Fair and balanced analysis of Trick or Treat for Christians.

[ALAYMAN]

link


We were going to do Trunk or Treat this year, but Hurricane Sandy is messin' stuff up and bringing October snow.  Maybe that's God's judgment on Christian participation and endorsement of Samhain Day, sorta like Katrina was to Nawlins.

 

[Biker]

Wow talk about babbling...and babbling...and babbling.

usually they are all about scripture. Take heed everyone

How sad Grace is spewing this stuff








.

 

[rsc2a]

Strange that they don't have an article using the same points to talk about the evils of Christmas...  :

 

[Biker]

Strange that they don't have an article using the same points to talk about the evils of Christmas...  :

Exactly! That's a holiday which uses CHRISTS name-CHRISTmas but most of us don't mind celebrating it with gifts, a Xmas tree,
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer movies, Santa Clause Movies, etc...

If any holiday should be protested, it should be this one

 

[Biker]

Portions of the article-

"That response naturally raises eyebrows"
No it doesn't. Most people don't care what you choose to do on Halloween

"and provides a good opportunity to share the gospel to those who ask. It's also important that parents explain their stand to their children and prepare them to face the teasing or ridicule of their peers and the disapproval or scorn of their teachers"

Gimmie a Break. My wife is a Teacher. Most Teachers DO NOT scorn kids over Halloween. To plant this false idea, to pit the child against their own Teacher is cruel and deceitful


"There's nothing inherently evil about candy, costumes, or trick-or-treating in the neighborhood"

Since this IS the description of Halloween ^^^ why this article? Whether Trick or treating, Trunks and Treats, Harvest Festivals, Parties or whatever, it's all fine.

 

[ALAYMAN]

lol, thank you Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews for that insightful and Biblically conservative commentary.


I wonder if there's any consideration given by self-proclaimed evangelical Christians who defend and advocate nearly everything Halloween would grant that it is a snapshot, at least in part, of a culture enamored with death and gore, as well as a heightened emphasis on sexualizing little girls. 

things that make some of us fair and balanced folk go hmmmm.

 

[rsc2a]

lol, thank you Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews for that insightful and Biblically conservative commentary.


I wonder if there's any consideration given by self-proclaimed evangelical Christians who defend and advocate nearly everything Halloween would grant that it is a snapshot, at least in part, of a culture enamored with death and gore, as well as a heightened emphasis on sexualizing little girls. 

things that make some of us fair and balanced folk go hmmmm.

I wonder if there's any consideration given by self-proclaimed evangelical Christians who defend and advocate nearly everything Christmas* would grant that it is a snapshot, at least in part, of a culture enamored with materialism, greed, and consumerism, as well as a heightened emphasis on self-gratification.

things that make some of us fair and balanced folk go hmmmm.

* I haven't even talked about the pagan origins of much most? of what we, as Americans, associate with Christmas.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes, yes, yes.  Halloween = Christmas.  Brilliant!  Mr Matthews, there's nothing that gets past your steel trap of a mind.


For the record, I have always participated in both holidays, as my family.  The point isn't so much about declaring the culture bankrupt and incapable of being redeemed, but rather allowing like-minded believers to hold differing (doubtful disputations) viewpoints and convictions without attempting to persuade them to violate their conscience.  The article was merely saying that many principled Christians hold to positions that may be deemed as controversial or even wrong by other Christians, but we ought not heap scorn on a brother who is operating sincerely and conscientiously in the light of a Scripturally informed worldview. 

Secondly, I find it amusing that though Paul lived with the highest priorities of promulgating the gospel, the Christians today incessantly laud their "rights" at every turn.  Paul made it clear that he would forego his liberties for the sake of the brethren as well as for the furtherance of the gospel, and his emphasis was on this Christian life not being all about "meats and drinks", but so many restless and reformed today don't value a life of piety and sacrifice being crucial to their existence, but rather being able to speak the latest culturally relevant hipster speak.

