A 'rebuke' to readers of stuff fundies like.

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually, I'm not messing with TB's head. I'm asking him to consistently apply what he says instead of changing as the wind (or his personal belief) blows.

This thread is a simple example of how that inconsistency plays out in his posts. Of course, then he attacks people for pointing out that inconsistency, but that's just his MO, I think.

Did you even read the blog referenced in the OP before you began posting?
The title included the words a rebuke to the READERS of sfl..... :

 

[rsc2a]

Actually, I'm not messing with TB's head. I'm asking him to consistently apply what he says instead of changing as the wind (or his personal belief) blows.

This thread is a simple example of how that inconsistency plays out in his posts. Of course, then he attacks people for pointing out that inconsistency, but that's just his MO, I think.

Did you even read the blog referenced in the OP before you began posting?
The title included the words a rebuke to the READERS of sfl..... :

Yes, I did. That's why I asked for clarification. You then clarified, then turned around and contradicted your own position. That whole consistency thing...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually, I'm not messing with TB's head. I'm asking him to consistently apply what he says instead of changing as the wind (or his personal belief) blows.

This thread is a simple example of how that inconsistency plays out in his posts. Of course, then he attacks people for pointing out that inconsistency, but that's just his MO, I think.

Did you even read the blog referenced in the OP before you began posting?
The title included the words a rebuke to the READERS of sfl..... :

Yes, I did. That's why I asked for clarification. You then clarified, then turned around and contradicted your own position. That whole consistency thing...

The thread went from the blog to the nature of sfl. I was not necessarily defending the blogger, but was criticizing the attitude, spirit and intellectual honesty of sfl.

I do sometimes try to mess with your head by illustrating the obtuse by being obtuse.  ;D

 

[Torrent v.3]

Actually, I'm not messing with TB's head. I'm asking him to consistently apply what he says instead of changing as the wind (or his personal belief) blows.

This thread is a simple example of how that inconsistency plays out in his posts. Of course, then he attacks people for pointing out that inconsistency, but that's just his MO, I think.

Did you even read the blog referenced in the OP before you began posting?
The title included the words a rebuke to the READERS of sfl..... :

Yes, I did. That's why I asked for clarification. You then clarified, then turned around and contradicted your own position. That whole consistency thing...

The thread went from the blog to the nature of sfl. I was not necessarily defending the blogger, but was criticizing the attitude, spirit and intellectual honesty of sfl.

I do sometimes try to mess with your head by illustrating the obtuse by being obtuse.  ;D

Get a room.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The thread went from the blog to the nature of sfl. I was not necessarily defending the blogger, but was criticizing the attitude, spirit and intellectual honesty of sfl.[/quote]

Yes...I remember that conversation from before. I kept asking you to provide any proof of intellectual dishonesty and you never provided anything.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I do sometimes try to mess with your head by illustrating the obtuse by being obtuse.  ;D[/quote]

Or you just got called out on the fact that you aren't very consistent.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The thread went from the blog to the nature of sfl. I was not necessarily defending the blogger, but was criticizing the attitude, spirit and intellectual honesty of sfl.

Yes...I remember that conversation from before. I kept asking you to provide any proof of intellectual dishonesty and you never provided anything.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I do sometimes try to mess with your head by illustrating the obtuse by being obtuse.  ;D[/quote]

Or you just got called out on the fact that you aren't very consistent.
[/quote]

No, I definitely like trying to mess with your head.

 

[Just John]

So back to the blog referenced in the OP...

I thought the author of the blog, Hayden, was very measured in his concerns and correct in some ways. There no doubt is over-simplification and broad-brushing and indeed lumps all "Fundies" together. (Much the same as StuffChristiansLike lumps all Christians together but my understanding is that while it's satirical is not hostile.) Just as I as a reader would not consider "all Christians" as a monolithic mindset I would not consider "all IFB's" as a monolith either.

Now when I see the term "fundie" it strikes a different chord with me, just as "IFB" from "IFBx". Perhaps that's too inside baseball for some but that's the mindset I tend to approach it from. There is definitely a diversity of experiences and viewpoints of respondent's (the more appropriate use than a "rebuke to readers") at SFL. Some will be more nuanced than others. Some are downright angry and bitter. I think the site could/should be more careful to state not all IFB's are the same as Darrel does do occasionally. I do not believe it is his view that all IFB's are the same.

