7up reminded me of our friend Robert Millet

[Sparko]

But, remember OC used to counter with the notion that they had "sacred" beliefs, and ours obviously weren't "sacred" because we had nothing to "hold back"? He really tried his best to equate "sacred" with "secret" or "hidden".

2 Cor 4:4 Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

[One Bad Pig]

And if somebody asked me, "hey, aren't you Southern Baptists a bunch of racists?", I would begin by TOTALLY admitting that there was rampant racism, and many in our denomination bought into that -- it was wrong, and we denounce it as such. I wouldn't try to pretend that it didn't happen, and I COULD honestly say that it was never a "doctrine" of our Church ... just rampant stupidity and bigotry. The TRUTH works SO well.

I am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.

[ke7ejx]

Give him time. He's getting snarky too.

Indeed he is.

[Kind Debater]

While you are considering this, let's say that you are going to teach a class on the gospels. Would you start with Jesus violently overthrowing the money changers in the temple?

The pastors at my church do expositional preaching, i.e. they pick a book of the Bible and preach through it, whether it brings up uncomfortable topics or not and whether there are unbelievers in the congregation or not. In fact, that's half the point of expositional preaching (which I learned about in the class I took at church) -- it forces the pastor to cover all the Bible, not just the parts they like preaching about. They recently finished preaching through the gospel of Mark, including Jesus cleaning the temple and cursing the fig tree.

How about a Christian history class. Would you start with indulgences or the crusades?

The part of my class that covered Christian history covered both topics (albeit briefly -- we read Turning Points by Mark Noll and discussed it), as well as the split between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

[Kind Debater]

I find I am increasingly uncomfortable with this thread. I'm no stranger to debate forums in general or TWeb in particular -- I was one of the original members of the original TWeb back when it started as a breakaway group from another Christian debate forum. I understand the expectation that Twebbers either get a thick skin or leave. But if anyone has a problem with 7up or anyone else, why don't you tell them straight out or PM them instead of doing this "Hey, didja see how snarky 7up is getting?" stuff?

I suppose it's better than talking behind his back, but just barely. In real life, would you sit around and talk negatively about someone else in the third person while it was obvious they could hear you? That seems really rude to me.

---

Maybe I shouldn't get involved here, but CP and 7up, I'm wondering if you guys are speaking past each other.

Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

This reminded me of our friend Robert Millet, BYU Professor, who taught us "Never answer the question they ask -- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".

I was pointing out that Bill was attempting to rail against an argument that I never made in the first place.

Yes, which reminded me of Robert Millet teaching to "invent" a question and answer that, instead of the question that was asked.

So, you are saying that Bill was just using Robert Millet's tactics?

Wow!

No, I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CP's train of thought was "Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making." resembles "Please address the points I am making rather than the arguments you think I should be making" which is reminiscent of "Answer the question you think they should have asked." As in, the general concept of someone answering what they think someone should have said instead of what they actually said is what's in common between 7up's original statement and Millet's speech, and he wasn't saying 7up or Bill were intentionally using that tactic.

And I think 7up read what CP said as "What you said reminds me of a Mormon tactic that I find intellectually dishonest", but couldn't quite parse how CP got that idea from his original statement. So he wondered if CP meant "7up's description of Bill's response made me think of a Mormon tactic..." which resembles "Bill is using a dishonest tactic that Mormons use," hence his question "Are you saying Bill was just using Millet's tactics?" Then when CP said no, that wasn't it, he reinterpreted CP's original statement as "7up is using intellectually dishonest tactics," which is a personal accusation.

Unless I happen to be right about what CP meant, you have to admit that "I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics." does sound like an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

[Cow Poke]

I find I am increasingly uncomfortable with this thread. I'm no stranger to debate forums in general or TWeb in particular -- I was one of the original members of the original TWeb back when it started as a breakaway group from another Christian debate forum. I understand the expectation that Twebbers either get a thick skin or leave. But if anyone has a problem with 7up or anyone else, why don't you tell them straight out or PM them instead of doing this "Hey, didja see how snarky 7up is getting?" stuff?

I suppose it's better than talking behind his back, but just barely. In real life, would you sit around and talk negatively about someone else in the third person while it was obvious they could hear you? That seems really rude to me.

---

Maybe I shouldn't get involved here, but CP and 7up, I'm wondering if you guys are speaking past each other.











Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CP's train of thought was "Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making." resembles "Please address the points I am making rather than the arguments you think I should be making" which is reminiscent of "Answer the question you think they should have asked." As in, the general concept of someone answering what they think someone should have said instead of what they actually said is what's in common between 7up's original statement and Millet's speech, and he wasn't saying 7up or Bill were intentionally using that tactic.

And I think 7up read what CP said as "What you said reminds me of a Mormon tactic that I find intellectually dishonest", but couldn't quite parse how CP got that idea from his original statement. So he wondered if CP meant "7up's description of Bill's response made me think of a Mormon tactic..." which resembles "Bill is using a dishonest tactic that Mormons use," hence his question "Are you saying Bill was just using Millet's tactics?" Then when CP said no, that wasn't it, he reinterpreted CP's original statement as "7up is using intellectually dishonest tactics," which is a personal accusation.

Unless I happen to be right about what CP meant, you have to admit that "I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics." does sound like an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, it's much simpler than that.

I had totally forgotten about Robert Millet --- we used to have a thread on this. For WHATEVER reason, 7up's comment reminded me of Robert Millet's "instruction".

I think, from that, 7up went off to the races.

[Cow Poke]

I am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.

I'm not really understanding how it's "holier than thou" to totally admit we were wrong, and we have repented and moved forward.

Can you shed some light on this for me? My point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not really understanding how it's "holier than thou" to totally admit we were wrong, and we have repented and moved forward.

Can you shed some light on this for me? My point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.

You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

[Cow Poke]

You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

Oh.

[Sparko]

You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

Paul seemed quite willing to do just that in 2 Cor 4

[One Bad Pig]

Paul seemed quite willing to do just that in 2 Cor 4

No. Paul was giving a pep talk, not boasting to his opponents.

[ke7ejx]

You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me.

[Cow Poke]

You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me.

That is exactly what I intended. I'm trying to see how that comes across as "boasting", but... When I say I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see - am I "boasting"?

[One Bad Pig]

You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me.

Well, that's why I was careful to couch things the way I did. It's just the way it came across to me.

[One Bad Pig]

That is exactly what I intended. I'm trying to see how that comes across as "boasting", but... When I say I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see - am I "boasting"?

When you add "unlike you"? Yes, IMO.