 

[Biker]

As Christians we normally ensure everything we do doesn't violate scripture.  Dressing up in costume, door knocking for treats is not against scripture. To attempt to say otherwise is unbiblical. Those who chooses to see sin where it doesn't exist are violating scripture. We all do it... I know... but sadly this time of the year means the kids could pay the price. If they want to go trick or treating, let them unless there are extenuating circumstances that would prevent such.

 

[Biker]

lol, thank you Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews for that insightful and Biblically conservative commentary.


I wonder if there's any consideration given by self-proclaimed evangelical Christians who defend and advocate nearly everything Halloween would grant that it is a snapshot, at least in part, of a culture enamored with death and gore, as well as a heightened emphasis on sexualizing little girls. 

things that make some of us fair and balanced folk go hmmmm.

Never crossed my mind but clearly not everything people attach to Halloween is ok for Christians. Just like anything we do in the world, not every aspect of it we need to partake of.
I am not aware of this sexualizing little girls
death and gore is not an obsession in our area. Most everyone here is wealthy so the costumes reflect it. Part of the fun of Halloween. People get very creative

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]For the record, I have always participated in both holidays, as my family.  The point isn't so much about declaring the culture bankrupt and incapable of being redeemed, but rather allowing like-minded believers to hold differing (doubtful disputations) viewpoints and convictions without attempting to persuade them to violate their conscience.  The article was merely saying that many principled Christians hold to positions that may be deemed as controversial or even wrong by other Christians, but we ought not heap scorn on a brother who is operating sincerely and conscientiously in the light of a Scripturally informed worldview.  [/quote]

Your belief that the article is saying one shouldn't heap scorn on a brother for having a differing opinion (which isn't an accurate analysis), so your response is to heap scorn on people for having a differing opinion...

Nice.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Secondly, I find it amusing that though Paul lived with the highest priorities of promulgating the gospel, the Christians today incessantly laud their "rights" at every turn.  Paul made it clear that he would forego his liberties for the sake of the brethren as well as for the furtherance of the gospel, and his emphasis was on this Christian life not being all about "meats and drinks", but so many restless and reformed today don't value a life of piety and sacrifice being crucial to their existence, but rather being able to speak the latest culturally relevant hipster speak.[/quote]

*smirk*

con

 

[ALAYMAN]

Never crossed my mind but clearly not everything people attach to Halloween is ok for Christians. Just like anything we do in the world, not every aspect of it we need to partake of.
I am not aware of this sexualizing little girls.

It's not just "fundys" that have made this observation, but secular sociologists and feminists who don't like the objectification of their gender.  Can cite many sources corroborating this if you need evidence.

death and gore is not an obsession in our area. Most everyone here is wealthy so the costumes reflect it. Part of the fun of Halloween. People get very creative

It is beyond a shadow of any doubt that the death culture of today is a very large and celebrated part of Halloween.  That doesn't mean that every costume is a ghoul, goblin, vampire, ax-murder, etc, but it is uber-obvious that Halloween has an extremely large connection to the macabre.

Your belief that the article is saying one shouldn't heap scorn on a brother for having a differing opinion (which isn't an accurate analysis), so your response is to heap scorn on people for having a differing opinion...

You gave a stupid answer, so I answered with corresponding disdain for your intentional disingenuous response.

smirk...

I'm sure you find contradictions and conundrums abounding in your cranium, like how to reconcile your "reformed" <ahem> doctrine with the constant flaws in your own conflicting theological paradigm.

All that aside, please point out the contradiction.  The fact is that the young and restless reformed seemingly want to make their liberty to imbibe the spirits and partake of their tobaccy some rite of passage to the Christian life, all the while making such issues of "liberty" so large in their vision and emphasis that they dwarf the gospel (and evangelical zeal) in comparison to how much they talk about the former versus the latter

 

[ALAYMAN]

For those who haven't read the article, here's a few salient excerpts that clearly demonstrates the reason I said they were "fair and balanced"...

