....but I'm still trying to get the rules straight.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Jenny...

I do not disagree with the scriptures...

As listed in the "An Apology to the Forum"

"Anonymous, did you even CONSIDER respecting THIS FORUM'S desire to keep things on the "up & up?" YOU knew the rules and YOU chose to break them. On top of that, I sincerely believe that CHEATING in this was is a form of lying. IF you are a Christian, then I call you to accountability and REBUKE you for your actions."

I believe that Christians need to be held accountable.... someday they will be held accountable! And a sharp rebuke is better than burning. However... You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I also believe that Ephesians 4:29 says it all... "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth, but only what is helpful FOR BUILDING OTHERS UP according to their needs THAT IT MAY BENEFIT THOSE WHO LISTEN."

Two wrongs do not a right make... because someone reacted badly to our being nice to them doesn't take away the necessity for being nice. It simply puts more burden on them. It does not lessen our burden to continue being nice... Remember the Golden Rule? ...a complete lesson from our Savior. Which scripture do we apply and which do we throw out? There is a balance in everything.

I appreciate Danny's being nice to me regardless of our disagreements... and I understand his passion concerning leadership, I agree! However, there are more lurkers that are turned off by the divisive spirit (seemingly...) that seems to prevail concerning Nelta. ...and TWO divisive spirits don't make a right either.

Yes, I have been frustrated by Nelta's posts as well... I have not posted concerning this neo-orthodoxy because I am unaware of its origins and am mostly in-the-dark concerning this subject matter, so I have left the more learned of our brethren(sisters too!) deal with this matter. (In the mean-time I have learned more and more.) However, the rift between Danny and Nelta has caused her to ignore his probing questions and biblical supports while becoming more combative and evasive. I was one of the folks who encouraged her to publicly apologize for her public accusations. And then to to go to Danny as we are told to do in Matt. 5 & 18. (maybe we all need to review these passages) Her refusal to address Bro. Saffold's accountability even frustrated me more. I am not calling Nelta a child by saying this, but... you might spank a child for his disobedience but you would not BEAT him would you? It seems to me that Nelta was public flogged (right, wrong or indifferent) for her stance and inability to biblically back it up. No wonder she got defensive and lashed out. (No I am not condoning her behavior) But, who now, will hold US accountable?

I urge us all to take into account all that has been said here and our part in it and see if we see the spirit of Jesus in this.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Kathy,

I too do not know the particulars of the situation with your faith- only friend and the preacher.

I can give you some insight on my personal experience having come from a faith only background into the truth.

I am still struggling with past teachings about salvation that I do not believe will ever go away. There are days I say to myselfHow can baptism and all this other stuff be included in salvation when the majority of folks do not believe this to be true?

I agree with you that there is no good in having the truth without love. In my personal situation though I could not see this love until sometime later even though it was actually there. All I could see was someone was telling me that I was going to hell, my parents were going to hell, my grandparents were going to hell and all those who had died before me were going to hell.

Now in reality no one spoke those specific words to me. They showed me scripture after scripture dealing with baptism and salvationeven repentance. I came to the conclusion after reading scripture that I, and others in my family were going to hell. This I could not accept! What I am trying to say, is sometimes even telling the truth in love brings about conflict.

Were these people sharing the gospel with me spitting scripture back in my face every time I tried to disprove what it was saying? You bet! Thats how I looked at it anyway. I raised my voice, and at times they did also, I cried, they did also, I attacked, they came back with the word. I prayed, they prayed. They were never in reality hateful to me, what I was reading and hearing (scripture seemed hateful to me).

I did not see the truth beyond the presentation for over 1 year. Finally though I saw the truth and the love. My goodness for anyone to put up with me for that long in the face of argument after argument had to LOVE me! They would do it for no other reason than because of this love and concern for my soul.

I am not saying we should have a bad, arrogant, unloving attitude when approaching those like myself and your friend, of course that will turn a person off immediately. I am saying that TRUTH can get our backs up just as fast as a person showing no love. Unfortunately, many are labeled unloving because they stand on truth. As a said earlier, I do not know any of the details of your situation, if the preacher was unloving he was wrong!

