Fair and balanced analysis of Trick or Treat for Christians.

[Biker]

[quote author=ivannette]
stop spamming the forum
[/quote] Hi Hotstuff!!  :-*

[attachment deleted by admin]

 

[Izdaari]

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 don't claim to be an evangelical Christian. I left an evangelical denomination because of being fed up with the political and social conservatism of evangelicals in general. I'm in a mainline/liberal denomination now (actually two of them, since my new church has both TEC and ELCA affiliations), and happy about it.

I don't claim to be "fair and balanced". I believe and say whatever I think is right, whether or not it's fair or balanced. I'll leave "fair and balanced" to Fox News Channel; accurate or not, it's their slogan.

I don't have any problem with Halloween. I personally don't do anything to celebrate it -- it's easy for me to ignore since I don't have kids -- but I don't think less of Christians, or anyone else, who do.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I dont celebrate Halloween either, I celebrate Reformation day. We (my wife and I)celebrate it by letting our kids dress up in costumes and go in our neighborhood and knock on doors for candy.

 

[brianb]

Well another H-ween has come and gone. Now for possible real life horror. The Election Results - Tuesday night.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't claim to be "fair and balanced". I believe and say whatever I think is right, whether or not it's fair or balanced. I'll leave "fair and balanced" to Fox News Channel; accurate or not, it's their slogan.

Well, the phrase "fair and balanced" was a euphemism in this case for being charitable and considerate of opposing viewpoints that are contradictory to any given position one might hold.  In that respect I don't begrudge any person of forwarding their beliefs (even if they be antithetical to Christian worldviews, as my baptist forefathers did,  I prize freedom of speech), and even laud people for knowing what they believe and why they believe it, being willing to articulate and stand for it in tje public square (ie, I loathe political correctness that stifles free exchange of ideas in the marketplace). 

On a "fundamentalist forum" I wouldn't expect much opposition to "conservative" hermeneutical principles, so I don't assume to have many conversations with folk holding wildly divergent  belief structures than fundamentalists and evangelicals.  As such, I would expect that an individual would maintain their <Biblically> right notions regarding "in-house" debates by being reasonably willing to give <potential/hypothetical> legitimate concessions to a brother/sister's conscientiously held scruples.  At the same time, it does not gall me that such folk who hold to convictions that run counter to mine, whether stonger or weaker(more or less "conserative", within reason) than mine would attempt to persuade me to their side of the house by advancing the rationale that convinced them of their own self-held beliefs.

In this case however, as I opened the discussion, it became quickly apparent by the initial responses that an antagonist and entreched position would be put forth by those on this "fundamenalist" forum.  Despite your opposition to the general convictions of ideas like those held in the OP you often state your beliefs in ways that aren't antagonistic, unlike many others who come here for sport and to produce much heat rather than light.  I respect that about you, as I've stated several times before, even if we fundamentally and tenaciously disagree regarding the substance of numerous issues in the Christian life.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well another H-ween has come and gone. Now for possible real life horror. The Election Results - Tuesday night.

lol


But truth be told, it's not over, as our "Trunk or Treat" that was quashed by Sandy's effects Tuesday will be carried out tonight (weather permitting).

 

[Timothy]

Well another H-ween has come and gone.

It didn't seem the same without a Lisa Ruby anti-Halloween thread.

I'll help her out and post one of her articles.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/prayer_halloween.html

 

[Biker]

On a "fundamentalist forum" I wouldn't expect much opposition to "conservative" hermeneutical principles, so I don't assume to have many conversations with folk holding wildly divergent  belief structures than fundamentalists and evangelicals.  As such, I would expect that an individual would maintain their <Biblically> right notions regarding "in-house" debates by being reasonably willing to give <potential/hypothetical> legitimate concessions to a brother/sister's conscientiously held scruples. 

This is not biblical and neither was the argument. The problem is fundies come on here with these objections to the world while they themselves, lived a life permiated in sexual perversions. When it was time to get out, they sought out churches known for their sexual perversions. Why is that? It baffles me! Then suddenly they use the world as examples for how wrong everything is. They use the world to sexualize children, it is their excuse. Schapp can remain in prison forever as far as I am concerned.

How we all can belong to churches never having once incident, yet i can look up these so called pastors and members to see multiple (more than one incident) making headlines, how is that? obviously they are seeking this out!! Then when sex is mentioned within the confines of marriage, it's opposed every time.

