An article about Pensacola Christian College on the Fox News Site.

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]For starters, I seldom read SFL...because they aren't usually intellectually honest...imo.

Examples?

And you still haven't provided examples of this...

The entire post above was an example...it was a perspective from someone NOT familiar with fundamentalism.
The poor fundy's stopped clocks aren't even right twice a day if you take the attitude and agenda of sfl as gospel.

Much of what they might site is based in fact, I'm sure, but they are not intellectually honest in their presentation and assessment of fundamentalism as a whole. They paint with the brooooooadest of brooooad brushes.
If you think otherwise, you're welcome to your wrong conclusion.

I didn't ask what someone else thought about SFL. (You are aware that this individual equated the IFB movement with Westboro, right?)

You said SFL isn't usually intellectually honest. This is what I asked for examples of. Again...not what someone thinks of the site. Actual examples of what you claim.

You challenged my opinion of sfl....which was ans is that they are not intellectually honest when it comes to fundys...which is basically their entire content.
Their goal is to make the fundies look like fools...which sadly isn't that difficult much of the time.

You asked for examples, I referred you to the blog post which was THE perfect example of how someone outside the debate views them.[/quote]

I didn't ask for examples of how someone outside the debate views them. You made the claim that SFL was intellectually dishonest. Provide examples where SFL is intellectually dishonest (or you can continue to let everyone see that you've made (what is so far) a baseless accusation).

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, like Linda Murphrey and Hyles, the fact that sfl has little credibility with me doesn't mean they aren't right in much of the excesses they point out. It doesn't mean I'm defending fundamentalism or their extreme practices. It means IMO....that sfl often uses the same tactics against the fundies that they are criticizing in the fundies.[/quote]

SFL typically uses exposé, satire, and comedy as a critique of the movement. Fundies often use fear and guilt (with a bit of the hiding of the skeletons). These are wildly divergent tactics.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I didn't ask for examples of how someone outside the debate views them. You made the claim that SFL was intellectually dishonest. Provide examples where SFL is intellectually dishonest (or you can continue to let everyone see that you've made (what is so far) a baseless accusation).

The fact that someone outside the debate came to the conclusion that their agenda was simply to make the fundies look like fools and he labeled it hate IS relevant to the argument...he came to the same conclusion.
I have an observation based on what they do regularly...everyone can read any given post and come to their own conclusion and make their own accusations. You believe they are as clean as the driven snow and have only noble motives and don't broad brush....I assume.
I come to the opposite conclusion. Go figure!

SFL typically uses exposé, satire, and comedy as a critique of the movement. Fundies often use fear and guilt (with a bit of the hiding of the skeletons). These are wildly divergent tactics.

And?

 

[rsc2a]

I didn't ask for examples of how someone outside the debate views them. You made the claim that SFL was intellectually dishonest. Provide examples where SFL is intellectually dishonest (or you can continue to let everyone see that you've made (what is so far) a baseless accusation).

The fact that someone outside the debate came to the conclusion that their agenda was simply to make the fundies look like fools and he labeled it hate IS relevant to the argument...he came to the same conclusion.

Ah! So yes...you are making a baseless accusation.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I have an observation based on what they do regularly...[/quote]

Then prove it. Provide an example of them doing it.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...everyone can read any given post and come to their own conclusion and make their own accusations.[/quote]

Sure, they can. I'm just asking you to provide an example of where they have done this...at least where that is your conclusion.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You believe they are as clean as the driven snow...[/quote]

No.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...and have only noble motives[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]and don't broad brush....I assume.[/quote]

Occasionally.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]

SFL typically uses exposé, satire, and comedy as a critique of the movement. Fundies often use fear and guilt (with a bit of the hiding of the skeletons). These are wildly divergent tactics.

And?[/quote]

Did you forget your argument?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I didn't ask for examples of how someone outside the debate views them. You made the claim that SFL was intellectually dishonest. Provide examples where SFL is intellectually dishonest (or you can continue to let everyone see that you've made (what is so far) a baseless accusation).

The fact that someone outside the debate came to the conclusion that their agenda was simply to make the fundies look like fools and he labeled it hate IS relevant to the argument...he came to the same conclusion.

Ah! So yes...you are making a baseless accusation.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I have an observation based on what they do regularly...