So, how should Christians respond?

First, Christians should not respond to Halloween like superstitious pagans. Pagans are superstitious; Christians are enlightened by the truth of God's Word. Evil spirits are no more active and sinister on Halloween than they are on any other day of the year; in fact, any day is a good day for Satan to prowl about seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8).

Second, Christians should respond to Halloween with cautionary wisdom. Some people fear the activity of Satanists or pagan witches, but the actual incidents of satanic-associated crime are very low. The real threat on Halloween is from the social problems that attend sinful behavior--drunk driving, pranksters and vandals, and unsupervised children....


Like any other day of the year, Christians should exercise caution as wise stewards of their possessions and protectors of their families. Christian young people should stay away from secular Halloween parties since those are breeding grounds for trouble. Christian parents can protect their children by keeping them well-supervised and restricting treat consumption to those goodies received from trusted sources.

Third, Christians should respond to Halloween with gospel compassion. The unbelieving, Christ-rejecting world lives in perpetual fear of death. It isn't just the experience of death, but rather what the Bible calls "a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume [God's] adversaries" (Hebrews 10:27). Witches, ghosts, and evil spirits are not terrifying; God's wrath unleashed on the unforgiven sinner--now that is truly terrifying.

Christians should use Halloween and all that it brings to the imagination--death imagery, superstition, expressions of debauched revelry--as an opportunity to engage the unbelieving world with the gospel of Jesus Christ....


Other Christians will opt for Halloween alternatives called "Harvest Festivals" or "Reformation Festivals"--the kids dress up as farmers, Bible characters, or Reformation heroes. It's ironic when you consider Halloween's beginning as an alternative, but it can be an effective means of reaching out to neighborhood families with the gospel. Some churches leave the church building behind and take acts of mercy into their community, "treating" needy families with food baskets, gift cards, and the gospel message.

He then takes the opportunity to gently warn against the practice of churches to engage in "scare tactics" like "hell houses" as "cheap gimmickry" not suited to a true gospel presentation.
Then lastly he gives this general disclaimer about there not being anything inherently evil about candy, or innocent costumes, etc...

There's another option open to Christians: limited, non-compromising participation in Halloween. There's nothing inherently evil about candy, costumes, or trick-or-treating in the neighborhood. In fact, all of that can provide a unique gospel opportunity with neighbors. Even handing out candy to neighborhood children--provided you're not stingy--can improve your reputation among the kids. As long as the costumes are innocent and the behavior does not dishonor Christ, trick-or-treating can be used to further gospel interests.

How in the world anybody could not come away from that article with an understanding that the author was at worst "moderate" in his critique, well, is fittingly lumped in the incredulous boat with Matthews and Olbermann.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Your belief that the article is saying one shouldn't heap scorn on a brother for having a differing opinion (which isn't an accurate analysis), so your response is to heap scorn on people for having a differing opinion...

You gave a stupid answer, so I answered with corresponding disdain for your intentional disingenuous response.[/quote]

It's stupid to point out that the reasons given for rejecting Halloween could equally be applied to Christmas yet noting that there aren't any articles about avoiding certain aspects of the Christmas holiday?

I would also remind you that you didn't just show disdain for me but for (nearly?) anyone that disagrees with you on this issue meaning that you were, in fact, "heaping scorn" on others.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

smirk...

I'm sure you find contradictions and conundrums abounding in your cranium, like how to reconcile your "reformed" <ahem> doctrine with the constant flaws in your own conflicting theological paradigm.[/quote]

Please provide examples...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]All that aside, please point out the contradiction.  The fact is that the young and restless reformed seemingly want to make their liberty to imbibe the spirits and partake of their tobaccy some rite of passage to the Christian life, all the while making such issues of "liberty" so large in their vision and emphasis that they dwarf the gospel (and evangelical zeal) in comparison to how much they talk about the former versus the latter[/quote]

So you think that "this Christian life [is not] all about "[rejecting] meats and drinks" but you then criticize others for not having enough of "a life of piety and sacrifice"? Is the Christian life about what you eat and drink or not? (Because you are arguing for opposing sides right now.)