And per the Hacker way (not limited to Hackers) attempts to use the world to sexualize children abound. This occurred during this discussion.  There is no reason to sexualize Halloween!

Secondly scruples regarding "Christians" don't matter. Scruples is a secular word for convictions. Scripture Matters. And per the usual fundy way, this was 90% deviod of it. I will never be staunch against anyone who attempts to counter with scripture, the problem is this was almost all, babble.

And to use the world again, to show us how wrong everything is ludicrous. The World does what it does, WE DO NOT.
Christians avoid churches known for their sexual perversions. If a sexual violation arises within the church family, we act accordingly ALWAYS informing the congregants if their children were EVER exposed to this person. Whether a present member or past. This is what Unbelievers do, so no doubt believers know better. Problem is these folks oppose Christ, feigning Christianity

The problem is...all these "wrongs" are a facade, a smoke screen for the real problem. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with Halloween. Then to bring it up then come back and say well I participate in Halloween makes no sense. Then why the discussion? There is nothing to discuss when something does not oppose scripture. And attempts are made to show it may, without any scriptural backing. This SHOULD offend Christians, no one should be tolerant of this


It's scripture, scripture, scripture.

 

[Biker]

At the same time, it does not gall me that such folk who hold to convictions that run counter to mine, whether stonger or weaker(more or less "conserative", within reason) than mine would attempt to persuade me to their side of the house by advancing the rationale that convinced them of their own self-held beliefs.

In this case however, as I opened the discussion, it became quickly apparent by the initial responses that an antagonist and entreched position would be put forth by those on this "fundamenalist" forum.  Despite your opposition to the general convictions of ideas like those held in the OP you often state your beliefs in ways that aren't antagonistic, unlike many others who come here for sport and to produce much heat rather than light.  I respect that about you, as I've stated several times before, even if we fundamentally and tenaciously disagree regarding the substance of numerous issues in the Christian life.

Instead of cherry picking the small few articles from Grace which are babble, why don't you contact them for a referral for a church?  For some reason, the Fundies love to talk about scripture but they avoid it like the plague

You need to switch churches.  Get into a church NOT known for sexual perversions, bring your child into one he can be proud of. One that doesn't place a barrier to children being exposed to the Word because they are sporting swim trunks at Camp. Get in with a good church where SCRIPTURE is the basis for everything you do. Then you won't be getting sidetracked by control issues

And it wouldn't surprise me if you moved up fairly quickly after conversion. You didn't seem to develop the drama queen  tizzy fits most of the Male Hackers display. You also have a level mood. I think you'd enjoy a church which bases ALL their beliefs on scripture. Give it a chance

 

[Biker]

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Everything has pagan roots, even scavenger hunts. But what Satan meant for evil, can be utilized for good by Christians. It doesn't need to be avoided, only the aspects that oppose scripture are to be avoided.

 

[ALAYMAN]

This is not biblical and neither was the argument.

What's not Biblical?  Are you saying that in every case where you are in a disagreement with a brother in Christ that you are ALWAYS right?  How arrogant would that be?  If you are unwilling to humbly submit that some disagreements cannot be resolved then you'd have to cut Romans 14 out of your Bible.  Are you ALWAYS the "stronger" brother?  Have you EVER argued for one theological position only to find out sometime later that what you had argued for was Scripturally wrong?  Are you tenaciously dogmatic about every belief you have, or are you willing to concede that there are some situations that calls for you to at least acknowledge that good Christians can disagree on subjects agreeably?  Would you insist that folk who wear headcoverings capitulate to your demands?  Would you assert your dogmatic view and impose your will on a brother in such delicate matters, even to the point of causing them to violate their conscience?

The problem is fundies come on here with these objections to the world while they themselves, lived a life permiated in sexual perversions....<rant snipped>.... [/b] Schapp can remain in prison forever as far as I am concerned.

Mike, with the <sexual> baggage you carry I don't think it wise to cast aspersions on anybody else.  I don't go to FBCH.  I've never been there.  Not once have I made any arguments in favor of Schaap, at anytime, especially in this latest monstrosity, so take a valium, relax, and collect your thoughts before opening your mouth about things you don't have any clue about.  rsc2a used the same tactic of poisoning the well when he suggested that I took my cues from "fundy preachers" regarding my perspectives and opposition to Roman Catholic theology.  His speculative allegations were nothing more than fanciful thinking, rantins of a former fundy who thinks that everybody who has a conservative thought has some sort of anti-intellectual bias steeped in Hylesism.  It just ain't so.  Many fine theologians still maintain that Catholicism is opposed to salvation by grace alone, and many others believe that participation in things like Halloween embody "worldliness".  Your "guilty by association" tactics are small-minded and off the mark.

