Green Eggs and Ham
Filed Under (dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 09-06-2005
Do you like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Yes, I am a bit silly.
I had promised Samuel that I would detail the second recent incident where I was misrepresented. On a heretical site discussing his non-refutation of my assumption-filed article, Samuel said:
I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.
Really?? First - did I EVER say that I “didn’t have time”? No…. here is what I said:
HyperPreterist Samuel Frost has written a “response” (at least he seems to think so) to my argument for the condemnation of the Neo-Hymenæan gangrene. All Samuel seemed to prove, however, are two things. One, he has a shockingly poor comprehension of exactly what my point is. Two, he is able to completely miss the point using more words than Don Preston. Allllright. Seeing how he is arguing something I already addressed five years ago, this is not my top priority.
Gentry speaks of his experiences in dealing with hyperpreterist rebuttals:
Hyper-preterism is a small, but active, militant, and growing theological movement. Its enthusiastic adherents loudly demand that those who disagree with them stop their full-time labors and deal with all their questions – or die the death of a thousand emails.
Just because someone, even someone as well-known in the movement as Samuel, writes something they think is devastating, that in no means obligates me to drop whatever plans I have to deal with that - especially when in my perspective I already dealt with this with Don Preston.
So misrepresentation number one: I didn’t say I had no time, I said it was not a priority.
Now onto misrepresentation number two:
…a person who writes blogs and articles all day
Oh really Samuel? ALL day? You do realize that I have a full-time professional job, at times I work two jobs, I have a family, I have friends, and I have other interests. Where in the world do you justify that I write blogs all day? I don’t even write one blog a day. And articles???? How many articles have I written Samuel? In five years of writing on the Net I have written the following articles that I can remember:
Angels We Have Heard on High (on the location of Christ’s Reign)
On the “Soon” Return of Jesus
The Angry Womyn’s Revised Bible (co-author)
Is It A Duck?
Christ: The Alpha and Omega
Raising Cain and Abel
as well as my Matthew 24 commentary (which took years as I only work on it sporadically) and another article that has not yet been published, but is a version of “Is It a Duck”
I have various other pieces that were not officially articles and perhaps I have forgotten a few, but as one can see, I am hardly a prolific writer. I certainly don’t spend all day to such an extent that someone cannot believe that I am not all lathered up about answering Samuel’s piece.
Now on to misrepresentation number three:
Notice she NEVER makes this point known.
Again…. really? NEVER? Is that your final answer? Let’s see. When Don Preston missed the point (and this is included in the original article which Samuel says he read) I said:
The above article is a defense of my use of the term “Neo-Hymenaean” for modern self-styled “full preterists” and the condemnation of such teaching as a potentially damnable heresy within the framework of MY starting presuppositions. In other words, for the sake of evaluating my consistency/justification in doing such, I have asked the reader to take my beliefs as true simply for the sake of argument to determine if I am then behaving correctly within that paradigm. I make no claim whatsoever in that article to provide a proof for my starting presuppositions so any squawking that I failed to do so is simply whistling Dixie. I make explicit the limitations of my purpose/goal for this article in this opening statement:
“The question for consideration here is whether or not it is correct for me to utilize the label of “Hymenaeanism” for their doctrine and identifying it as a potentially damnable heresy. In order to make that determination, it is necessary to look at the issue from the point of view of my presuppositions not the presuppositions of the “full preterists.”"
And here:
“In order to determine then if this terminology is valid/consistent/fair for us who hold to the orthodox and historic position of the catholic (with a small “c”) Church with regards to the resurrection, these issues must be examined from that starting point.
And in this closing statement:
“I have demonstrated that coming from my perspective, I am being perfectly consistent in my condemnations of this heresy and my labeling of it as Hymenaeanism.”
And in response to Don’s comment:
Further, it is so glaringly obvious that Ms. Warren is seeking to distract attention away from the timing issue. Her entire thesis falls to the ground if indeed Paul taught by inspiration that the resurrection was to occur in the first century. Did anyone notice that Ms. Warren had not one substantive word to say about this issue?
I responded:
The only thing that is glaringly obvious is that Don has completely missed the point and proceeds then to show off how completely he has done so. Did anyone notice that it was never my point or goal to prove my presuppositions that Paul did not teach that the resurrection was to occur in the first century? Did anyone notice that I also did not have one substantive word to say about the history of Delaware?
And in my original blog in which Samuel and I first discussed this, Samuel said:
Now, IF your version of “orthodoxy” is true, then yes (duh!), we would be heretics (does this really need to be said?).
And (remember Samuel said I NEVER said what the point was) then I responded (after reiterating this point ad nauseam prior to this entry):
YES!!!!!!! That is the point Sam! Congratulations! You have called me all kinds of things by suggesting that I am wrong in calling your view heresy - YET FROM MY POINT OF VIEW I HAVE NO CHOICE. Neither does anyone else in the orthodox camp. So your continual claims to be one of the brethren is not honest to the claims of the orhtodox. WE CANNOT accept you that way. We are not being mean, nasty, heretic hunters when we say so, we are only being consistent with our beliefs. So when will you acknowledge that? When will you present your view forthrightly that way?? When Sam???
and
You kept arguing something I was not even arguing Sam. Too bad it took over seventy posts in this blog for you to figure that out.
There are many more statements to that effect in that discussion. Thus, I did say what my point was and even used the language - “That is the point Sam!”
Here is Samuel’s statement once again:
I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.
I think the only thing that is correct in his statement is that I am “a person.”
Samuel, I am a stickler for accuracy - and if you says grossly inaccurate things I will catch them. And if I am called on doing that (as in our prior discussion) I will correct myself if I did.
There is enough drama and controversy about things I actually do say and do - you don’t need to fabricate or exaggerate ones.
Dee,
First off, I write things off the top of my head in short “posts.” I am, many times, not careful. Sorry. It’s like my wife saying that I “never” make the bed. Never? “Well, sometimes you don’t make the bed.” I am flattered that you have taken my words with critical-logical analysis, though. Next time, I will write with more precision and exactitude so that there is no misunderstanding.
Now, you did say, “You have called me all kinds of things by suggesting that I am wrong in calling your view heresy.” How, then, can you call my relationship with you “respectful”? I have called you “all” kinds of things? All kinds? Is that a logical “all”, Dee? Then you wrote, “you don’t need to fabricate or exaggerate ones.” Hmmm. I guess since I have called you “all kinds” of things (maybe just some, eh?) I am the exaggerator and fabricator. But, I just can’t find that list of “all kinds of things” that I have called you. Maybe you can help me out and list them. Or, maybe you don’t really mean “all” in the logical sense, and you are just exaggerating.