Back to Ryan and others who feel like he does. What to do if they want to retain the term "fundamentalist"? Even though the watchword of IFB's is "independent" many coalesce around various things be they schools, publications, evangelists, etc. He sounds like a good candidate to lead a group to coalesce around a movement based on the things he has articulated. I would love to see a "Fundamentalists Code of Ethics" that in part reflects on the truth of the legitimate hurt that has been done to many individuals in the movement and concrete steps the church or pastor agrees to honor to help minimize or avoid future problems. It won't make everyone happy, nor should it. Some of the pastors and churches will think it's intrusive and not "independent". Some of the IFB critics will complain that such a code of ethics wouldn't reign in what they see as offensive doctrine. But really it's the far extremes that are always the problem. If a church can't agree on some legitimate, common sense rules like reporting all abuse claims to the police, FBI checks for all SS teachers, pastors with some agreeable type of accountability, etc. then they are part of the problem, not the solution. If a critic can't understand that a church legitimately believes something like homosexuality being a sin is a traditional doctrine of Christianity then they are being unreasonable and part of the problem.

Yeah, I know...it won't happen.

 

[bruinboy]

"Fundamentalists Code of Ethics"
I don't care who you are, that is funny.

 

[Reformed Guy]

The problem with SFL isn't that they haven't occasionally managed to gore a worthy ox, but that bloodlust has set in and anything that is deemed threatening to their licentiousness merits wrath and scorn.

 

[rsc2a]

The problem with SFL isn't that they haven't occasionally managed to gore a worthy ox, but that bloodlust has set in and anything that is deemed threatening to their licentiousness merits wrath and scorn.

I'll ask you like I asked Tarheel...

(He still hasn't proved anything.)

...can you provide proof where SFL has done this? (Notice...I'm not talking about internet comments, but the site itself.)

 

[Reformed Guy]

The problem with SFL isn't that they haven't occasionally managed to gore a worthy ox, but that bloodlust has set in and anything that is deemed threatening to their licentiousness merits wrath and scorn.

I'll ask you like I asked Tarheel...

(He still hasn't proved anything.)

...can you provide proof where SFL has done this? (Notice...I'm not talking about internet comments, but the site itself.)

Whenever you spot a flock of vultures, it's safe to assume that something other than a rose has drawn their attention.

 

[rsc2a]

The problem with SFL isn't that they haven't occasionally managed to gore a worthy ox, but that bloodlust has set in and anything that is deemed threatening to their licentiousness merits wrath and scorn.

I'll ask you like I asked Tarheel...

(He still hasn't proved anything.)

...can you provide proof where SFL has done this? (Notice...I'm not talking about internet comments, but the site itself.)

Whenever you spot a flock of vultures, it's safe to assume that something other than a rose has drawn their attention.

I'll take that to mean that you are making an assertion for which you have no evidence then.

Moving on...

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Hey guys,
It was not my intent to judge the blog, but the regular commenters and readers. There is NO moderation on that site, and it is like a team of vultures.  They really don't seem to care if what they are ridiculing is true, they are just hungry for more blood.  It was not my intention to stop the blog, so much as send a wake up call to the casual Christian readers of the site.  I've had a lot of positive feedback from SFL readers and several of them defended me, so I feel I've achieved my goal.
As far as a code of conduct for IFBs.  I'm actually working on just that, I've bought a domain name and am working on starting a social media effort to get IFB pastors to take an open stand against abuse of scripture, preacher worship and proud factionalism.  While I don't think those are the only problems in our movement, they are foundational to them and they are all clearly rebuked in scripture.  I don't know how successful it will be and I know it will make me some enemies, but I think it's a worthy cause that I'm willing to chain myself to.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Also,
I don't view SFL as "just a blog."  Unlike almost any blog I've ever seen, it's become a community.  The real "show" on SFL isn't the things Darrell posts, it's the hundreds of comments that follow.  He just sticks the meat before the vultures and says "come and get it."  By doing that he can allow others to be totally nasty without being nasty himself.
If you want proof of this, look through the comments of any SFL post.  Any of them.

 

[rsc2a]

Thank you for responding. I appreciate it immensely.

Hey guys,
It was not my intent to judge the blog, but the regular commenters and readers.

It is not, however, all of the commenters. Some of them are extremely gracious and kind.