How we all can belong to churches never having once incident, yet i can look up these so called pastors and members to see multiple (more than one incident) making headlines, how is that? obviously they are seeking this out!! Then when sex is mentioned within the confines of marriage, it's opposed every time.

Your non-sequiturs are bizarre.  Where did I say that sex within marriage is bad?  I've NEVER stated such, neither has my pastor.  He has been married to the same woman for 30 years without so much as a hint of impropriety in his marriage.  Our church has been in existence for over 40 years and has a great reputation in the community,  NEVER had a scandal, and certainly has no history of sexual immorality within its leadership or laity.  Get a grip and quit slinging mud.

And per the Hacker way (not limited to Hackers) attempts to use the world to sexualize children abound. This occurred during this discussion.  There is no reason to sexualize Halloween!

I told you yesterday that I would give you citations of non-fundy sources that document the sexualization of younger and younger children (Halloween is just one part of that process.  Do you dispute that?

Read these, for starters....

http://jennifershewmaker.com/2011/10/03/halloween-costumes-or-kiddie-lingerie
http://peggyorenstein.com/blog/heres-my-8-year-olds-halloween-costume

Secondly scruples regarding "Christians" don't matter. Scruples is a secular word for convictions.

ROFLOL!

Scruples = Convictions, but convictions don't matter?????

absolutely unbelievably bizarre Mike.

And to use the world again, to show us how wrong everything is ludicrous. The World does what it does, WE DO NOT.

Calvin is "the world"?  Puritans is "the world"? Macarthur is "the world"?  Mohler is "the world"?  Don't be ridiculous Mike.  The new Christians in Ephesus (Acts 19:19) could not violate their consciences by holding onto their pagan occult past history (books) and burned them, but people like you and rsc2a would summarily demand that issues of conscience be determined by <your> fiat.  I can't think of a more anti-Biblical (especially anti-Baptist) concept than violate somebody's conscience merely because you believe they should practice their faith as you see fit.  Preposterous and offensive to basic Christianity and grace.

The problem is...all these "wrongs" are a facade, a smoke screen for the real problem. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with Halloween. Then to bring it up then come back and say well I participate in Halloween makes no sense. Then why the discussion? There is nothing to discuss when something does not oppose scripture. And attempts are made to show it may, without any scriptural backing. This SHOULD offend Christians, no one should be tolerant of this.

The Scriptural backing for the OP has been cited in the context of allowing other believers the liberty to follow their conscience in the light of their understanding of Scripture.  This is basic understanding of Christian soul liberty.  Do you really need me to develop the concept of Christian liberty and conscience for you Mike?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Instead of cherry picking the small few articles from Grace which are babble, why don't you contact them for a referral for a church?  For some reason, the Fundies love to talk about scripture but they avoid it like the plague.

I have a fine church.  Don't condescend to me about Spiritual matters Mike.  Beam and mote, ya know?  It would not matter which Scripture I cite, you'd summarily dismiss it out of hand.  "Have no fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness".  You'd weasel out of any modern day application of that.  What fellowship does Christ have with Belial?  You'd laugh such application to scorn, despite the fact that many solid evangelical leaders of the past and present understand such verses to have import to activities they deem(ed) unwholesome by their nature.  Gambling is okay in such anti-nomians books.  Smoking is lauded.  Raunchy music is indulged, calling it "liberty".  Fleshly appetites are encouraged as individual choice.  But not so long ago the accepted default position among conservative Bible-believing evangelicals was that such activities (dancing, theater, etc) were unsavory.  All you new-fangles spiritually enlightened post-modern Christians have it all figured out, but America keeps getting darker and darker, secularized culture takes a stronger grip, and instead of piety and fervor for souls we are urged to take up another beer and celebrate "liberty".

You need to switch churches.

You need to quit snuggling on couches with men, skinny-dipping with the gang,  cover your wife up a bit better at the beach, and cease from dispensing spiritual advice to me.  Inspect your own house, look in your own mirror.

 

[brianb]

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Everything has pagan roots, even scavenger hunts. But what Satan meant for evil, can be utilized for good by Christians. It doesn't need to be avoided, only the aspects that oppose scripture are to be avoided.

