Evangelicals full of fear

[Cow Poke]

The Bible does not give anyone "the ticket to attack persons who [honestly] ask you to support claims you make about other persons with a source". What it does give you however, is the right to call out disingenuous people who use a feigned interest and care about what the Bible says in order to try and browbeating you into giving in to their demands, which is exactly what you are doing here.

That!

Apparently it's Cow Poke's judgement that your demanding of him to back up his claims, and your subsequent claim that he is using the Bible to avoid having to back them up, is nothing but disingenuity on your part, and so far from what I've read in this discussion, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

When Charles introduces somebody as "himself an Evangelical", and is challenged, it's not up to me to prove Fea isn't. And when it's shown that Fea makes his living blogging, writing, and making speeches critical of Evangelicals, it really throws doubt on Charles' claim.

[Mountain Man]

You may doubt it, but who would you listen to - some-one who has studied the testaments and the apocrypha, read/understood WLC, RtB and JPH, and is familiar with the majority of apologetics arguments; or some-one who is clearly clueless and keeps insisting Moses would have died in the flood?

Although I disagree with Jim, I take his points seriously...

Right, your respect for ox's religious beliefs such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ and eternal life in heaven for those who put their faith in Him is obvious from the condescending sneer on your face.

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

What's really changed?

[Cow Poke]

It is very, very simple. Cow Poke makes a statement that a certain person holds a particular view.

Prove you're sincere, Charles. Let's deal with that. What "particular view" are we discussing here?

[Mountain Man]

I completely agree with this part. I think some Christians make the fallacy of equating the fact that we take him seriously with the fact that he agrees with us. There is not only a world but a universe of a difference between the two. I do not agree with him on matters related to faith but I take his points seriosly because he can support his claims, is honest, has integrity and - perhaps even most important when it comes to trust - he is willing to admit it if he has made an error.

You like ox because he's thrown his lot in with you, but this allience between you and he has not made you in anyway more welcoming of Christianity or more sympathetic toward its adherents. On the contrary, you continue to attack Christianity on a daily basis and insult those who call themselves Christians. What you should be asking yourself about ox is why isn't he standing up to you, calling you out for your duplicity, and vigorously defending his faith against someone eager to tear it down.

[Cow Poke]

You like ox because he's thrown his lot in with you....

And I readily confess that I have allowed this to corrupt my perception of Ox. Because he so often sides with these guys, and they kiss his butt and back him up, I have allowed the "us vs them" mentality that I see so often from Ox to color my view of him. I have to remember that these same "ameners" of Ox would call him a fool for believing in the Risen Lord, substitutionary atonement, Heaven and Hell....

[Charles]

When Charles introduces somebody as "himself an Evangelical", and is challenged, it's not up to me to prove Fea isn't.

If you challenge it by making claims that he holds particular view with no support for those statements, you are the one who is making statements you either cannot or will not support.

You wrote:

I "got this" from an article Fea wrote where he takes Evanglicals to task for not supporting the homosexual agenda.

And you have refused to tell us what article you are taking about, what he is saying in it or anything along those lines. You just made the statement and now you go for "Biblical" ad hominems when you are asked to provide the link.

And when it's shown that Fea makes his living blogging, writing, and making speeches critical of Evangelicals, it really throws doubt on Charles' claim.

I think you have misunderstood what he is doing. Read the opening post and see that he is pointing to the Bible as a guidling line for his fellow evangelicals and encouraging them to trust it instead of having fear. I am deeply surprises you are so worried about that message that you have gone for all sorts of attacks, faulty distinctions and the like in order to dodge the points.

Perhaps a Messiah College historian makes his living from other things than blogging, writing and making speeches critical of Evangelicals? But I suppose it will be in vain if I ask you to support your idea he makes his living primarily from that.

You can go here if you are looking for the context of the source you seemingle cannot provide: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post730208

[Cow Poke]

If you challenge it by making claims that he holds particular view with no support for those statements...

Again, that "particular view"? And please use the quote function, not your own rendition of what you claim I said, because, quite honestly, I don't trust you any further than I can throw a bull by the tail.

[Charles]

You like ox because he's thrown his lot in with you, but this allience between you and he has not made you in anyway more welcoming of Christianity or more sympathetic toward its adherents.

Absolutely wrong. I wonder how you even get the idea you know anything about it. Mind reader?

On the contrary, you continue to attack Christianity on a daily basis and insult those who call themselves Christians.

If you had the eyes to see you would know that this thread is certainly not an attack on Christianity. It is a way of questioning the actions of certain Christians who fail at act according to the Bible. That you cannot see the difference is in itself quite telling.

What you should be asking yourself about ox is why isn't he standing up to you, calling you out for your duplicity, and vigorously defending his faith against someone eager to tear it down.