Now that the little stuff is over, and we have critiqued our grammar and writing styles (like I said, I am off the cuff many, many times, and it gets me into trouble sometimes), perhaps we can deal with “the point.”
“The point” is that you use II Timothy 2.17,18 to call us heretics (hymenaens). Notice my quote that you quoted: “Now, IF your version of “orthodoxyâ€? is true, then yes (duh!), we would be heretics (does this really need to be said?).” Yes, I said that. Yes, I stand by that. Yes, I deliberately avoided using II Timothy 2,17,18. I said, and pay attention here, if YOUR VERSION of ORTHODOXY. Notice I DID NOT SAY “If II Timothy 2.17,18 is correct, then we are heretics.” THAT, dearest Dee, is the POINT of my article with you and Dave Green. You CANNOT use II Timothy 2.17,18 to condemn preterism, because Paul is condemning something OTHER THAN modern preterism. In fact, as my artilce showed, preterists STAND with Paul in condemning Hymenaeus and Philetus. They were indeed heretics of the worst kind.
Now, I know that you are somehow going to say that I am an amazing person for missing the point (again). One wonders how I have survived two Masters degrees from Reformed seminaries being so blind as I am. So, let me state your point so that you know I uderstand your point: ““I have demonstrated that coming from my perspective, I am being perfectly consistent in my condemnations of this heresy and my labeling of it as Hymenaeanism.â€? No. You are not consistent. That’s my point. You are, as stated, “assuming” that the ORTHODOX (not the biblical) position is correct. That’s fine for you to do so. That was another POINT in my paper. It is the only way you can condemn us: by assuming the TRADITIONAL and CREEDAL definition of “resurrection.” It says nothing as to whether or not PAUL condemns us. And, as I told you, and as you quoted, if YOUR version of ORTHODOXY is correct, then we are heretics. But, the question you seem to not get is that the BIBLE and the “Orthodox position” are two separate things, and one is never wrong, whereas the other is subject to error (can you guess which one?).
Let me make this plainer. What Paul denied in II Timothy 2.17,18 we deny, too. So what’s the problem? Well, you ADD to Paul in saying that what was being denied is ALSO the “grandma’s bones get transformed” resurrection. But, that is NOT in that text. That is, as you said, a smuggled in definition based on, wa la, the TRADITIONAL orthodox creedal formulation. You can do this as you like, no skin of my nose. I just want others to see that that is the ONLY way you can condemn us. In short, it is not a condemnation from the Bible, but from something else, and this makes it flimsy. I would rather condemn someone to hell’s fire on a much more sure foundation than that. You have not proven that Preterism is Hymenaenism from the Bible….all that you have proven is that by assuming the orthodox definition (tradition), and by reading that INTO II Tim 2.17,18, then and only then can you condemn us. But, you cannot prove, from that passage alone, our condemnation, because we deny the same thing Paul condemns those two bozos over. That is, A) we don’t preach that the resurrection was “already” finished before Paul wrote Timothy (early sixties?). Now. Do you know what Paul would have said if he lived in the eighties A.D. and heard Samicus Frostinius say, “the resurrection is already”? No, you don’t. You can “guess” based on the orthodox position, but that’s all you got, sis: a guess based on position that is subject to error.
Samuel Frost
Yep, you are still not getting it as hard as that be to believe since you felt the need to wave your credentials. Having an education doesn’t automatically make everyone “get” the point. Should I tell you my SAT scores and we can play who is less likely to get the point than who?
Tonight I will address the points directly relevant to what I wrote - and since I ALREADY DEALT in the original article and response to Don Preston what you have said (which apparently still have not thoroughly read for you misrepresent AGAIN that I used one passage, and surely with two Masters degrees from Reformed seminaries you can count the number of passages used, no?) And surely with your education you realize that it is what flows OUT of your position logically that also condemns it. Or are you as hyperliteralist as the best dispie and think that every single thing has to be spoon fed in a verse? Please Samuel you never answered this before - please DO tell me WHERE is your VERSE that tells you what the books of the Bible are.
Dee,
Dee, Dee, Dee. I will wait for tonight, but answer tomorrow. This Christian is going to a Tom Petty concert with his lively wife. Ah, yes, the old Roman Catholic argument: where does the Bible say “Isaiah”? Oh, Jesus did. Where’s the verse that says, “Paul’s other letters.” Oh, Peter did. Hmmm. Where’s the chapter that mentions Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and the prophets…in that order…oh, right, Hebrews 11. Does the Bible mention and quote the Psalms…oh, yes, that’s right, they do. Job? Yep. Daniel? Yep. Oh, right, I guess you think I am opposed to historical research (which your question assumes). No, I am just opposed to man-made theories trumping God made revelation. I hope you don’t have a problem with that, cuz’ if history trumps God’s revealed word, then this convo is over. Now, I know you don’t believe that. But, seriously, my answer: read F.F. Bruce’s book, “The Canon of Scripture” and you’ll get a pretty good fell for my answer. Oh, and by the way, where’s that list of “all kinds” of things I called you?
Samuel Frost
Wow, now I am Dee Dee Dee. Hmm I kinda like that. Enjoy the concert, I don’t much care for Tom Petty, his voice annoys me, though I do like his video “Don’t Come Around Here No More.” And I think you meant lovely not lively. And though you will likely bristle, your words at times could be coming out of the mouth of a JW or Mormon. There is no VERSE that explains the hypostatic union.
Sam:
FYI: It’s “voila”, not “wa la”…
Man,
the Grammar police! And French, too! I meant “lovely” but “lively” is true, too. Dee, by pointing out “hupostasis” to me means very little only if I reject everything the creeds state and reject the idea that we cannot use language not found in the Bible to help expound the Bible. Hupostasis is such a term that “best” explains the Godhead (a word found in the Bible) in terms of their relationship. It can be replaced by a “better” word, if one can be found. It is not “inspired.” It is not “revelation knowledge.” It is a man made formula that seeks to maintain the unity (a word found in the Bible) between the Godhead. Now, your “guilt by association” argument is equally fallacious. Mormons say things like, “I believe that Jesus is God’s son.” Dee says things like, “I believe that Jesus is God’s son.” Now, Dee sounds like something coming out a mouth of a Mormon. We know that Dee and the Mormons have something different in mind though. Same thing when they use the word “Bible.” They don’t mean the same thing when I say “Bible” (anymore than a Catholic means the same thing). Do you mean to say, Dee, that the Bible is not the Supreme Judge on matters of faith and practice? Cuz’ if that makes me sound like a Mormon, then I have overestimated you.