 

[ALAYMAN]

It's stupid to point out that the reasons given for rejecting Halloween could equally be applied to Christmas yet noting that there aren't any articles about avoiding certain aspects of the Christmas holiday?

No, it's stupid to interject your own personal biases onto the author of the article and insert words in his mouth. Read my last post for at least 4 reasons why some Christians feel it is a legitimate concern to approach Halloween participation with caution, and note that none of the author's concerns relate to your red herring.

I would also remind you that you didn't just show disdain for me but for (nearly?) anyone that disagrees with you on this issue meaning that you were, in fact, "heaping scorn" on others.

Scorn for all the young restless reformed and "freebirds" who are not willing to gracefully accept a middle-ground argument like that put forth by the author, youbetcha.

Please provide examples...

"Sola gratia is practiced by the Roman Catholic church", for starters, but you know the drill, so why play dumb? 

So you think that "this Christian life [is not] all about "[rejecting] meats and drinks" but you then criticize others for not having enough of "a life of piety and sacrifice"? Is the Christian life about what you eat and drink or not? (Because you are arguing for opposing sides right now.)

The Christian life is all about a life in Christ, moment by moment.  As such, we recongnize His Lordship as we mature in sanctification.  Paul's comments about  "meat and drink" show that our liberty is not the be all and end all to that life.  In that regard, our "rights" to skirt issues of doubtful disputation should not come ahead of weightier matters, such as the gospel, and the edification of others.  The flippant attitude of many "freebirds" when it comes to things such as Halloween is to immediately shout "legalist", rather than graciously concede that there may be issues that we simply disagree on.

 

[rsc2a]

It's stupid to point out that the reasons given for rejecting Halloween could equally be applied to Christmas yet noting that there aren't any articles about avoiding certain aspects of the Christmas holiday?

No, it's stupid to interject your own personal biases onto the author of the article and insert words in his mouth. Read my last post for at least 4 reasons why some Christians feel it is a legitimate concern to approach Halloween participation with caution, and note that none of the author's concerns relate to your red herring.

Ah! So you don't like that I conveniently ignore large sections of the article because they weaken your argument. That sounds familiar!

You know parts like...

As the centuries passed, Samhain and All Hallows Eve mixed together. On the one hand, pagan superstitions gave way to "Christianized" superstitions and provided more fodder for fear. People began to understand that the pagan ancestral spirits were demons and the diviners were practicing witchcraft and necromancy. On the other hand, the festival time provided greater opportunity for revelry. Trick-or-treat became a time when roving bands of young hooligans would go house-to-house gathering food and drink for their parties. Stingy householders ran the risk of a "trick" being played on their property from drunken young people.

or

Today Halloween is almost exclusively an American secular holiday, but many who celebrate have no concept of its religious origins or pagan heritage. That's not to say Halloween has become more wholesome.

or even

Christian young people should stay away from secular Halloween parties since those are breeding grounds for trouble.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I would also remind you that you didn't just show disdain for me but for (nearly?) anyone that disagrees with you on this issue meaning that you were, in fact, "heaping scorn" on others.

Scorn for all the young restless reformed and "freebirds" who are not willing to gracefully accept a middle-ground argument like that put forth by the author, youbetcha.[/quote]

You flat out stated that anyone who has a differing view than you is wrong (because surely you aren't  :) and then said we shouldn't hold others in scorn?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Please provide examples...

"Sola gratia is practiced by the Roman Catholic church", for starters, but you know the drill, so why play dumb?  [/quote]

Did you misunderstand the question?

How am I showing flaws in my (quasi-)Reformed beliefs or as you stated it "contradictions and conundrums [regarding] constant flaws in your own conflicting theological paradigm"?