Ok, but why quote a verse that has nothing to do with holidays or things like it but is about God taking a bad situation and turning it into a good one (Romans 8:28) - something that only God not Christians can do. Joseph's brother's even by their own admission were still in the wrong for throwing their brother into the pit, selling him and lying to their father.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Are you tenaciously dogmatic about every belief you have, or are you willing to concede that there are some situations that calls for you to at least acknowledge that good Christians can disagree on subjects agreeably?  Would you insist that folk who wear headcoverings capitulate to your demands?  Would you assert your dogmatic view and impose your will on a brother in such delicate matters, even to the point of causing them to violate their conscience?[/quote]

I don't think "lest thee offend the weaker brother" means what you think it means.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]rsc2a used the same tactic of poisoning the well when he suggested that I took my cues from "fundy preachers" regarding my perspectives and opposition to Roman Catholic theology.[/quote]

I asked who you've read who defended a "higher" view of the sacraments. I still haven't gotten an answer...

You also avoided this one:  who or what was responsible for carving the marble in the statue David, Michelangelo or his chisel?


[quote author=ALAYMAN]His speculative allegations were nothing more than fanciful thinking, rantins of a former fundy who thinks that everybody who has a conservative thought has some sort of anti-intellectual bias steeped in Hylesism.[/quote]

I'm actually quite conservative personally. I just don't think I should force my views on others.

And, yes, many conservatives are extremely anti-intellectual and extreme in their views...

...so are many liberals.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

And to use the world again, to show us how wrong everything is ludicrous. The World does what it does, WE DO NOT.

Calvin is "the world"?  Puritans is "the world"? Macarthur is "the world"?  Mohler is "the world"?  Don't be ridiculous Mike.[/quote]

Your comment here honestly makes no sense at all.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]The new Christians in Ephesus (Acts 19:19) could not violate their consciences by holding onto their pagan occult past history (books) and burned them...[/quote]

The Ephesians burning their books had nothing to do with "holding onto history". 


[quote author=ALAYMAN]...but people like you and rsc2a would summarily demand that issues of conscience be determined by <your> fiat.  I can't think of a more anti-Biblical (especially anti-Baptist) concept than violate somebody's conscience merely because you believe they should practice their faith as you see fit.  Preposterous and offensive to basic Christianity and grace.[/quote]

You accuse us of demanding that people follow our personal faith practices because we say people should determine for themselves (under the guidance of the Spirit) what is right or wrong while at the same time, trying to force your views on others?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

The problem is...all these "wrongs" are a facade, a smoke screen for the real problem. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with Halloween. Then to bring it up then come back and say well I participate in Halloween makes no sense. Then why the discussion? There is nothing to discuss when something does not oppose scripture. And attempts are made to show it may, without any scriptural backing. This SHOULD offend Christians, no one should be tolerant of this.

The Scriptural backing for the OP has been cited in the context of allowing other believers the liberty to follow their conscience in the light of their understanding of Scripture.  This is basic understanding of Christian soul liberty.  Do you really need me to develop the concept of Christian liberty and conscience for you Mike?[/quote]

Then stop trying to force your own personal views on morality and piety down other's throats.

 

[rsc2a]

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Everything has pagan roots, even scavenger hunts. But what Satan meant for evil, can be utilized for good by Christians. It doesn't need to be avoided, only the aspects that oppose scripture are to be avoided.

Ok, but why quote a verse that has nothing to do with holidays or things like it but is about God taking a bad situation and turning it into a good one (Romans 8:28) - something that only God not Christians can do. Joseph's brother's even by their own admission were still in the wrong for throwing their brother into the pit, selling him and lying to their father.

It was an odd verse to cite that really didn't prove anything. 

I also wouldn't say we should utilize corrupt things but redeem them (but I see what he was trying to say), and there are verses for that. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Gambling is okay in such anti-nomians books.  Smoking is lauded.  Raunchy music is indulged, calling it "liberty".  Fleshly appetites are encouraged as individual choice.  But not so long ago the accepted default position among conservative Bible-believing evangelicals was that such activities (dancing, theater, etc) were unsavory.  All you new-fangles spiritually enlightened post-modern Christians have it all figured out, but America keeps getting darker and darker, secularized culture takes a stronger grip, and instead of piety and fervor for souls we are urged to take up another beer and celebrate "liberty".[/quote]

Hey Alayman!