Samuel
I had thought you meant lovely, but then again, I am getting to the age wherein I don’t expect “lovely” any more, but would be thrilled to be called “lively” - the energy of youth is a fleeting thing.
I am smiling at your last post though Samuel - remember I bite. You just left a door standing so wide open for me, it’s a gift.
And not for the reason you stated, but I consider it highly likely you overestimated me - heck within months I have been dubbed the “leader” of this vast antihyperpret movement, and I am like “well dang! where are my minions and my cool robe?”
Oh and Bryan, I got a bit of a bone to pick with you about an inaccurate comment
but I do commend you on admitting that Parker brings up god point.
Okay Samuel, I have some time now. First you said:
>>First off, I write things off the top of my head in short “posts.� I am, many times, not careful. Sorry. It’s like my wife saying that I “never� make the bed. Never? “Well, sometimes you don’t make the bed.� I am flattered that you have taken my words with critical-logical analysis, though. Next time, I will write with more precision and exactitude so that there is no misunderstanding.>>
Were you being sarcastic here? First, before I analyze this paragraph, let me say I appreciate your admission that you are careless at times. So am I.
As far as the point, you are not comparing apples to apples. The context of a discussion between a man and his wife is not the same as you posting a statement that implies that I have no other excuse other than cowardice or something as equally rank for not responding. Additionally the whole premise of that statement you made was incorrect. The context was you and your allies belly-bopping each other about how you told me where it is at. And then to make me look scared or something, you state that my reason for not responding was that I did not have time but because of my penchant for so much blogging and article-writing, it is unbelievable that I didn’t have time - IOW I had time to do everything else but respond to you. Everything else flowed from that statement, and that statement is utterly false. I did not say I did not have time. If it was very important I would make the time. I am going to make the time to respond to your allegation that I misrepresented David Green. That is important and something I have not yet addressed in contradistinction to your piece which I feel had been answered five years ago in the original article and rebuttal to Don Preston. In your analogy, if your wife’s premise was that she is worked to death doing housework without any help, and then gave as an example that you never make the bed, then you might have an analogy.
Additonally Samuel, perhaps this did not come across to you, but OF COURSE I knew you were using hyperbole - do you really think that I thought you were claiming that I spent 24/7 writing articles and blogs? Or even if we want to get really hyperliteral that I spend all the daylight hours? No - I evaluated your claim in light of my understanding it was hyperbole (hyperbole is supposed to charicature a reality) - and it didn’t pass that test. I am not a faithful blogger or article writer.
Now for the third complaint, your point would make no sense unless never meant never. Even if giving you the charity that it was a hyperbole, and it is actually that I rarely make the point known - that is also patently false. I have made the point so crystal clear it actually requires talent to miss it.
Thus even granting you hyperbole my complaints remain. If you are going to trash me in an enviroment that thinks it is just way cool to publish private information about people and their family while using the b-word and making several misogynistic comments in a context that could incite violence and threatens further harassment (and one of those guys or a friend went to Christian Forums and posted instructions on how to get directions to my house) and mocking a health issue that so many people struggle with, at least find something that is accurate that is all. I am not saying this to butter you up or engage in vain flattery, but you have more decency than that hich is why I was surprised that you promoted such activity (which you have already explained was because you didn’t read it thoroughly).
Continuing…
>>Now, you did say, “You have called me all kinds of things by suggesting that I am wrong in calling your view heresy.� How, then, can you call my relationship with you “respectful�? I have called you “all� kinds of things? All kinds? Is that a logical “all�, Dee? Then you wrote, “you don’t need to fabricate or exaggerate ones.� Hmmm. I guess since I have called you “all kinds� of things (maybe just some, eh?) I am the exaggerator and fabricator. But, I just can’t find that list of “all kinds of things� that I have called you. Maybe you can help me out and list them. Or, maybe you don’t really mean “all� in the logical sense, and you are just exaggerating.>>
First, this is important to explain because I want you to understand me. You ask how I can on one hand say you have called me all kinds of things and yet still say you have been respectful? Please Samuel pay attention because this is important. My reference to you “calling me things” is in the context of my DOCTRINE and related issues. I NEVER take such personally. EVER. I don’t consider that disrespect. You have been respectful because you have not resorted to getting a cheap thrill out of advertising private information or deeply personal belittling and harassing things. Let me give an extreme example. I make no bones that I think your views are heretical and as such you are a false teacher. I also have no issue with pointing out when you missed the point. I would cross the line if I happened to find out that (again this is hypothetical) you had a close family member who was mentally retarded (I am using this as an example for I do have a close family member who is), and I were to use that against you and insinuate that perhaps you are not getting my points because there is a “retarded gene” or something in your lineage. Do you now see the difference?
Now as for your other points, first, I explained the contextual difference. I am not saying things about you Samuel in an enviroment where you are personally abused and where I know you wouldn’t step foot in a million years. I said it right to you. And yes of course it was hyperbole…. do you really think I intended to say you called me a giraffe? No, just like I never hyperliteralized your words to really mean that I spent every second writing blogs and articles. That being said, you are correct in that it was too much of a hyperbole. In fact, I readily admit that I unfairly lumped you in with others of your view - for I believe you have only called me a few things either directly or by implication. I appreciate being corrected when I am inaccurate on issues of objective fact.
Now as far as the “point” Samuel, you really still are not dealing with it. I may get a wild hair and decide to write a full length response to your assertions, but as of right now I am satisfied with what I have written and the revised article that will soon go up (that was written before we ever met).
>Ah, yes, the old Roman Catholic argument: where does the Bible say “Isaiah�? Oh, Jesus did. Where’s the verse that says, “Paul’s other letters.� Oh, Peter did. Hmmm. Where’s the chapter that mentions Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and the prophets…in that order…oh, right, Hebrews 11. Does the Bible mention and quote the Psalms…oh, yes, that’s right, they do. Job? Yep. Daniel? Yep.