The greatest attack on Christianity on tweb is from people like you. What you did not know about Ox is that he has actually asked me to explain my situation to him to share his view and give his advice. Do you think, perhaps, that is closer to leading people to faith than name calling, insults and claims that it is great for a Christian to support the idea that children should be seperated from their parents with no plans for reunification? I would guess most readers know the anwer. I am not too sure about you.

[Charles]

Again, that "particular view"? And please use the quote function, not your own rendition of what you claim I said, because, quite honestly, I don't trust you any further than I can throw a bull by the tail.

Now with the quote function. Exactly the same content, but dodging is so much better than just providing the link.

Prediction: You will still not provide a link to the article.

[Cow Poke]

Now with the quote function.

Do you not know how to use the quote function, Charles?

You said....

Cow Poke makes a statement that a certain person holds a particular view.

What "particular view" is that, and why is it so hard for you to provide the quote where I said that?

Exactly the same content, but dodging is so much better than just providing the link.

So STOP dodging, and provide the link!

Prediction: You will still not provide a link to the article.

Show me what "particular view" I assigned to "the guy", and I'll be happy to address it.

[Charles]

Do you not know how to use the quote function, Charles?

You said....



What "particular view" is that, and why is it so hard for you to provide the quote where I said that?



So STOP dodging, and provide the link!



Show me what "particular view" I assigned to "the guy", and I'll be happy to address it.

Look:

I "got this" from an article Fea wrote where he takes Evanglicals to task for not supporting the homosexual agenda.

You were made aware of it yesterday too but still you claim it is unclear what I am asking for. The dishonesty is quite obvious. Anyone can go here to the post I wrote yesterday asking for your source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post730208

I have been asking you to support he holds this view numerous times and you have refused to provide the link. It is as simple as that.

Prediction: You will still dodge around and we will never see your source (if you have one). Even if you do it is a mystery why it is so secret.

[oxmixmudd]

And I readily confess that I have allowed this to corrupt my perception of Ox. Because he so often sides with these guys, and they kiss his butt and back him up, I have allowed the "us vs them" mentality that I see so often from Ox to color my view of him. I have to remember that these same "ameners" of Ox would call him a fool for believing in the Risen Lord, substitutionary atonement, Heaven and Hell....

Three things you might consider as an enhancement of what you've expressed here:

I only side with those I believe are speaking the truth. But I tend not to care about the source's ideological affiliation.

I speak up in contradiction with those I believe are not speaking the truth. And I likewise tend not to care about the source's ideological affiliation. Further, while I care about their opinion of me (who actually likes to be despised and mocked?) I will not allow myself to be silent to preserve their opinion, nor to avoid their mockery.

I despise bullies because I was a victim of them for most of my life until most of them dropped out of high school my jr year. So I tend to stick up for people that are being bullied, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Those three things, and not the myriad alternative reality proposals that are often floated about, are why I post what I do.


Perhaps keeping them in mind might smooth things out over time?

[Charles]

Right, your respect for ox's religious beliefs such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ and eternal life in heaven for those who put their faith in Him is obvious from the condescending sneer on your face.

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

What's really changed?

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians believe the Bible. I do not for numerous reasons"

Skeptics after President Trump: "Many Christians no longer believe the Bible but still insist to be called Christians. They don't have much integrity and are OK with whataboutism and a very relative moral standard. I no longer disagree with them on religious matters since it appears they don't believe. I find them to support what is morally wrong and I find that they contradict themselves and everything they claim I should believe."

[Cow Poke]

Three things you might consider as an enhancement of what you've expressed here:

You can't just graciously accept contrition?

I only side with those I believe are speaking the truth. But I tend not to care about the source's ideological affiliation.

On that, we can agree to disagree, because I still think your whole worldview is skewed by your contempt for Trump.

I speak up in contradiction with those I believe are not speaking the truth. And I likewise tend not to care about the source's ideological affiliation. Further, while I care about their opinion of me (who actually likes to be despised and mocked?) I will not allow myself to be silent to preserve their opinion, nor to avoid their mockery.

I despise bullies because I was a victim of them for most of my life until most of them dropped out of high school my jr year. So I tend to stick up for people that are being bullied, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Sometimes we become what we despise, Jim, and you have a tendency to do the bully thing yourself, but I doubt you'd ever see that.

Those three things, and not the myriad alternative reality proposals that are often floated about, are why I post what I do.

I have no doubt you believe that.

Perhaps keeping them in mind might smooth things out over time?

And, from your end, what would help to "smooth things out"?

[Mountain Man]

And I readily confess that I have allowed this to corrupt my perception of Ox. Because he so often sides with these guys, and they kiss his butt and back him up, I have allowed the "us vs them" mentality that I see so often from Ox to color my view of him. I have to remember that these same "ameners" of Ox would call him a fool for believing in the Risen Lord, substitutionary atonement, Heaven and Hell....

I don't know if ox realizes how he's playing into the hands of people like Charles who love to see Christian against Christian. When an anti-Christian posts something critical of Christians and their faith, and ox runs in and says, "Yeah, I agree!", frankly, I can't see any upside to it.