Then prove it. Provide an example of them doing it.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...everyone can read any given post and come to their own conclusion and make their own accusations.[/quote]

Sure, they can. I'm just asking you to provide an example of where they have done this...at least where that is your conclusion.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You believe they are as clean as the driven snow...[/quote]

No.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...and have only noble motives[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]and don't broad brush....I assume.[/quote]

Occasionally.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]

SFL typically uses exposé, satire, and comedy as a critique of the movement. Fundies often use fear and guilt (with a bit of the hiding of the skeletons). These are wildly divergent tactics.

And?[/quote]

Did you forget your argument?
[/quote]

Please.
You are not that dense.....the point is that the blog writer read the same drivel and came to the same conclusion as I...with no previous bias either way. You and I would not be without bias going in, partially explaining why we draw two different conclusions.

And, I didn't forget my argument, but wonder if you did or are you just arguing for the sake of argument. sfl exists to degrade fundys...and are not intellectually honest in their overall philosophy....not that they are always wrong.

You are not dumb....maybe you just think I am.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I didn't ask for examples of how someone outside the debate views them. You made the claim that SFL was intellectually dishonest. Provide examples where SFL is intellectually dishonest (or you can continue to let everyone see that you've made (what is so far) a baseless accusation).

The fact that someone outside the debate came to the conclusion that their agenda was simply to make the fundies look like fools and he labeled it hate IS relevant to the argument...he came to the same conclusion.

Ah! So yes...you are making a baseless accusation.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I have an observation based on what they do regularly...

Then prove it. Provide an example of them doing it.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...everyone can read any given post and come to their own conclusion and make their own accusations.

Sure, they can. I'm just asking you to provide an example of where they have done this...at least where that is your conclusion.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You believe they are as clean as the driven snow...[/quote]

No.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...and have only noble motives[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]and don't broad brush....I assume.[/quote]

Occasionally.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]

SFL typically uses exposé, satire, and comedy as a critique of the movement. Fundies often use fear and guilt (with a bit of the hiding of the skeletons). These are wildly divergent tactics.

And?[/quote]

Did you forget your argument?
[/quote]

Please.
You are not that dense.....the point is that the blog writer read the same drivel and came to the same conclusion as I...with no previous bias either way. You and I would not be without bias going in, partially explaining why we draw two different conclusions.

And, I didn't forget my argument, but wonder if you did or are you just arguing for the sake of argument. sfl exists to degrade fundys...and are not intellectually honest in their overall philosophy....not that they are always wrong.

You are not dumb....maybe you just think I am.
[/quote]

TB, a lot of those SFL rules list I have actually heard sermons on while I was at IFB.( hair touching your ears, Halloween evil, harvest test ok, our ministry growing, we're blessed, other churches growing, seeker sensitive!) most messages from what I remember was guilt driven and our pastor constantly preaching on our faults rather than pointing people to The Gospel. You call them Freebirss and other names, but I would not ever step in an IFB church ever again. There are many there I still keep in touch with but some have written my family off. I'd rather be free than I. A ministry of guilt again. And most people at SFL have been through the same thing and are just there to share and encourage.

 

[Just John]

I try to remember to go to SFL a couple times each week. It's a mix of parody, satire, irony and yes, criticism...and a lot of laughs. Like most parody and satire it can be over the top at times. The mix of posters is a real potpourri though. I am a conservative evangelical and think most fit in that box although there are some to the left and a few to the right.

I think like most stereotypes, there is usually enough truth to them to make them a stereotype. I pasted below from their site what I think are fair enough points for IFB'x types to be lampooned about. (Of course some of them we can all be guilty of of.)

4. If you cannot win an argument with logic you must simply outlast your opponent. Once he gives up, declare victory.

5. There is no fight that is not worth fighting.

9. If it is new it is bad. If it is old it is good. (with the exception that if it is really, really old then it is likely to be Catholic)

10. There is no situation that a good dose of ministerial yelling can’t fix.

11. Old Testament rules about sex, tattoos, women in pants, and the death penalty still apply. Old Testament rules about lobster don’t. (That is why we call this the Age of Grace)

18. Thou shalt not speak out against other (of the pastor's) fundamentalists (friends) on any subject that really matters. Keep disputes as trivial as possible lest you risk having your own dirty laundry exposed.

19. Spare the rod and spoil the child. (A “rod” being defined as a paddle, stick, belt, spatula, wooden spoon, rubber hose, truncheon, flail, or anything else that happens to be handy)

21. Pastors should preach as frequently as possible on sin — preferably the sins of other people

23. We reject the authority of the Pope to speak ex cathedra on matters of doctrine. That’s what local church pastors are for.