Not my understanding what others believe. My own beliefs.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So you think that "this Christian life [is not] all about "[rejecting] meats and drinks" but you then criticize others for not having enough of "a life of piety and sacrifice"? Is the Christian life about what you eat and drink or not? (Because you are arguing for opposing sides right now.)

The Christian life is all about a life in Christ, moment by moment.  As such, we recongnize His Lordship as we mature in sanctification.  Paul's comments about  "meat and drink" show that our liberty is not the be all and end all to that life.  In that regard, our "rights" to skirt issues of doubtful disputation should not come ahead of weightier matters, such as the gospel, and the edification of others.  The flippant attitude of many "freebirds" when it comes to things such as Halloween is to immediately shout "legalist", rather than graciously concede that there may be issues that we simply disagree on.
[/quote]

False dichotomy. And, if you had "graciously concede[d] that there may be issues that we simply disagree on", then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Ah! So you don't like that I conveniently ignore large sections of the article because they weaken your argument.

umm, no, oh obfuscational one.  Talking with you is akin to talking to a fence post, only with a fence post at least you don't have to worry about their response being complete and utter subterfuge.

The author gave his reasons for objecting to Halloween at the conclusion of the article in a clear, concise, and explicit fashion.  Maybe you didn't understand the article, didn't read it, and completely glossed over the last post of mine where I pointed you to his categorical answer as to why he advised caution to be used.  Try reading it again, or for the first time if need be, and you'll see that though he did give an analysis of the origins of Halloween, which some people find problematic (and those same people often don't participate in Christmas for the same rationale), that he ultimately did not use that as the basis for why he urged careful consideration to be made before Trickin'.

You flat out stated that anyone who has a differing view than you is wrong...

Substantiate this claim by citing my "flat out" words.

Did you misunderstand the question?

Not one bit, but you continue to squirm and be as malleable as jello.  When somebody such as yourself argues that the Roman Catholic church believes in Sola Gratia it is clear that you don't know what the reformed tradition is regarding the discussion.  Either that, or you just like to argue, and as a result make stuff up as you go along (which is pretty believable when one weighs the evidence of your own words in threads such as this one).

False dichotomy. And, if you had "graciously concede[d] that there may be issues that we simply disagree on", then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The OP says "fair and balanced".  That title alone portrays the fact that objectivity regarding the subject is in view.  The author made several cases in his article that favors the pro-halloween crowd (like stating that there was nothing particularly inherently evil in candy or innocent costumes), but you chose to take an antagonistic position, ignoring those balance comments, and as you are want to do in many of your conversations on the FFF you made it an all-or-none-throw-the-baby-out proposition.

 

[rsc2a]

Ah! So you don't like that I conveniently ignore large sections of the article because they weaken your argument.

umm, no, oh obfuscational one.  Talking with you is akin to talking to a fence post, only with a fence post at least you don't have to worry about their response being complete and utter subterfuge.

The author gave his reasons for objecting to Halloween at the conclusion of the article in a clear, concise, and explicit fashion.  Maybe you didn't understand the article, didn't read it, and completely glossed over the last post of mine where I pointed you to his categorical answer as to why he advised caution to be used.  Try reading it again, or for the first time if need be, and you'll see that though he did give an analysis of the origins of Halloween, which some people find problematic (and those same people often don't participate in Christmas for the same rationale), that he ultimately did not use that as the basis for why he urged careful consideration to be made before Trickin'.

Ahh...after talking about how pagan the holiday is, he gives a few cases where he feels Christians may be able to justify celebrating the holiday as though they need to justify it at all.

He also makes it a point to say that "Christian young people should stay away from secular Halloween parties" because that's exactly how Jesus would have responded. You know He had a habit of avoiding all the prostitutes and tax collectors right? He would never have been called out for "eating and drinking" or every been in a situation where people would have called Him "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners." /sarcasm

And the author is also creating some false sacred/secular divide as if there is such a thing. (Clue: There isn't.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You flat out stated that anyone who has a differing view than you is wrong...