Did you forget this?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...but people like you and rsc2a would summarily demand that issues of conscience be determined by <your> fiat.  I can't think of a more anti-Biblical (especially anti-Baptist) concept than violate somebody's conscience merely because you believe they should practice their faith as you see fit.  Preposterous and offensive to basic Christianity and grace.[/quote]

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't think "lest thee offend the weaker brother" means what you think it means.

Am I supposed to give a monkey's uncle about your speculative evaluation of my understading?  I don't think you have a clue about a lot of things, but I don't expect you to change.  Leopards and spots and all that.

I asked who you've read who defended a "higher" view of the sacraments.

No, you made snide intimating implications without a shread of evidence as to who I follow after, but you've been wrong a lot, so I don't expect that to chage in your patchwork guessing about who I am and what influences my thinking.  Continue your erroneous suppositions, it suits you.  In your ambiguous definition of "higher" are you considering "higher" to mean that of a sacerdotal nature?  Otherwise, Sproul is pretty much a "high calvinist" with a very healthy view of the sacraments within the true reformed tradition, and he (and his camp, like Mahaney, Begg, etc) would assert that your allowance of RC theology to be within the pale of reformed understanding of Sola Gratia to be ludicrous.

You also avoided this one:  who or what was responsible for carving the marble in the statue David, Michelangelo or his chisel?

When I walk through pastures I am careful not to step in the dung either.

I'm actually quite conservative personally. I just don't think I should force my views on others.

Define "force".  Nobody in this conversation has to continue participating, and I woulnd't have anybody follow my word verbatim, but rather be a Noble Berean and prove whether these things be so, persuaded in their own mind.

And, yes, many conservatives are extremely anti-intellectual and extreme in their views...

RC Sproul, anti-intellectual???  You continue to show your impertinence.

us Mike.

Your comment here honestly makes no sense at all.[/quote]

Sure it does.  Mike (biker) claimed that the strength of my argument was to take cues from "the world" as to how I live my Christianity, but that's far from the truth of the body of my arguments thus far.  The only reasonable inference that can be made as to what his sentence refers to is my citation of feminists and sociologists as proof(s).  First, that was only a small part of the conversation thus far, and secondly, it is not irrelevant to consider social science and contemporary observations of human behavior in estimating the pulse of culture.

The Ephesians burning their books had nothing to do with "holding onto history". 

Maybe it is you who needs the reading comphrension classes.  Those book burners did not want to cling to their past history of idolatry, thus, they demonstrated (pietistically I might add) that they wanted to distance themselves from such practices.

You accuse us of demanding that people follow our personal faith practices because we say people should determine for themselves (under the guidance of the Spirit) what is right or wrong while at the same time, trying to force your views on others?

Again, define "force".  I'm having a conversation, not coercing anybody.  I'm arguing, as I have all along, is that our Christian priorities (collectively as an evangelical movement) could take a careful analysis of our motives in living the Christian life.  A little more emphasis on spreading the gospel, and maybe a little less emphasis on "liberty", "rights", and easy non-sacrificial living.

Then stop trying to force your own personal views on morality and piety down other's throats.

Again with the "force" thing. 

Stop "forcing" your opinions and values on me!  Why are you forcing me to read your stuff, and accept your worldview???

See how that works?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Hey Alayman!

Did you forget this?

Your point?

You do realize that there is a ditch on both sides don't you?  Antinomianism = bad, license = bad.  Capiche?

 

[Izdaari]

I don't claim to be "fair and balanced". I believe and say whatever I think is right, whether or not it's fair or balanced. I'll leave "fair and balanced" to Fox News Channel; accurate or not, it's their slogan.

Well, the phrase "fair and balanced" was a euphemism in this case for being charitable and considerate of opposing viewpoints that are contradictory to any given position one might hold.  In that respect I don't begrudge any person of forwarding their beliefs (even if they be antithetical to Christian worldviews, as my baptist forefathers did,  I prize freedom of speech), and even laud people for knowing what they believe and why they believe it, being willing to articulate and stand for it in tje public square (ie, I loathe political correctness that stifles free exchange of ideas in the marketplace). 