[quote author=pastorryanhayden]There is NO moderation on that site, and it is like a team of vultures.  They really don't seem to care if what they are ridiculing is true, they are just hungry for more blood.[/quote]

That's not entirely true. There is a very small amount of moderation, but (from what I understand), Darrell is intentional in his laissez faire precisely because he wants to allow a variety of voices to be heard. It's an open floor where everyone can have a say. (And, you have to acknowledge, that some of the IFB commentators are just as bad as the worst non-IFB ones.)

[quote author=pastorryanhayden]It was not my intention to stop the blog, so much as send a wake up call to the casual Christian readers of the site.  I've had a lot of positive feedback from SFL readers and several of them defended me, so I feel I've achieved my goal.[/quote]

Would you agree that the blog is also doing its part to send a wake-up call as well?

[quote author=pastorryanhayden]As far as a code of conduct for IFBs.  I'm actually working on just that, I've bought a domain name and am working on starting a social media effort to get IFB pastors to take an open stand against abuse of scripture, preacher worship and proud factionalism.  While I don't think those are the only problems in our movement, they are foundational to them and they are all clearly rebuked in scripture.  I don't know how successful it will be and I know it will make me some enemies, but I think it's a worthy cause that I'm willing to chain myself to.[/quote]

This is fantastic, and I wish you every success.

 

[rsc2a]

Also,
I don't view SFL as "just a blog."  Unlike almost any blog I've ever seen, it's become a community.  The real "show" on SFL isn't the things Darrell posts, it's the hundreds of comments that follow.  He just sticks the meat before the vultures and says "come and get it."  By doing that he can allow others to be totally nasty without being nasty himself.
If you want proof of this, look through the comments of any SFL post.  Any of them.

Now you're back to judging the content of the posts by the commentators...

I would also add that a lot of the "meat" that Darrell posts is directly sourced from various IFB groups. If the "meat" he provides is a link to a sermon, a website, or school handbook, and people are shredding them because they are full of "abuse of scripture, preacher worship and proud factionalism", then you are being hypocritical in your stance.

Of course, you may just be letting others be nasty for you so you don't have to be nasty yourself.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

As far as a code of conduct for IFBs.  I'm actually working on just that, I've bought a domain name and am working on starting a social media effort to get IFB pastors to take an open stand against abuse of scripture, preacher worship and proud factionalism. 

I think that's a noble cause, as long as it doesn't start with one intent and devolve into something like this guy's Facebook page.   

 

[bruinboy]

As far as a code of conduct for IFBs.  I'm actually working on just that, I've bought a domain name and am working on starting a social media effort to get IFB pastors to take an open stand against abuse of scripture, preacher worship and proud factionalism.

My friend, if you get IFB preeechers to sign up for that, 90% of them would not have anything to preeech on and would have to leave their churches. Rots of Ruck.

 

[Boomer]

I have known Ryan Hayden for several years, and I think I can safely say that he is an honest, well-balanced man. I thought his article was well written, and though it was a "judgment" of the posters on SFL, it was a fair judgment.

I read Ryan's blog often. He is a talented writer who takes on many issues that our generation (30-40 year old) of fundamentalists have struggled with for many years without being nasty about it. He not only points out problems, but also offers many good ideas for solutions.

I encourage you guys to check out several of the series of posts on his blog. I especially liked one series called "Crickets: Five (I think it was five) sins IFB preachers rarely preach against."

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The problem with SFL isn't that they haven't occasionally managed to gore a worthy ox, but that bloodlust has set in and anything that is deemed threatening to their licentiousness merits wrath and scorn.

I'll ask you like I asked Tarheel...

(He still hasn't proved anything.)

...can you provide proof where SFL has done this? (Notice...I'm not talking about internet comments, but the site itself.)

Whenever you spot a flock of vultures, it's safe to assume that something other than a rose has drawn their attention.

I'll take that to mean that you are making an assertion for which you have no evidence then.

Moving on...

You can take it to mean grass isn't green or that the Germans won WWII, but that doesn't make it true.
I gave you what I considered examples of the the intellectual dishonesty of sfl, including a blogger who came to the same conclusion and listed his reasons....a blogger who was not biased going in....but you ignore, disagree with or twist the meaning and remain obtuse...or dumb and 'move on'....

But when I posted the words intellectual honesty on this thread, I knew you would respond.....thanks for being predictable.

And, it seems the blogger in this OP also found sfl was somewhat intellectually dishonest......go figure.

Yore the forum's resident nit picker and in the process usually miss the point....either by being dumb or obtuse. I don't believe you to be dumb...but I have been wrong before.