Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"
- Thread starter ALAYMAN
- Start date
rsc2a said:
Hey! Give him time! It is difficult to look up Strongs numbers sometimes!
Or, he has done the work and is unable to use a digital camera to show us the post-it-notes.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
rsc2a said:
The ? wasn't directed @ me but I would propose this relatively simple answer:
psalms - songs composed of Scripture passages/verses
hymns - songs about God
spiritual songs - music that brings us to think scriptural thoughts about scriptural subjects
godly music -
...my definition for music is 'an emotional language.' Someone else has said that music is how feelings sound. Music is a means of communicating how we feel about something. As such, godly music is simply music that communicates godly emotions and emotions about godly things. BTW, I don't think all secular music is wrong as there are clear examples in Scripture of appropriate uses for secular music. There are also scriptural guidelines/principles for what is good/bad secular music. But although we may differ about where to draw the line differentiating right/wrong music, we cannot not draw a line. There must be one. Scripture, especially for the NT church service, clearly mandates non-secular spiritual music.
J
jimmudcatgrant
Guest
And once the persons commit the sin, they become the sinner. Oh no, your straw man just went up in flames. Are you really that stupid? No, you like to mince words. Sometimes I think you are just an educated troll that is totally ignorant of spiritual things. Those things are sin, troll, because God said they were. Don't you get it? God is longsuffering, but he won't let you misrepresent his word forever. The homosexual act is a sin. Period. Your ignorance is appalling.rsc2a said:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Tom Brennan said:
I believe there is a bit of eisegesis that we (myself included) engage in regarding these definitions, but they'll work.
Since Paul links them "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs", we could treat them as a unit for purposes of this discussion*. Fair enough?
* I'm going to tweak part of your definition: spiritual songs - music that brings us to think
So if...
Tom Brennan said:
...then "secular" music is "spiritual" music because all music is emotional and, therefore, speaks to the spirit about spiritual subjects. The question becomes what is the music telling us about said spiritual subjects. This understanding eliminates the false sacred/secular divide that many are trying to foist onto the topic at hand.
Since Paul would not want us to stir up un-Godly passions, he clearly would be excluding music that stirs up un-Godly passions within ourselves. (Let me point out that, for different people, different music will do this.)
So, I would agree with you when you write this...
Tom Brennan said:
...and believe, in this context, Paul was referring to such music when addressing the churches. However, because
..."secular" music is "spiritual" music because all music is emotional and, therefore, speaks to the spirit about spiritual subjects...
one cannot eliminate "secular" music as a category that Paul was referring to, provided it "communicates godly emotions and emotions about godly things". All music could do this, whether that music is Bach, Casting Crowns, U2, the Kingdom Heirs, Amazing Grace, or the Beatles.
You seem to address that when you write:
Tom Brennan said:
...and since I don't adhere to a false sacred/secular divide, those appropriate uses for "secular" music may have a place in a "church" setting. I believe the cultural context of the audience would be the largest factor here, namely, what music evokes Godly affections for the members of the congregation.
Tom Brennan said:
I would agree with this, but I would add a ton of caveats.
Tom Brennan said:
And, on this, I would completely disagree. It's setting up that false sacred/secular divide that is continually denounced.
rsc2a said:
This is really the foundation of your whole argument. It is also why your argument is wholly incorrect. 'Spiritual' isn't some vague, nebulous, emotional, mystical thing; spiritual is scriptural. You cannot be spiritual without being scriptural. All of these new age gurus talking about 'spirituality' wouldn't know the Lord from a lawn chair and aren't spiritual at all. They are mystical, and there is a huge difference. Being spiritual involves what Jesus described in John 4 as worshiping God 'in spirit and in truth.' I must have a birthed/quickened spirit via salvation (so that rules out the lost man) and I must be in communication with God according to the precepts of truth ('thy word is truth). The entire role of my spirit is to communicate with God, ergo, being spiritual is a scriptural/God thing, not simply an emotional/mystical thing.
Spiritual songs, then, ARE songs that are devoted to scriptural truth, the things of God, and putting man in tune with God. They aren't 'when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie...' There is a distinction between spiritual and secular songs, and the only way you can maintain otherwise is to re-define spiritual.
Tom Brennan said:
Yep. Also....
Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isa 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
Isa 30:10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
Isa 30:11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,482
- Reaction score
- 3,093
- Points
- 113
[quote author=rsc2a]
*sigh*
I'll re-post the comment then break it down for you:
Seeker services have become the popular trend, where the objective has been to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.
...The objective in seeker-senstive churches is not to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.
See...that wasn't hard, was it?[/quote]
You claim that they are wrong in their assertion, but you don't refute it with any objective facts. They effectively said that the seeker model is based in accomodation, making Jesus palatable to the masses of unchurched. You never refuted that by demonstrating anything to the contrary. What is the seeker sensitive model if not a marketing ploy to eliminate distasteful theology so that the average Joe won't be offended (ala, Osteen's elimination of the cross, sin, etc)?
If you can't interpret words accurately without misinterpreting the meaning of the author then maybe you should avoid these conversations. Clearly that phrase is speaking to the use of carnal means to attract people to a watered down message. "skits, entertainment, <worldly> music", etc, are the "hook" and "Christianity" is the "religion" (but it is often "another gospel" rather than "true religion, undefiled...").
Well, then you're equivocating, as the context of their comments is coporate worship practices and methodologies, not how we ought to behave/worship in a private context.
There are numerous sorts, for a variety of cultures, all doing the same thing, replacing the salient parts of the gospel with "relevance" cloaked in entertainment. Here is but one expose of the mindset....
CLUB DANCING IN CHURCH?? - HD
Again, you use sloppy theologic language. "Everything in creation ...mirror of Christ", in the same context with Harry Potter and Star Wars? The natural conclusion you'd have us come to is that all art is "in creation" and therefore acceptable in use of the proclamation of the gospel. Some people claim that pornography is art. Would you have us to believe that porn is acceptable to use as a relevant point of relationality to our audience, and that we ought to present it as acceptable?
As the Christianity Today article pointed out, the theme of Christ is replete in the word, with copious illustrative mechanisms inherent to the word, allowing us to avoid questionable approaches to presenting truth. When Satan tempted Jesus He never did break-dance to shut him up, but instead quoted Scripture.
The difference in A pastor using a strippers pole as an illustration and Christ saying that we ought to love our wives as he gave himself for the church is patently obvious to anyone with common sense. Prurient pandering to depraved and carnal means, like discussing masturbation and joking by pimping Scriptures and saying "whatever thy hand finds to do, do it with all thy might" is really self-evidently wrong based on numerous Biblical admonitions of grace, edification, and godliness.
Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more. He told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. He told the super intelligent teacher to be born again. He told Mary and Martha that this thing happened unto the glory of God. He didn't relate to their felt needs as a means to an end, but rather pointed them to the source and remedy for all of our inadequacy, and he couched it in terms of our sinfulness, and his righteousness.
uhhh, that "carnal means attract carnal men", and usually leaves them in an unconverted state, just like a 1-2-3- "soulwinning" presentation does (which ironically, is also borne out of misguided and erroneous, pragmatic view of anthropology and soteriology).
Many seeker sensitive churches that resort to non-biblical methods of conveying their hollow form of crossless Christianity.
I read his explanation/rationalization. Achan had such delusions. King Saul, in dealing with Agag, similarly said "I feared the people and obeyed their voice".
Pure ignorance. You don't qualify your statement, and again display ignorance. Would it be good to "celebrate" sex and the joys of it at a funeral? There is a time and a place for such things. Church is a place to glorify God, not indulge in fleshy and carnal displays of irreverence, like dancing in the aisle and getting krunk to some bygone era of music that you sweated to in the backseat of a car while out on a date.
You're big into "exegesis". Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel. The good news is NEVER "amusement".
You beating me up is like Tyson to Holyfield. Some ears might come up missing pieces, and parts mangled, but it won't be because you followed in semblance of decency and respect for Biblical Christian orthodoxy.
*sigh*
I'll re-post the comment then break it down for you:
Seeker services have become the popular trend, where the objective has been to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.
...The objective in seeker-senstive churches is not to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.