On a "fundamentalist forum" I wouldn't expect much opposition to "conservative" hermeneutical principles, so I don't assume to have many conversations with folk holding wildly divergent  belief structures than fundamentalists and evangelicals.  As such, I would expect that an individual would maintain their <Biblically> right notions regarding "in-house" debates by being reasonably willing to give <potential/hypothetical> legitimate concessions to a brother/sister's conscientiously held scruples.  At the same time, it does not gall me that such folk who hold to convictions that run counter to mine, whether stonger or weaker(more or less "conserative", within reason) than mine would attempt to persuade me to their side of the house by advancing the rationale that convinced them of their own self-held beliefs.

In this case however, as I opened the discussion, it became quickly apparent by the initial responses that an antagonist and entreched position would be put forth by those on this "fundamenalist" forum.  Despite your opposition to the general convictions of ideas like those held in the OP you often state your beliefs in ways that aren't antagonistic, unlike many others who come here for sport and to produce much heat rather than light.  I respect that about you, as I've stated several times before, even if we fundamentally and tenaciously disagree regarding the substance of numerous issues in the Christian life.

I understand. I have no quarrel with your choice of topic, but it isn't one that I'm very excited about. I'll continue to read with interest, and comment if I see something that needs answering.

 

[rsc2a]

I don't think "lest thee offend the weaker brother" means what you think it means.

Am I supposed to give a monkey's uncle about your speculative evaluation of my understading?  I don't think you have a clue about a lot of things, but I don't expect you to change.  Leopards and spots and all that.

:

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I asked who you've read who defended a "higher" view of the sacraments.

No, you made snide intimating implications without a shread of evidence as to who I follow after, but you've been wrong a lot, so I don't expect that to chage in your patchwork guessing about who I am and what influences my thinking.  Continue your erroneous suppositions, it suits you.  In your ambiguous definition of "higher" are you considering "higher" to mean that of a sacerdotal nature?  Otherwise, Sproul is pretty much a "high calvinist" with a very healthy view of the sacraments within the true reformed tradition, and he (and his camp, like Mahaney, Begg, etc) would assert that your allowance of RC theology to be within the pale of reformed understanding of Sola Gratia to be ludicrous.[/quote]

So, basically, you haven't read any literature defending the opposing viewpoint.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You also avoided this one:  who or what was responsible for carving the marble in the statue David, Michelangelo or his chisel?

When I walk through pastures I am careful not to step in the dung either.[/quote]

Or you just avoid questions that shine light on your erroneous presumptions.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm actually quite conservative personally. I just don't think I should force my views on others.

Define "force".  Nobody in this conversation has to continue participating, and I woulnd't have anybody follow my word verbatim, but rather be a Noble Berean and prove whether these things be so, persuaded in their own mind.[/quote]

No, you don't "force" them, just question their faith.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

And, yes, many conservatives are extremely anti-intellectual and extreme in their views...

RC Sproul, anti-intellectual???  You continue to show your impertinence.[/quote]

"many" ≠ "all"

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Your comment here honestly makes no sense at all.

Sure it does.  Mike (biker) claimed that the strength of my argument was to take cues from "the world" as to how I live my Christianity, but that's far from the truth of the body of my arguments thus far.  The only reasonable inference that can be made as to what his sentence refers to is my citation of feminists and sociologists as proof(s).  First, that was only a small part of the conversation thus far, and secondly, it is not irrelevant to consider social science and contemporary observations of human behavior in estimating the pulse of culture.[/quote]

Ahh...that's right. He was only talking about people you actually cited in your writings instead of people you cited in your mind.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

The Ephesians burning their books had nothing to do with "holding onto history". 

Maybe it is you who needs the reading comphrension classes.  Those book burners did not want to cling to their past history of idolatry, thus, they demonstrated (pietistically I might add) that they wanted to distance themselves from such practices.[/quote]

Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. (Acts 19:18-19 ESV)

You want to make it about them doing it for reasons of consciousnesses instead of confession and repentance.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]Again, define "force".  I'm having a conversation, not coercing anybody.  I'm arguing, as I have all along, is that our Christian priorities (collectively as an evangelical movement) could take a careful analysis of our motives in living the Christian life.  A little more emphasis on spreading the gospel, and maybe a little less emphasis on "liberty", "rights", and easy non-sacrificial living.[/quote]

Serious question: how do you define "gospel"?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Then stop trying to force your own personal views on morality and piety down other's throats.

Again with the "force" thing. 

Stop "forcing" your opinions and values on me!  Why are you forcing me to read your stuff, and accept your worldview???

See how that works?[/quote]

Yes, I do. I'm not calling your faith into question because of what activities you choose or do not choose to engage in. I see exactly how it works.