Substantiate this claim by citing my "flat out" words.[/quote]

...allowing like-minded believers to hold differing (doubtful disputations) viewpoints and convictions without attempting to persuade them to violate their conscience...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Did you misunderstand the question?

Not one bit, but you continue to squirm and be as malleable as jello.  When somebody such as yourself argues that the Roman Catholic church believes in Sola Gratia it is clear that you don't know what the reformed tradition is regarding the discussion.  Either that, or you just like to argue, and as a result make stuff up as you go along (which is pretty believable when one weighs the evidence of your own words in threads such as this one).[/quote]

So what you mean to say is that you have absolutely no basis for your claim. Because you haven't provided a single example regarding where my personal theology doesn't align with the five solas (with nuance).

Meanwhile, I have provided explicit examples of where you hold to views contrary to the Reformation Fathers the Bible.

That's the problem...you apparently don't understand nuance. The vast majority of these discussions don't have black and white answers. They are differing shades of grey. I understand nuance. I understand the Catholic views of the sacraments even if I don't agree with them. I've actually read many sections of the Catholic Catechism. I've discussed these issues at length with Catholic friends. I'm not basing all my opinions on what some angry fundamentalist preacher has to say about "them Catholics". Stop trying to make everything black and white. Learn to recognize the greys.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

False dichotomy. And, if you had "graciously concede[d] that there may be issues that we simply disagree on", then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The OP says "fair and balanced".  That title alone portrays the fact that objectivity regarding the subject is in view.  The author made several cases in his article that favors the pro-halloween crowd (like stating that there was nothing particularly inherently evil in candy or innocent costumes)...[/quote]

I could make several cases about why the Klan isn't racist but those cases don't speak to the general attitude of the Klan. And, in this area, my issue is less with the author than with you. You have stated anyone who doesn't agree with you is acting in a less than Christlike manner. The author tries to be objective (although the bias is apparent). You make no illusions about being "fair and balanced".

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...but you chose to take an antagonistic position, ignoring those balance comments, and as you are want to do in many of your conversations on the FFF you made it an all-or-none-throw-the-baby-out proposition.[/quote]

Actually I initially just pointed out that the site is being selective in what it applies these criteria to since they haven't given Christmas the same treatment. You're the one who made it antagonistic.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Ahh...after talking about how pagan the holiday is, he gives a few cases where he feels Christians may be able to justify celebrating the holiday as though they need to justify it at all. ....<obfuscationist babbling snipped>...

So you finally abandon your red herring, conveniently slithering on to a different goalpost.  Duly noted that you obfuscate and then when caught completely ignore your swollen hands that were slapped for being in the cookie jar.

You flat out stated that anyone who has a differing view than you is wrong...

ALAYMAN replied:Substantiate this claim by citing my "flat out" words.

...allowing like-minded believers to hold differing (doubtful disputations) viewpoints and convictions without attempting to persuade them to violate their conscience...

You conveniently snipped out the preceeding context (where I said that, oh, by the way, I am not condemning Halloweeners, as I ARE one!).  Given that context (coupled with my statement about the "freebirds" who shout "legalist"), my statement was clearly that we ought to seek a reasonable balance in hearing our brothers out, even when we disagree.  I would no more try to label a Halloween-abstentionist (who had thoughtfully and conscientiously came to their position, and was not prone to pharasaism) as a legalist or "fundy" than I would attempt to convince a former alcoholic to partake of real wine in the Lord's Supper.  However, if a person was not prone to stumbling over alcohol consumption, I most certainly would concede that there are coherent evidences to support both an abstentionist position, as well as a moderationist position.

So what you mean to say is that you have absolutely no basis for your claim. Because you haven't provided a single example regarding where my personal theology doesn't align with the five solas (with nuance).