See...that wasn't hard, was it?[/quote]
You claim that they are wrong in their assertion, but you don't refute it with any objective facts. They effectively said that the seeker model is based in accomodation, making Jesus palatable to the masses of unchurched. You never refuted that by demonstrating anything to the contrary. What is the seeker sensitive model if not a marketing ploy to eliminate distasteful theology so that the average Joe won't be offended (ala, Osteen's elimination of the cross, sin, etc)?
rsc2a said:
If you can't interpret words accurately without misinterpreting the meaning of the author then maybe you should avoid these conversations. Clearly that phrase is speaking to the use of carnal means to attract people to a watered down message. "skits, entertainment, <worldly> music", etc, are the "hook" and "Christianity" is the "religion" (but it is often "another gospel" rather than "true religion, undefiled...").
rsc2a said:
Well, then you're equivocating, as the context of their comments is coporate worship practices and methodologies, not how we ought to behave/worship in a private context.
rsc2a said:
There are numerous sorts, for a variety of cultures, all doing the same thing, replacing the salient parts of the gospel with "relevance" cloaked in entertainment. Here is but one expose of the mindset....
CLUB DANCING IN CHURCH?? - HD
rsc2a said:
Again, you use sloppy theologic language. "Everything in creation ...mirror of Christ", in the same context with Harry Potter and Star Wars? The natural conclusion you'd have us come to is that all art is "in creation" and therefore acceptable in use of the proclamation of the gospel. Some people claim that pornography is art. Would you have us to believe that porn is acceptable to use as a relevant point of relationality to our audience, and that we ought to present it as acceptable?
rsc2a said:
As the Christianity Today article pointed out, the theme of Christ is replete in the word, with copious illustrative mechanisms inherent to the word, allowing us to avoid questionable approaches to presenting truth. When Satan tempted Jesus He never did break-dance to shut him up, but instead quoted Scripture.
rsc2a said:
The difference in A pastor using a strippers pole as an illustration and Christ saying that we ought to love our wives as he gave himself for the church is patently obvious to anyone with common sense. Prurient pandering to depraved and carnal means, like discussing masturbation and joking by pimping Scriptures and saying "whatever thy hand finds to do, do it with all thy might" is really self-evidently wrong based on numerous Biblical admonitions of grace, edification, and godliness.
rsc2a said:
Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more. He told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. He told the super intelligent teacher to be born again. He told Mary and Martha that this thing happened unto the glory of God. He didn't relate to their felt needs as a means to an end, but rather pointed them to the source and remedy for all of our inadequacy, and he couched it in terms of our sinfulness, and his righteousness.
rsc2a said:
uhhh, that "carnal means attract carnal men", and usually leaves them in an unconverted state, just like a 1-2-3- "soulwinning" presentation does (which ironically, is also borne out of misguided and erroneous, pragmatic view of anthropology and soteriology).
rsc2a said:
Many seeker sensitive churches that resort to non-biblical methods of conveying their hollow form of crossless Christianity.
rsc2a said:Just an acknowledgment that you are judging him without even bothering to listen to his explanation is fine.
I read his explanation/rationalization. Achan had such delusions. King Saul, in dealing with Agag, similarly said "I feared the people and obeyed their voice".
rsc2a said:And celebrating all those activities is appropriate in public.
Pure ignorance. You don't qualify your statement, and again display ignorance. Would it be good to "celebrate" sex and the joys of it at a funeral? There is a time and a place for such things. Church is a place to glorify God, not indulge in fleshy and carnal displays of irreverence, like dancing in the aisle and getting krunk to some bygone era of music that you sweated to in the backseat of a car while out on a date.
rsc2a said:Perhaps entertainment and amusement is another way God speaks to us.
You're big into "exegesis". Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel. The good news is NEVER "amusement".
rsc2a said:(I'll not beat you up with verses proving my point.)
You beating me up is like Tyson to Holyfield. Some ears might come up missing pieces, and parts mangled, but it won't be because you followed in semblance of decency and respect for Biblical Christian orthodoxy.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
ALAYMAN said:
You claim that they are wrong in their assertion, but you don't refute it with any objective facts. They effectively said that the seeker model is based in accomodation, making Jesus palatable to the masses of unchurched. You never refuted that by demonstrating anything to the contrary. What is the seeker sensitive model if not a marketing ploy to eliminate distasteful theology so that the average Joe won't be offended (ala, Osteen's elimination of the cross, sin, etc)?[/quote]
So I don't refute your assertion with objective facts? Since you are the one making the claim (and slandering fellow Christians), you are the one responsible for providing the objective facts.