Ahh yes trot out the old RCC boogeyman. As I have said to you Samuel, you believe in a Pope, it just happens to be the one you see in the mirror. And your point falls flat. First, a Biblical speaker or writing mentioning a name or a prophet doesn’t make it Scripture - Paul quoted pagan poets and Peter and Jude quoted apocrypha. The OT mentions other books as support that are not part of Scripture. Mentioning persons in certain OT books doesn’t make those books Scripture. The NT mentions the names of the two magicians of Pharoah and they are nowhere named in our Scriptures. And even if you were to try to make the case that some books are validated that way, you first have to assume that the reference that validates the reference is valid Scripture (that is an endless regression - turles all the way man) and you have no explanation for books that are not mentioned at all. Simply saying “Psalms” or quoting them does not make it Scripture - not all the Psalms are quoted and the LXX and the Qumran scrolls have more Psalms than is in Scripture. Scholars believe Paul is quoting part of an ancient hym in 1 Corinthians, is that whole hym a missing book or chapter of the Bible? As far as Paul’s other letters…. that doesn’t prove the ones we have are Scripture. Peter said uninspired things that he was rebuked for. Paul’s letters have been forged, etc ad nauseam.
>>Oh, right, I guess you think I am opposed to historical research (which your question assumes). No, I am just opposed to man-made theories trumping God made revelation.
I didn’t assume a thing, I took your position to its reducio ad absurdum conclusion, what Greg Koukl calls “taking the roof off.” You have no basis for even knowing that the Bible is God’s revelation without counting on simply yourself (a self-made theory) or the testimony of tradition. Additionally you are assuming that what YOU (self-appointed) disagree with is “man-made” theories. All cults say that Samuel. Without fail.
Now for the wide open door that you left:
>>Hupostasis is such a term that “best� explains the Godhead (a word found in the Bible) in terms of their relationship. It can be replaced by a “better� word, if one can be found. It is not “inspired.� It is not “revelation knowledge.� It is a man made formula that seeks to maintain the unity (a word found in the Bible) between the Godhead.
That is naively simplistic. Do you believe in the manual dictation of the Bible? Does your view of inspiration require that every single word is chosen by God? Did God choose to make Paul say to bring his cloak? IF the word hypostasis does accurately define what the Bible teaches, then the concept IS inspired and IS revelation knowledge for it describes what has been revealed - describing the inspired Biblical concepts in other words does not remove the inspiration that is the source. Words are not magical Samuel.
>>Now, your “guilt by association� argument is equally fallacious. Mormons say things like, “I believe that Jesus is God’s son.� Dee says things like, “I believe that Jesus is God’s son.� Now, Dee sounds like something coming out a mouth of a Mormon. We know that Dee and the Mormons have something different in mind though.
BINGO! Thus for you to state you believe in the RESURRECTION but you define it totally differently, then those who disagree are perfectly justified in saying you deny the doctrine, just as I am perfectly justified in saying that Mormons deny Christ. And, big surpise ;), you missed the point of my analogy - I did not say that your cultic views are similar to JWs or Mormons because you use same terminology but that you use the same justifications and rationalizations.
I could say more but this is long enough. And you didn’t say whether you liked my Dr. Suess in the beginning. I am tired now. (and my hand is getting better and better)
Dee,
You have said something here that really concerns me. It appears (appears, mind you) that you deny the inerrancy of Scripture. This is a quote that could be made by a liberal neo-orthodox theologian: “Do you believe in the manual dictation of the Bible? Does your view of inspiration require that every single word is chosen by God? Did God choose to make Paul say to bring his cloak? IF the word hypostasis does accurately define what the Bible teaches, then the concept IS inspired and IS revelation knowledge for it describes what has been revealed - describing the inspired Biblical concepts in other words does not remove the inspiration that is the source. Words are not magical Samuel.” I believe in the verbal/plenary inspiration of the Bible. Yes, God chose each word. That’s the doctrine of inspiration held by both Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and all conservative evangelicalism. If you, then, deny this, our conversation is really over. Secondly, I know of no serious thelogian that would advocate that theological derivations from Scripture are equally inspired and revelational. Hupostasis is no more an inspired word than Trinity. You give way to much authority to man-made theological deductions. Remember, two Masters degree in theology talking here. You would have to show me serious footnotes here. Now, if your rather large error here is true, and if the Chalcedonian Creed is true in all its parts, inspired as a concept, and therefore, infallible, then it is to be placed on par with the Bible. The Roman Catholic argues in the same way, saying the Holy Spirit inspired the word “hupostasis.” You really need to clarify here what you mean when you confess that some parts of the Bible are not “inspired” (like the cloak reference) and some parts are, and then you need to tell me how you know which parts are and which parts are not.
Finally, I do believe that concepts have authority, but not inspiration or infallibility. We are but men, and we err. The Bible never errs, which is why we Reformed call it the Supreme Judge (the Book of Mormon is the supreme judge in their religion..check the introduction the that book). Every idea of man is to be tested against it. I accept hupostasis as a legitimate term for the Godhead, but this in no wise makes this an inspired term to be added to the Scripture. It is not, as Paul said, “god-breathed”, and it is not inspired, as Peter said, “as men were carried along by the Spirit” (talking about the Prophets). Preterism is a good word, but hardly inspired. The formula is: all true statements are not inspired, but all inspired statements are true. and the only inspired statements we as Christians claim, according to the Bible, is the Bible itself: “all the written words (Greek for “ha graphe” the Scripture) are god-breathed.”
Samuel Frost
Samuel - I am not sure when I am going to be able to reply in full - hopefully today, but that is not certain. I did though want to immediately state that I do not deny the inerrancy of Scripture by any means whatsoever. In reading your response I see each of us is importing some different meanings into our expressions, leading you to misunderstand what I was intending to communicate. That very well may be because you have formal education in the precision of theological terminology - I appreciate always being challenged to be more precise, you know that I value precision as I have demonstrated with regards to your statements about me. And a challenge to be more precise causes me to organize my thoughts more clearly - at times I have a disconnect between what I am thinking and being able to articulate it.
Dee,
No problem. I do the same, too :). Inerrancy is one of my pets. In fact, it’s my axiom for everything. I gave you the benefit though by typing the word “appears” rather than saying and assuming that you do. See…I am getting better at this…
Samuel
Samuel:
I wanted to respond today but I am in a bit of a rush. Hopefully I will be more clear.
>>You have said something here that really concerns me. It appears (appears, mind you) that you deny the inerrancy of Scripture.>>>
I earlier assured you I did not, and to insure I answer each question I once again provide that assurance.