25. Dancing is an abomination unless it takes place in a classic film or on the stage of a Gilbert & Sullivan musical at a fundamentalist college.

30. A Christian taking government aid is a sure sign they are not trusting God. (Not that our church is going to start paying its employees enough to live on, mind you. )

33. We deny the mysticism of the Catholics and the signs and wonders of the charismatics. We do, however, have a litany of strange coincidences to get us totally stoked.

35. “Fellowship” = “Food”

36. In a business meeting all in favor of the pastor’s motion shall signify by saying “aye.” All opposed shall shut up if they know what’s good for them.

37.If there’s hair touching your ears, there’s sin in your heart.

42. The truth shall not be allowed to get in the way of any good sermon illustration.

45. Context? Our proof texts don’t need no stinkin’ context!

46. The moving picture house is a bastion of wickedness. Watching the same (G Rated) movies at home is just fine.

49. Every date is a potential mate. Not that we’re trying to put pressure on you or anything.

51. Bad things that happen to me and mine are persecution and attacks of Satan. Bad things that happen to you and yours are God’s judgment for your sinful ways.

52. The King James version was written to bring the Bible into the language of the common man of the 1600′s. If today’s common man can’t understand it that’s his own stupid fault.

55. The fact that toddlers will instinctively dance to music with a beat is evidence of their Adamic nature.

56. Rock music is perfectly acceptable to play in church so long as the person doing it is an evangelist who is demonstrating exactly how wrong it is to play rock music in church.

58. Halloween is a demonic holiday wherein people dress up in costumes and beg for candy on the 31st of October. Harvest Festival is a God-honoring event wherein people dress up in costumes and beg for candy (by complete coincidence) also on the 31st of October.

59. While we believe that no good Christian should ever go to a godless, atheist, state-run university, that does not stop us from proudly rooting for their godless, atheist football team.

60. Gluttony is barely a sin and only worth mentioning from the pulpit in the context of a joke.

62. You talking about my church’s scandal is gossip and backbiting. Me talking about your church’s scandal is instruction and warning.

63. Body piercings, tattoos, and unnatural hair colors are counter-cultural and therefore evil. Culottes and arranged marriages are counter-cultural and therefore required.

64. If something is unfamiliar or difficult to understand, it’s best to take a stand against it by default. Reasons can be invented later.

65. Anything that becomes popular with more than 70% of fundamentalists must both be made obligatory and used as a test of fellowship.

66. The only emotions allowed to be displayed in a church service are anger, guilt, and sorrow. All others are likely to be caused by latent charismatic tendencies.

69. Every character in any Christian book or movie must act like a Christian. Even the murdering, raping, and pillaging villains must never be seen to curse or fornicate.

70. When you pick on our guy for something stupid he did, it’s judgement. When we pick on your guy for something stupid he did, it’s discernment.

71. Lying in a sermon is perfectly acceptable as long as it is done with really good intentions. (Such as proving how awesome the speaker is).

And how does any of that change the fact that IMO, sfl is not intellectually honest in their extreme broad brushing of the IFB movement?

Do you not often believe that the critics of Warren and Saddleback are less than intellectually honest in what they use against him/them?

As I mentioned, parody and satire are over the top...by design. There is absolutely no doubt that there is an ox to be gored at SFL. I do not agree with everything there from my experience with the IFB world. Of all the STL "fundy rules" I posted probably 2/3 of them that I have had personal experience with. They tend to emanate more from the X'er side of the IFB, (the only part that really bothers me) but as I wrote, some can apply to ALL of us. Perhaps others have experienced more. There are definitely differing degrees of views at SFL. No one person can agree with all of them. I disagree with many of them. Some have seemed to stray from the faith completely.

The difference between a stereotype of a group and specific, inaccurate criticism of an individual is considerable IMO. One is an acknowledged stereotype, often in a manner of humor or satire, providing cover to any. The other is a specific, directed, personal charge. That charge has to be held to a higher level of scrutiny be it for someone I agree with or not.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

recovering IFB:
TB, a lot of those SFL rules list I have actually heard sermons on while I was at IFB.( hair touching your ears, Halloween evil, harvest test ok, our ministry growing, we're blessed, other churches growing, seeker sensitive!) most messages from what I remember was guilt driven and our pastor constantly preaching on our faults rather than pointing people to The Gospel. You call them Freebirss and other names, but I would not ever step in an IFB church ever again. There are many there I still keep in touch with but some have written my family off. I'd rather be free than I. A ministry of guilt again. And most people at SFL have been through the same thing and are just there to share and encourage.