If by "nuance" you mean that your Roman Catholic friends have a objectively factual and Biblical understanding of Sola Gratia, in the same terms and the same way that the reformers have defined it, then I'd say your "nuance" is not "nuance" but rather sophistry and/or error, thus, the label of confused I applied to your theological paradigm being misguided and confused (even if you don't personally appropriate or subscribe to such Roman Catholic "nuance").

Meanwhile, I have provided explicit examples of where you hold to views contrary to the Reformation Fathers the Bible.

lol, you mean "examples" like the fact that in Calvin's Geneva you could be fined or imprisoned for celebrating pagan Holy-days such as Christmas, Easter (or the modern day All Hallows Eve)?

I've discussed these issues at length with Catholic friends. I'm not basing all my opinions on what some angry fundamentalist preacher has to say about "them Catholics". Stop trying to make everything black and white. Learn to recognize the greys.

lol, you former fundys think that everybody that is still in some form of the fundy camp are as myopic as you were when you were a gullible lemming.  Some of us didn't come out of that cloth of blind followship.  My awareness of the differences in RC theology to protestant theology come from personal research of creed, dogma, and RC writings, as well as informed by non-fundy intellectual theologians/teachers/authors such as Sproul, Mohler, Begg, etc.  So quit yer pigeon-holing, stereotyping, and shoe-horning.  It shows your prediliction to find boogymen in all things that appear more conservative than whatever current position you hold.

I could make several cases about why the Klan isn't racist but those cases don't speak to the general attitude of the Klan. And, in this area, my issue is less with the author than with you. You have stated anyone who doesn't agree with you is acting in a less than Christlike manner. The author tries to be objective (although the bias is apparent). You make no illusions about being "fair and balanced".

"Anybody who disagrees with me is acting in a Less than a Christlike manner"???  You continue to pull things out of your arse.  I've said that in these matters of doubtful disputations that some consideration ought to be made by the "freebirds" and "YR&R" crowd that their priority of the Christian life shouldn't be ranked according to their "liberties".  That's what I've said, and a fair inference to be made from Macarthur's staffman (and such admonition is a common theme in the GTY writings).

Actually I initially just pointed out that the site is being selective in what it applies these criteria to since they haven't given Christmas the same treatment. You're the one who made it antagonistic.

Of course you feel that the author should have made all the supporting arguments and covered every conceivable potential "nuance" to what the pro-Weeners would throw out there for counter-arguments.  You wanted him to write a book, and anticipate that all other questionable "pagan"/worldly activities (such as Hellywood Movies, Gambling, In Vitro Fertilization, and a host of other goblins in your arsenal of inane red herrings), but he succinctly wrote on one topic, doing so fairly and in balance.  Send him an email, begging him to address all of your objections.  I'm sure he will find your line of reasoning "brilliant", Mr Matthews.

 

[rsc2a]

Ahh...after talking about how pagan the holiday is, he gives a few cases where he feels Christians may be able to justify celebrating the holiday as though they need to justify it at all. ....<obfuscationist babbling snipped>...

So you finally abandon your red herring, conveniently slithering on to a different goalpost.  Duly noted that you obfuscate and then when caught completely ignore your swollen hands that were slapped for being in the cookie jar.

I say this with all sincerity and in hopes of being helpful, not hurtful...

Have you considered taking reading comprehension classes? Have you considered taking classes on responsive communication techniques?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You flat out stated that anyone who has a differing view than you is wrong...

ALAYMAN replied:Substantiate this claim by citing my "flat out" words.

...allowing like-minded believers to hold differing (doubtful disputations) viewpoints and convictions without attempting to persuade them to violate their conscience...