>>> This is a quote that could be made by a liberal neo-orthodox theologian: “Do you believe in the manual dictation of the Bible? Does your view of inspiration require that every single word is chosen by God? Did God choose to make Paul say to bring his cloak? IF the word hypostasis does accurately define what the Bible teaches, then the concept IS inspired and IS revelation knowledge for it describes what has been revealed - describing the inspired Biblical concepts in other words does not remove the inspiration that is the source. Words are not magical Samuel.� I believe in the verbal/plenary inspiration of the Bible. Yes, God chose each word. That’s the doctrine of inspiration held by both Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and all conservative evangelicalism. >>>
Here is where we spoke past each other. You may disagree with my position but you would be overstating your case, if, once you hear it, you claim that the view of inerrancy by all orthodox Christians in monolithic. It is not. Let me try to clarify without muddying the waters further. Let’s take one of my statements:
Do you believe in the manual dictation of the Bible? Does your view of inspiration require that every single word is chosen by God?
First, I flubbed an item of terminology. I meant mechanical dictation and not manual dictation. The plenary inspiration of Scripture, which I too hold, does not require mechanical dictation, and I reject mechanical dictation. Let me explain what I mean. Mechanical dictation in its extreme form, held by ultra-literal fundamentalists, would mean basically that the Biblical writer was simply a shell and God gave said writer each and every word solely out of God’s own consciousness, some even go so far as to say letter by letter (which claim is made for the Book of Mormon). I have found some other authors that express my belief a bit better than I did, so I will quote them for clarity:
From Dr. Wallace at Bible.org:
The doctrine of election is analogous to that of inspiration. God has inspired the very words of scripture (2 Tim 3:16), yet his modus operandi was not verbal dictation. Isaiah was the Shakespeare of his day; Amos was the Mark Twain. Both had widely divergent vocabularies and styles of writing, yet what each wrote was inspired by God. Luke’s style of writing and Greek syntax is quite different from John’s, yet both penned the Word of God. We read in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that no prophet originated his own prophecies, but was borne along by the Holy Spirit: “1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of Scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from Godâ€? (NET Bible).
Thus, we are presented with a mystery: Each biblical writer wrote the very words of God, yet each exercised his own personality and will in the process. The message originated with God, yet the process involved human volition. The miracle of inspiration, as Lewis Sperry Chafer long ago noted, is that God did not violate anyone’s personality, yet what was written was exactly what he wanted to say.
From Project Wittenburg” (A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod March 1995) - the Missouri Synod being the more conservative branch of the Lutheran Church as opposed to the ELCA:
E. Inspiration and the Biblical Writings
Since inspiration was not a mechanical process akin to dictation, the Scriptures in many ways bear the marks of their human authorship. Literary style varies from book to book and even accounts of the same event by different writers frequently are not completely alike in perspective, wording, emphasis, or the number of details provided. Indeed, the great freedom which the Holy Spirit allowed the human authors in selecting materials, quoting sources, arranging their accounts, interpreting events, and applying what they record to the life of God’s people creates problems for which there is no easy solution.
Nevertheless, inspiration is the operation of the Holy Spirit which makes the words of Scripture God’s Word and assures that through all the rich variety found in the Scriptures God speaks His eternal and immutable truth to us.
I would also refer you to JP Holding’s piece on this subject in its entirety.
Also, there was some confusion in my core meaning of “revelation” - I quote again from the Missouri Synod document:
A. Inspiration and Revelation
“Inspiration” and “revelation” are terms which designate very closely related spiritual realities. According to 1 Cor. 2:9-13 both refer to an operation of the Holy Spirit; both are involved in imparting to man the knowledge of God and His saving counsels; both are necessary for our enlightenment “that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.”
But “inspiration” and “revelation” are not completely coextensive terms. Revelation can occur without inspiration; inspiration can occur without revelation.
The term “revelation” denotes every disclosure that God has given to men of His being, will, purposes, and acts whether this be through general revelation in the things which He has made and in His continuing providence, or through special revelation as in theophanies, visions, and dreams, in the Word of the Lord that came to the prophets for the instruction of His people, or in the incarnation of His Son.
The term “inspiration” denotes the guidance of the Holy Spirit under which the Biblical authors recorded what God had revealed to them about the mysteries of His being and the meaning of His mighty acts in human history for man’s salvation and under which they wrote concerning any other subject, even if it was about a matter of which they had knowledge apart from revelation (e. g., that Josiah was killed at Megiddo, that Demas deserted Paul, that Eutychus fell out of a window).
***
However, inspiration is not always inseparably associated with revelation in the Scriptures. While revelation is frequently accompanied by a command to write down what was seen and heard (Ex. 34:27; Deut. 31:9; Is.8:1; Jer.30:2; 36:2; Hab.2:2; Rev.1:11 et al.), there were occasions when there was revelation without such a command (Gen. 28:10-15; Luke 2:1-14). Conversely, revelation is not always associated with inspiration. The prophets and apostles wrote of many things of which they had knowledge apart from revelation. St. Luke, for instance, says that he compiled his narrative on the basis of information delivered by eyewitnesses of the events he records. (Luke 1: 1-4)
It was by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he did not know whether he had baptized anyone else besides the household of Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16); by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he included in his Second Epistle to Timothy the plea to come soon and bring along the cloak, books, and parchments that he had left with Carpus at Troas (2 Tim. 4:9, 13); by inspiration he volunteered his personal opinion about the advisability of getting married in times of persecution (1 Cor. 7:25-26). But no revelation was needed for him to know that his memory failed him about how many people he had baptized in Corinth, or to know that he wanted his cloak and books, or to know it was his opinion that in view of the impending distress it might be better not to get married [editorial note mine: I would not agree with the statement that it was merely Paul's opinion that it might be better not to get married].
Hopefully that clears that part up. Now onto the next confusion.
>>Secondly, I know of no serious thelogian that would advocate that theological derivations from Scripture are equally inspired and revelational. Hupostasis is no more an inspired word than Trinity. You give way to much authority to man-made theological deductions.>>>
No you have mispprehended my point, which again is likely due to me not expressing it well, and I am at a loss at how to remediate…. Well for instance, I didn’t say that Hypostasis was an inspired word, nor anyone that utters the word or the concept is themselves inspired. What I do mean is that the concept behind hypostasis, if it is in fact true, is inspired as it is what God has revealed of Himself. Biblical concepts are inspired revelation. Let me see if I can analogize. When Christ asked Peter who did he say that He was, Peter responded that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and Jesus told him that he received that by revelation of God. It was a concept that was revealed, Peter could have spoken different words, or said them in a different order, and it is still a revelation of God.