We must not come to a conclusion that every time someone is offended that the other party showed no love.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Now I'm no genius, but what I did in this post was simply the exact same thing our sister Nelta has done multiple times now in other posts. Why is it that we have not asked these questions of "pettiness" and "mean-spiritedness" from her previous posts then? Please explain to me, how my post here differs in approach and form from any one of her previous "pseudo-drama" posts? I just wanted to make a point, and I have no personal grieviance against Nelta - in fact I've known her for a long while from other lists in e-mail that I am a part of. She is quite consistent in her approach. I want to urge Nelta to respond to valid questions from Scripture and not simply resort to guerrilla warfare e-mails where she spits out a completely incredulous remark and then fails to elaborate or answer any questions on the specifics of her remark.

My friends, it is not "petty" to mimick her behavior. I mimicked it as an illustration for us all and as a hopeful urging to get a response from Nelta. From which I can say with assurance that she will not respond to specifics because that is not in her nature.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Point well taken here Michael, keep up the good work!

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Jenny;

I thought Danny's post that I should "go to www.LiberalDemocrats.com" was pretty close to one. Ouch. (Around these parts, even hinting someone's a liberal ... them thar's fightin' words! LOL) And there was one other I recall but which I cannot find now. But I'll leave that whole subject alone and let bygones be bygones.

And no, I don't think its wrong at all to tell someone else their belief is "nonsense" -- if thats what it is! A lot of the beliefs of a lot of cultic systems is just so much tripe. Both Biblically and philosophically unsound from the start. But while backing up your position in the Word (assuming they respect the Word in the first place!), you can always do it in a non-combative way. Sure, the gospel will always be offensive. But that doesn't mean we need to be. "Therefore be as wise as serpents, yet as gentle as doves."

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

John, You said that it was OK to call someone's theology nonsense, if it is. Do you realize that many people consider that to be "combative." You just proved the point I was getting at. Who is making up the rules...who is making up the definitions, i.e. petty, not nice. Again, what does "rebuke sharply" mean in Titus 1. Sounds combative to me. I try to be "nice", non-petty, whenever possible but sometimes when the gospel is being threatened...I must "rebuke sharply." Again, I just want to know the rules.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Sorry John...one more thing....an "I forgot and almost" ad hominem only count in grenades. That was a poor attempt at humor not pettiness. It is my understanding that ad hominem is not merely calling someone a name but calling someone a name in order to divert from the real issue. I'll save you the trouble you won't find one of those from Danny or myself. But you are right.. on to something else.

Michael, speaking of humor....for what it is worth...your post was hysterical. But I guess I better add to my list of rules....No Humor. Sorry...guess I better add sarcasm while I'm at it.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

Jenny;

Point taken ... one person's rebuke might be another's "combative." Its a fine grey line.

And I have no problem with humor or sarcasm to make a point ... I do that myself often enough. I just thought the whole thing seemed to have gone on far too long and seemed to be degenerating. But that may just be my perception and my problem.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

I was the one in the "Isaac" thread who called an argument "stupid." In response to the man's reply, I made it clear that it was the argument that I called stupid. And I made it clear, even before I used the word "stupid", that I almost never use words like that in argumentation. But the man's idea WAS stupid -- that David looked like a typical Anglo-Saxon, and that Jesus must have also, since he was descended from David.

That was the FIRST of his ideas that I have publicly called stupid. I thought that about plenty others of his ideas, but that was the first one I took to that level publicly. It was just too much.

If it is generally thought that I went too far . . . well, I was going to apologize, but I don't think I will. I meant it. And i'll do it again, if he says something equally outrageous.

I didn't think the thread had gotten any worse than any of the Nelta skirmishes. The man argues a lot like Nelta does -- decides what the answer is, and then goes in search of little snippets of Scripture to justify the position, while at the same time ignoring the preponderance of Scripture on the subject as well as ignoring the facts of history when they are shown. It's quite maddening.

But those of us who have been in the discussion have been careful to characterize the argument, or the position -- and not the person. At least, I think we've tried to do that. If anyone believes that I have made personal attack, then I am sorry for that misunderstanding. And while saying, "Now, the strong language I'm about to use is directed not toward you, but toward your argument" just befoe one says anything can become rather tedious, I will try to be more careful in future to make it clear that I attack thoughts and arguments, and not people.

SammyBoy

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000

I was pondering as I read through all these posts. Is there an equal responsibility between there speaker and the hearer?

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2000