But, unlike you, I have actually read The Purpose-Driven Church (et al), so I know what SS pastors are actually saying about the how and why of what they do. I'll also point out that your statement "if not a marketing ploy to eliminate distasteful theology" shows a woeful ignorance of both SS methodology and theology. Surprise! :
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
If you can't interpret words accurately without misinterpreting the meaning of the author then maybe you should avoid these conversations.[/quote]
Pot. Kettle.
(And, I was accurate in my usage.)
[quote author=ALAYMAN]Clearly that phrase is speaking to the use of carnal means to attract people to a watered down message. "skits, entertainment, <worldly> music", etc, are the "hook" and "Christianity" is the "religion" (but it is often "another gospel" rather than "true religion, undefiled...").[/quote]
All based on an un-Biblical sacred/secular divide. And your "<...>" and "(...)" in your explanation (as an addendum to the quote) betrays the fact that you have to put your own spin on things in order to make them say what you want them to. Eisegesis even in this area...
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Well, then you're equivocating, as the context of their comments is coporate worship practices and methodologies, not how we ought to behave/worship in a private context.[/quote]
Again...slow down...read more carefully. I'll help you and bold the part I already underlined (and add a bit more so maybe you'll catch it).
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
There are numerous sorts, for a variety of cultures, all doing the same thing, replacing the salient parts of the gospel with "relevance" cloaked in entertainment. Here is but one expose of the mindset....
CLUB DANCING IN CHURCH?? - HD[/quote]
First...I'll notice point out how you ignored the word "generally". Not surprised.
Second...I'm not a fan of brief youtube clips completely divorced of context, especially when one church is slamming how another church is conducting their services. But, seeing as how you pretty much ignore all context as long as the immediate example appears to provide proof, I'm not surprised here either.
Third...posting a video of a brief portion of a service where they are playing music from the 80s! and calling that "relevant" would be laughable if it didn't show how unaware of culture you actually are.
Fourth...seems you have a problem with any type of service that doesn't look like "your" service. It reminds me of the people who criticized James Hudson Taylor for daring to adopt a Chinese lifestyle.
I'll give you a little hint: services in urban settings, rural settings, historically black settings, Chinese settings, African settings, Indian settings, European settings, "high church" settings, "low church" settings....
...they are all going to look different. And, they should. The Gospel is for all people and all cultures, not just the Western culture, in particular the fundamentalist American evangelical culture.
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Again, you use sloppy theologic language. "Everything in creation ...mirror of Christ", in the same context with Harry Potter and Star Wars? The natural conclusion you'd have us come to is that all art is "in creation" and therefore acceptable in use of the proclamation of the gospel.[/quote]
So you don't understand the meta-narrative. Got it.
[quote author=ALAYMAN]Would you have us to believe that porn is acceptable to use as a relevant point of relationality to our audience, and that we ought to present it as acceptable? [/quote]
Yes. No.
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
As the Christianity Today article pointed out, the theme of Christ is replete in the word, with copious illustrative mechanisms inherent to the word, allowing us to avoid questionable approaches to presenting truth. When Satan tempted Jesus He never did break-dance to shut him up, but instead quoted Scripture.[/quote]
The theme of Christ is replete in all of creation. But since you don't understand the meta-narrative, I guess you can't see that.
(Hint: Once you grasp this, it will open up a whole world of illustrations for you to help people better grasp the Gospel.)
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
The difference in A pastor using a strippers pole as an illustration and Christ saying that we ought to love our wives as he gave himself for the church is patently obvious to anyone with common sense. Prurient pandering to depraved and carnal means, like discussing masturbation and joking by pimping Scriptures and saying "whatever thy hand finds to do, do it with all thy might" is really self-evidently wrong based on numerous Biblical admonitions of grace, edification, and godliness.[/quote]
So you avoid the question.
Then you talk about how we should operate under a model of grace and edification.
I'm trying to decide it if I should just repeat the question or call you out.
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more. He told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. He told the super intelligent teacher to be born again. He told Mary and Martha that this thing happened unto the glory of God. He didn't relate to their felt needs as a means to an end, but rather pointed them to the source and remedy for all of our inadequacy, and he couched it in terms of our sinfulness, and his righteousness.[/quote]
Jesus also feed multitudes numerous times, once right before He drove them off. He healed sick people for no other reason that because He could (and to stick a thumb in the Pharisees' eyes).