>>You would have to show me serious footnotes here.>>
Sidenote…. let’s say your initial analysis was right, and I did hold to what you thought that I did, why footnotes? Is truth decided by majority vote in your view? Are you all of a sudden deciding that it is okay to judge MY views on the fallible opinions of men? This is very inconsistent of you, and this was the inconsistency that Parker and JL picked up on with Bryan who argued himself into a corner and plugged his ears and went, lalalalala, I don’t hear you!!!! (of course I am speaking in polemical hyperbole). This goes right back to what I said to you before. The Bible is NOT self-authenticating - you cannot know what books are in the Bible simply by reading the Bible.
>>Now, if your rather large error here is true, and if the Chalcedonian Creed is true in all its parts, inspired as a concept, and therefore, infallible, then it is to be placed on par with the Bible.>>
Once again, IF the CC is true, then the concepts are only on par with the Bible because they are taught in the Bible - the CC would not be a SEPARATE inspired document but an exposition of inspired and revealed concepts.
>> The Roman Catholic argues in the same way, saying the Holy Spirit inspired the word “hupostasis.�>>
I didn’t. But if one believes that such is what the Bible teaches, then the concept is inspired. ie flesh and blood did not reveal this, but the Father in Heaven.
>>
You really need to clarify here what you mean when you confess that some parts of the Bible are not “inspired� (like the cloak reference) and some parts are, and then you need to tell me how you know which parts are and which parts are not.>>
I addressed that above in my explanation of the rejection of manual dictation and the distinction between inspiration and revelation. To be more precise, the cloak comment was not a revelation.
>>Finally, I do believe that concepts have authority, but not inspiration or infallibility.>>
Once again then you appear to be assigned mystical power to words. The Biblical words communicate inspired meaning/.
>> We are but men, and we err. >>>
I am a woman, and I am always right
>>The Bible never errs, which is why we Reformed call it the Supreme Judge (the Book of Mormon is the supreme judge in their religion..check the introduction the that book).>>
First I am not Reformed, just to be clear, but I agree with your statement on the Bible. I likely believe you are incorrect about the BoM as they allow for God to change His mind through the Living Prophet.
>>
Every idea of man is to be tested against it. I accept hupostasis as a legitimate term for the Godhead, but this in no wise makes this an inspired term to be added to the Scripture. It is not, as Paul said, “god-breathed�, and it is not inspired, as Peter said, “as men were carried along by the Spirit� (talking about the Prophets). Preterism is a good word, but hardly inspired. The formula is: all true statements are not inspired, but all inspired statements are true. and the only inspired statements we as Christians claim, according to the Bible, is the Bible itself: “all the written words (Greek for “ha graphe� the Scripture) are god-breathed.�>>
I believe I have addressed this above.
Dee Dee
Dee,
By and large, okay. However, more precision is needed. You wrote, “>>Finally, I do believe that concepts have authority, but not inspiration or infallibility.>>
Once again then you appear to be assigned mystical power to words. The Biblical words communicate inspired meaning/.
I do not know how you can conclude that I assign “mystical power to words.” I am not sure what that phrase even means! Do words have meaning? I hope so! You cannot have meaning apart from words! A group of words (particulars) form the meaning and concept (the whole). You cannot have one without the other, and, both must be emphasized. Each word, as the quote from Wallace stated above, is inspired by God (though it may not be “revelation” from God). Thus, “cloak” is inspired by the Spirit. Let me make this plainer: Paul emphasizes a point of Hebrew grammar when he notes that “seed” is singular and not plural “seeds.” One single “s” makes the difference (or in Hebrew, ‘im’). The writer of Hebrews notes the word “new” in new covenant, and concludes that “old” is vanishing. One single word is emphasized. Now, of course, the word “new” has behind it “new covenant” and all of its ramifications. But, I am unclear as to what you mean when you appear to say that concepts and meaning are inspired, but not “words.”
Secondly, and finally, you wrote, “Once again, IF the CC is true, then the concepts are only on par with the Bible because they are taught in the Bible - the CC would not be a SEPARATE inspired document but an exposition of inspired and revealed concepts.” Key phrase: “because they are taught in the Bible.” Very good, and very Westminster of you! Creeds have no intrinsic authority on their own, but only as they are derived from Scripture. Now that you have said that, then you can understand the original issue. If I come in the name of the King with an edict, the governers of the land will want to have proof that I do come from the King with the edict. It is the King, not the edict, that carries the authority. Therefore, the edict MAY be false. Once the King confirms the edict as valid, the edict stands. Same with the Creeds and the Bible. Creeds, as the Westminster Confession states, “can and MAY err.” That is, since they are DERIVED documents, and since men (who err) are not inspired in the same fashion as the biblical writers, then there has to be PROOF of the warrant the Creeds claim. Further light may indeed show that a word or a phrase or two may NOT be derived from the Bible. This POSSIBILITY always exists. I wrote, “The Bible never errs, which is why we Reformed call it the Supreme Judge.” And to this, you wrote, “First I am not Reformed, just to be clear, but I agree with your statement on the Bible.” If the Bible “never errs” and the words of non-inspired men “may” err, then you can see where the Reformed slogan “semper reformanda” came from (”always reforming”). That is, always making sure that my traditions are biblically derived. Since, then, creeds have this potentiality of error, it is quite legitimate, and indeed necessary, to question them in the light of our developing understanding throughout the last 2000 years. Originally, Tyler Hicks entire argument was that he ASSUMED that the Creeds are without error, and that “it is impossible” to declare ANYTHING to be heresy APART FROM assuming the Creeds! It appears to me, however, that you agree with me here: we START with assuming the TRUTH of the Bible. Everything else is subject to potential error. We CAN make truthful deductions, no doubt, but somtimes these deductions may contradict past deductions held by a great many for a great period of time. Then what? “I stand by reason and Scripture…so help me God” (Luther).
Samuel Frost
Samuel:
I am not going to respond in lenght, I cleared up the main issue that I wanted to, and I think I made the point with you about striving for accurate representations, and I have proven to you that I also hold myself to the same standard in my comments about you as I have in course of our conversations retracted several comments, which upon examination, were not accurate.