I have no issue with your decision...neither do I defend the Xer tactics or so called doctrine. But sfl, IMO, purposely broad brushes the good with the bad...in fact there is no good IFB anything according to the content, attitude and purpose of sfl.

I was IFB for the greater part of 60 years, reared in the IFB movement for the most part. I DO NOT doubt that the loons believe and practice idiocy.....but except for one brief stint in a church in Florida, I did not personally encounter it. In the early days of Liberty, we could get demerits for long hair, and men wore ties to class but at the same time, the legalism of Hyles was mocked at every turn.And my hair covered my ears...... oh, how I long for days when I had hair....

 

[Just John]

And my hair covered my ears......

Reprobate!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Just John:
As I mentioned, parody and satire are over the top...by design. There is absolutely no doubt that there is an ox to be gored at SFL. I do not agree with everything there from my experience with the IFB world. Of all the STL "fundy rules" I posted probably 2/3 of them that I have had personal experience with. They tend to emanate more from the X'er side of the IFB, (the only part that really bothers me) but as I wrote, some can apply to ALL of us. Perhaps others have experienced more. There are definitely differing degrees of views at SFL. No one person can agree with all of them. I disagree with many of them. Some have seemed to stray from the faith completely.

The difference between a stereotype of a group and specific, inaccurate criticism of an individual is considerable IMO. One is an acknowledged stereotype, often in a manner of humor or satire, providing cover to any. The other is a specific, directed, personal charge. That charge has to be held to a higher level of scrutiny be it for someone I agree with or not.

You are intellectually honest in your evaluation and I appreciate your opinion....just don't totally agree ! Just yesterday on my FB new feed I saw an article about Rick Warren's endorsing something about the Catholic Church.
I have also seen sites that photo shopped Warren kneeling and kissing the Popes ring.                    Just over the top satire or intellectual dishonesty to make all things Warren look bad?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...in fact there is no good IFB anything according to the content, attitude and purpose of sfl.[/quote]

Now this is just a blatant lie. SFL has explicitly affirmed many good things and/or people about the IFB movement.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...in fact there is no good IFB anything according to the content, attitude and purpose of sfl.

Now this is just a blatant lie. SFL has explicitly affirmed many good things and/or people about the IFB movement.
[/quote]

Again, please.
And a token 'we know there are good people in the movement but.....' doesn't constitute affirmation.

Re read the conclusion the previously referenced blog poster came to by reading their site.

Of course, this unintentionally reveals Rule Number One of the Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine:

1.) Do what you must to make conservative Christians look as stupid as possible.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...in fact there is no good IFB anything according to the content, attitude and purpose of sfl.

Now this is just a blatant lie. SFL has explicitly affirmed many good things and/or people about the IFB movement.

Again, please.
And a token 'we know there are good people in the movement but.....' doesn't constitute affirmation.[/quote]

So when you said "there is no good...", you didn't actually mean that?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Re read the conclusion the previously referenced blog poster came to by reading their site.[/quote]

I've told you...I'm not interested in some other guy's opinions about SFL. (Especially when that guy thinks that Westboro Baptist is part of the IFB movement. His credibility is kind of gone at that point.)

You made the claim that SFL is intellectually dishonest. Since I have asked for an example of this (about five times now) and you refuse to provide any, I'll just assume you are willingly spreading lies until you prove otherwise.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...in fact there is no good IFB anything according to the content, attitude and purpose of sfl.

Now this is just a blatant lie. SFL has explicitly affirmed many good things and/or people about the IFB movement.

Again, please.
And a token 'we know there are good people in the movement but.....' doesn't constitute affirmation.

So when you said "there is no good...", you didn't actually mean that?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Re read the conclusion the previously referenced blog poster came to by reading their site.[/quote]

I've told you...I'm not interested in some other guy's opinions about SFL. (Especially when that guy thinks that Westboro Baptist is part of the IFB movement. His credibility is kind of gone at that point.)

You made the claim that SFL is intellectually dishonest. Since I have asked for an example of this (about five times now) and you refuse to provide any, I'll just assume you are willingly spreading lies until you prove otherwise.
[/quote]

The reason you're not interested in it is because it proves my point. And I/he referenced slf in the process.
I'll just assume you're either dense, naive or disingenuous until you prove otherwise.
And, J Sidlow Baxter is not heretical......