You conveniently snipped out the preceeding context (where I said that, oh, by the way, I am not condemning Halloweeners, as I ARE one!).  Given that context (coupled with my statement about the "freebirds" who shout "legalist"), my statement was clearly that we ought to seek a reasonable balance in hearing our brothers out, even when we disagree.  I would no more try to label a Halloween-abstentionist (who had thoughtfully and conscientiously came to their position, and was not prone to pharasaism) as a legalist or "fundy" than I would attempt to convince a former alcoholic to partake of real wine in the Lord's Supper.  However, if a person was not prone to stumbling over alcohol consumption, I most certainly would concede that there are coherent evidences to support both an abstentionist position, as well as a moderationist position.[/quote]

Great...so how often do you "seek a reasonable balance" with others by starting off 'hey idiot!'?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So what you mean to say is that you have absolutely no basis for your claim. Because you haven't provided a single example regarding where my personal theology doesn't align with the five solas (with nuance).

If by "nuance" you mean that your Roman Catholic friends have a objectively factual and Biblical understanding of Sola Gratia, in the same terms and the same way that the reformers have defined it, then I'd say your "nuance" is not "nuance" but rather sophistry and/or error, thus, the label of confused I applied to your theological paradigm being misguided and confused (even if you don't personally appropriate or subscribe to such Roman Catholic "nuance").[/quote]

So you're saying you have no examples...

I have a question: who or what was responsible for carving the marble in the statue David, Michelangelo or his chisel?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Meanwhile, I have provided explicit examples of where you hold to views contrary to the Reformation Fathers the Bible.

lol, you mean "examples" like the fact that in Calvin's Geneva you could be fined or imprisoned for celebrating pagan Holy-days such as Christmas, Easter (or the modern day All Hallows Eve)?[/quote]

Alayman - mind telling me your thoughts on the universal church?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I've discussed these issues at length with Catholic friends. I'm not basing all my opinions on what some angry fundamentalist preacher has to say about "them Catholics". Stop trying to make everything black and white. Learn to recognize the greys.

lol, you former fundys think that everybody that is still in some form of the fundy camp are as myopic as you were when you were a gullible lemming.  Some of us didn't come out of that cloth of blind followship.  My awareness of the differences in RC theology to protestant theology come from personal research of creed, dogma, and RC writings, as well as informed by non-fundy intellectual theologians/teachers/authors such as Sproul, Mohler, Begg, etc.  So quit yer pigeon-holing, stereotyping, and shoe-horning.  It shows your prediliction to find boogymen in all things that appear more conservative than whatever current position you hold.[/quote]

Which authors have you read who have a "higher" view of the sacraments?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I could make several cases about why the Klan isn't racist but those cases don't speak to the general attitude of the Klan. And, in this area, my issue is less with the author than with you. You have stated anyone who doesn't agree with you is acting in a less than Christlike manner. The author tries to be objective (although the bias is apparent). You make no illusions about being "fair and balanced".

"Anybody who disagrees with me is acting in a Less than a Christlike manner"???  You continue to pull things out of your arse.  I've said that in these matters of doubtful disputations that some consideration ought to be made by the "freebirds" and "YR&R" crowd that their priority of the Christian life shouldn't be ranked according to their "liberties".  That's what I've said, and a fair inference to be made from Macarthur's staffman (and such admonition is a common theme in the GTY writings).[/quote]

No...the GTY crowd veers off into legalism quite a bit...I'm sure you are away of John Mac's views on alcohol.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Actually I initially just pointed out that the site is being selective in what it applies these criteria to since they haven't given Christmas the same treatment. You're the one who made it antagonistic.

Of course you feel that the author should have made all the supporting arguments and covered every conceivable potential "nuance" to what the pro-Weeners would throw out there for counter-arguments.  You wanted him to write a book, and anticipate that all other questionable "pagan"/worldly activities (such as Hellywood Movies, Gambling, In Vitro Fertilization, and a host of other goblins in your arsenal of inane red herrings), but he succinctly wrote on one topic, doing so fairly and in balance.  Send him an email, begging him to address all of your objections.  I'm sure he will find your line of reasoning "brilliant", Mr Matthews.[/quote]

I just have to pick one because this entire paragraph is so ludicrous/questionable...

What in the world is wrong with IVF?