It appears that you agree with me that mechanical dictation is to be rejected.
>>But, I am unclear as to what you mean when you appear to say that concepts and meaning are inspired, but not “words.�>>
Language is arbitrary. For insance the word “gift” conveys a pleasant meaning in English but from I understand, in German it means poison. It is arbitrary - words are merely containers for meaning. Thus when we say God is triune, the triunity of God is a revelation from Scripture.
>> Key phrase: “because they are taught in the Bible.� Very good, and very Westminster of you! Creeds have no intrinsic authority on their own, but only as they are derived from Scripture. Now that you have said that, then you can understand the original issue.>>
Samuel, I have always understood the original issue, I just did not communicate it as precisely as it should have been. However, and I am not going to get into this on blog comments, and further I am exploring this issue more myself to find out exactly where I will “land” so to speak, but I disagree in some sense that Creeds have no intrinsic authorityof their own - I believe they do. HOWEVER, with the issue involving your view I do not use the Creeds as a primary defense. I do not have to. My position thus on the Creeds is pretty irrelevant and nearly every time it is brought up in responding to me it is a red herring, as you initially did when you called me a hypercreedalist. And the issue with your view is not quite so simple as a deviation from some secondary doctrine - your view is an entirely different faith when the logical ramifications are explored. You want to jettison the foundational statements of the Creeds? Fine, then have the guts to except the consequences and don’t strive for “acceptance” amongst those who do not jettison these foundations. I have told you that I find that theologically dishonest, and that has been part of the sum and substance of my point. When the Church has been more unified on certain basics which are part of the warp and woof of the Gospel, there is authority there whether you accept it or not. The over confidence of one’s own importance and abilities is staggering, and I do believe you grossly oversimplify the Creedal issue.
But then again, it is irrelevant in the discussion with me. I tend to think the reason hyperpreterists bring it up so much is that it appeals to uniquely American individualistic self-loving-pride which is foreign to and antithetical to the Scriptures.
Dee,
If Christianity is derived from the word of God and all of its doctrines are to be agreeable to the word of God, then Christianity is defined by the word of God. Your argument is plainly illogical: “jetison one thing, jettison all things.” “Some dogs are not poodles” cannot ever imply “No dogs are poodles.” Your argument that we should not seek peace and acceptance amongst our brothers and sisters in JESUS CHRIST (forgot about him?) as defined by the Scriptures is non-sequitor. Your appeal to ad populum is equally a fallacy. The appeal to tradition is a fallacy. As a Christian, Christianity is derived from the word of God, and that is its foundation for any and all doctrines. Therefore, to proceed on that SAME FOUNDATION is a CHRISTIAN endeavor, not a Mormon endeavor (they deny the sufficiency of the Bible), not a JW endeavor (they literally add to the Bible). Thus, you ordering me to stop seeking acceptance from many that have given me acceptance is simply, well, cruel. I guess I have to tell them all to stop hanging out with me and stop being my friends because, well, I am gangrene and evil. Sorry, Dee….ain’t gonna happen. I am a Christian, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Samuel Frost
Well Samuel, people like myself and others whose eyes are opened to foulness of this heresy are going to insure that such poison doesn’t infect the flock. And as far as doing something about it, some of your crowd sure have tried, haven’t they, with despicable tactics, and it being opined at a heretical site that perhaps such behaviour would shut me up. [1] Isn’t that nice. Cults do things like that.
You have by your own admission denied the historic faith. You claim however that the historic faith was wrong and you are right. JWs, Mormons, and numerous other cultic groups do the same. You are not my brother, and I am not your sister - we do not share the same faith. You preach a counterfeit redemption. I have no issue with you personally, in fact, I daresay I like you pretty darned well and certainly do not consider you my enemy by any means , but I detest what you are doing to the faith. Your twisting above into the oh poor me the matyr syndrome doesn’t fly. You are preaching gangrene, that must be opposed, but you as a person are created in the image of God, and I NEVER (stop misrepresenting me Samuel it is getting really old) said no one should be your friend. I think it is frustrating that I am not fitting into the narrow little box your friends have painted of me. The fact remains you have never dealt with my point, you have misrepresented me in order to make me out to be something I am not (such as a person who would have burned people at the stake, that’s really nice Samuel), and that I “am ordering” you. It is easy to shoot down my arguments by such caricatures but only to the choir.
Dee Dee
[1] I want to make this perfectly clear - I do not care about parody (in fact some of the parody is quite funny though I thought of some much funnier slams on me), I do not care about criticism. What has been done way crosses the line and nearly everyone who has seen it thinks that it is pretty disturbing behaviour. So disturbing that yes I have made an advisory police report about it because if something should ever happen to me, the police know where to look first. Yes me and my family have taken it that seriously. You don’t need me to discedit your movement, tactics like that do it all by themselves. I have appreciated conversing with you since such things are absent from your personal communications to me unlike what some of your friends IM me with in Paltalk.
Dee,
Are you resorting to “poor me” and “martyr” syndrome? Irrelevant. As for the argument: Some A is Not B cannot imply, ever, that All is Not B. Let us run through this AGAIN. “Some creedal statements are not true.” Does this imply that “All creedal statements are not true.”? Deal with it. You must, by logical necessity, stop saying that to jettison one is to jettison all. It’s ILLOGICAL. I am trying to help you build a better argument! Now, I don’t know how in the world you can like a person as sick, evil and twisted as I am. Do you think Paul “hung around” Hymenaeus and Philetus? I can hear Paul now saying, “You know, you two guys are destroying the Christian faith, but, let’s go have few glasses of wine and play dice together, cause I really do like you.” And, finally, for a woman that says that she hardly EVER appeals to Creeds….you might want to define “the historic Christian faith” to me. Sounds like a creedal appeal to me…unless, ofcourse, you define Christianity according to the Bible…
Samuel Frost
Dee,
Oh and one other thing. Are you saying that “orthodox” Christians have never threatened or done acts of violence? Care for a history lesson? To point out kooks that happen to be preterists is useless against arguing about the beleif system. It’s like saying that I can find a few kooks who adhered to the “historic” Christian faith, and therefore, their “tactics” are evil. Nah…kooks come in all shapes and sizes…and anyone threatening you who is a preterist….do me a favor…have that ass arrested.
Samuel Frost
Once again Samuel, you are missing the point. I am friends with some I believe are heretics. I do not share Christian fellowship with them. You wish to put words in my mouth, but it is unfortunate I am not what you have represented. I am not continuing this conversation - we have both made our points - and you have yet to address mine and have continually misstated what it in fact is. I do not think it is intentional, frankly I think you are horribly deceived and blinded. I do not have the time or desire for an extended blog debate, nor is that the purpose of my blog.
Well Samuel, I am not speaking of a few kooks btw, and it was promoted by a site you frequent. Ironically.
If we were talking about a few who were not getting the support of one of the largest hyperpret sites on the Net you would have a point. Plus I never said anyone directly threatened violence. No one has. But publishing a site in which the uppity nasty mean b**tch is paraded, and oh yeah, here’s where she lives, and here’s some more personal information on her, oh here’s a photograph of her neighborhood, here is where she works too. I took it seriously enough that I filed an advisory report for the express purpose of documenting this issue in case someone decides they want to take it farther. Unnecessary? Really Samuel, I get harassing emails from your crowd and get harassed by IM in Paltalk. The obsession and borderline stalking behaviour is not one isolated incidence.
And Samuel…. are you saying those who have behaved that way are kooks?
Dee,
Some A is B cannot imply All A is Not B.
Samuel
And I never said it was Samuel. But in my experience we are not talking about a few isolated cases, and others have told me of similar experiences.
Are you saying those who have behaved that way are kooks? Be careful unless you know who is doing it.
Dee,
I read the words “police” and “threats.” I don’t know who you would point out that has done this, but if anyone is stalking, threatening or harassing you, then it needs to be dealt with. As far as calling you “names”, the word “heretic” is a name, too (equivalent in my book to “b****”).
Now, as to the underanswered argument: You wrote, “You want to jettison the foundational statements of the Creeds? Fine, then have the guts to except the consequences and don’t strive for “acceptanceâ€? amongst those who do not jettison these foundations. I have told you that I find that theologically dishonest, and that has been part of the sum and substance of my point. When the Church has been more unified on certain basics which are part of the warp and woof of the Gospel, there is authority there whether you accept it or not. The over confidence of one’s own importance and abilities is staggering, and I do believe you grossly oversimplify the Creedal issue.” I respond: some A is Not B cannot imply that No A is B. You have not yet responded to this. Secondly, you keep saying that to bring up “creeds” is irrelevant, but then turn right around and use them as “Christian foundations.” The Word of God is the foundation, Dee, not the opinions of men. Appeal to the majority is a FALLACY, Dee. Are these really the arguments you have? They demonstrate and prove NOTHING, logically speaking. You can’t say “there is authority” there except by appealing to the majority, and we who study logic know that truth is not determined by counting heads….
Samuel Frost
Samuel you still have not gotten the point and keep arguing against something that is not my point - that is called a strawman Samuel. This is very frustrating and I am not going to beat my head on the wall further. And I see you don’t have the conviction to state what you are well aware of is inappropriate. I was hopeful you would have more courage and wouldn’t play ignorant. I was wrong. Oh well. And if you honestly think that calling heresy - heresy is as bad as certain misogynistic statements and your silence on the personal invasion I have to take as approval, I have to ask that you not participate here further. I want no association with that mentality and anyone I know supports that extremely personal type of attack gets posts immediately deleted. You I have given much time to and have not deleted anything from you for I thought better of you, especially after your kindness in Paltalk. I much more easily accept discourse with you having severe theological differences, but I will not have discourse with someone who has that opinion. And if you do not have the courage to say that such was wrong, notice I am being very specific, I am not claiming that no one can parody or criticize me, I mentioned certain things, and you refuse to condemn it. Other things were genuinely funny, and I am the first to laugh at myself. If it wasn’t for the over-the-line stuff I would have posted even better comments they could have made - there is nothing better than a good roast. Well Samuel, I regret that I thought better of you.
All that being said, my appreciation to you for your kindness on patlalk remains. I do wish you would have followed through on that here.
Dee,
We must be really talking past each other. I am not sure what I am approving of here! Have I approved of any name calling? No. I am not sure of the person you are referring to, either. I am not sure what you are speaking about other than someone calling you a indecent name. You can think that I am lying right now, but this is just me typing. I condemn name calling and threats and stupid tactics. Either I have a bad memory, or I just can’t quite put my finger on something. But, all that I can tell you, Dee, is that I DON’T practice such things, and that has been seen by all who are reading this. I think you might be referring to a website that paradizes you, but I did not read all of that site, except for the introduction part. If something was on that site that was inappropriate, then forgive me for snickering at it. I am talking honest here. Please, do not continue to think that I am somehow lying to you or being dishonest, or deliberately forgetful…I have forgotten our anniversery before and my mother’s birthday!
Samuel Frost
Samuel - why don’t you go to the site and tell me what you think? Do you think it is appropriate to post personal information about a person when they said they do not wish that, and the reason they do not wish that is because there are loonies on the Internet and said person has had people (completely unrelated to hyperprets) who have sent pretty graphic and disturbing emails and have had wierd fixations on her, and that her husband put that rule in place for the safety of his wife? Do you think anyone has the right to over-rule the right of a husband to limit personal information about his wife? Do you think it is right to post the address and phone number where I work? Or how about threatening that if I try to do anything about that site that they would harass me further, maybe post my home number, or my relative’s information? Or that they were going to get a picture? This happened right after a man and his whole family were murdered after someone posted their personal information from Paltalk.
I have no reason to think you are lying. You have never given me reason to think that of you. But you did equate misogynistic comments with a theological conviction that I have, and I do not associate with persons who think that such is equal. Perhaps you were using hyperbole, but I take what you say at face value, if you wish to withdraw that comment, I will withdraw my request that you not communicate with me. What if someone were calling your wife a misogynistic term because they did not agree with a theological stance that she aggressively took? What is someone felt it was their right to comprimise your family’s safety in your eyes? It doesn’t matter if they don’t think so, it matters that they knew that the object thought so. It wouldn’t even matter if the term is accurate in the opinion of some, no one should call such names to someone’s wife - the only thing worse would be to use the w-word. I am also someone’s daughter and sister - people don’t think about things like that. There are still some things that is inappropriate for men to say to women and some relationships that are sacred no matter how much someone may disagree or even dislike someone.
Dee,
What’s the link? (send me a private e-mail if you do not want it posted here…you should have my e-mail)
Sam
I sent you an email. As this has gotten way off the subject of the blog and more personal we can continue that line of discussion in private. The article I have been speaking of will be going up later today.