Actually, after typing that last sentence, I'm starting to see a commonality there...
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
uhhh, that "carnal means attract carnal men", and usually leaves them in an unconverted state, just like a 1-2-3- "soulwinning" presentation does (which ironically, is also borne out of misguided and erroneous, pragmatic view of anthropology and soteriology).[/quote]
So you are avoiding one ditch by swerving into another one? That's not a good practice.
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
Many seeker sensitive churches that resort to non-biblical methods of conveying their hollow form of crossless Christianity.[/quote]
I've pretty much learned to ignore you when you talk about "biblical methods".
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:Just an acknowledgment that you are judging him without even bothering to listen to his explanation is fine.
I read his explanation/rationalization. Achan had such delusions. King Saul, in dealing with Agag, similarly said "I feared the people and obeyed their voice".[/quote]
We had a guy come up to us several months later, and he had received Christ, and he said in that song is where he felt God speak to him and tell him,
ALAYMAN said:
ROFL...
First, he goes to Strongs for meanings...
Now, he goes to etymologies... how does that work for a word like "butterfly?"
Alayman should stop asking for exegesis until he recognizes it. It's like giving a donkey a sirloin steak. They don't know what to do with it and if they taste it, they still walk away.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,482
- Reaction score
- 3,093
- Points
- 113
FSSL said:
What's wrong with etymological explanation of meaning, particularly in this case? rsc2a didn't address it either, but the concept of entertainment and amusement is an integral component of the particularly egregious seeker types. The gospel is not to be a distraction, or detracted from, but rather center stage in evagelical worship. And the gospel is primarily about sin and redemption, not meeting felt needs and other self-esteem psychological appeasement.
You're a strange little man. Out of all the discussion that has gone on in this thread, like some geek with a pocket protector, you latch onto one inconsequential aspect of the conversation and twist stuff way out of proportion. That's characteristic of your conversational reasoning, as has already been noted prior to this.
ALAYMAN said:
What is wrong with entertainment and amusement to get a message across? Have you ever used an illustration? How about humor in a sermon? I know what you are getting at. It is the typical fundy reaction.
I don't live on this forum, so I can pop in and out on my pleasure.
I AM a geek!!! Ding! Ding! Ding! I am an overzealous techy that is exploiting Google for as long as I can. So, you want to know what I am wearing? Here goes! I wear sandals, tshirts, shorts and spend a lot of time sightseeing. A pocket protector will not do well in the swimming pool where I spend a lot of my time as well. So, no, a pocket protector would be completely out of place. Do you have one?
I am not going to reply to everything said here. I just get amused when you speak of exegesis and you have no concept of the topic as well.
BTW: God was amused in Psalm 2
T
themagneticfields
Guest
ALAYMAN said:
I'll hop in to say my church "is a church of seekers, followers and doubters who are learning to follow and worship Christ." There is no making Jesus palatable, no elimination of distasteful theology. You can engage seekers and doubters with the truth of the Bible.
For evidence: http://vintage21.com/resources/sermons/
themagneticfields said:
Agreed, that can be done, and should be done, and I think my new church does it too, though in a different style.
Sorry, no link, for reasons of privacy protection. But I do like yours, especially the True Myth series.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,482
- Reaction score
- 3,093
- Points
- 113
FSSL said:
As is usually the case, poisoning the well with epithets like "fundy" only serves to illustrate that your bias in this matter stems from an over-reaction or over-correction on your part from what you came out of. Simply because I stand against a pragmatic philosophy doesn't mean that I spew party lines. Some things people believe come from actual thought-out convictions, not merely regurgitation. I am the type of person who loathes group-think. My maverick tendencies won't allow my conscience to "go along to get along", and that truth prevents me from blending in with the likes of the FFF prevailing temperature that folk like you put forth. Is Sproul, Mohler, and Zacharias "fundy's" too?
"The Seeker-Sensitive Movement: Your Thoughts Al and R.C..."
By the way, you obfuscated, again, and didn't answer the question that was most salient to your "etymology" derision. What's wrong with word studies, particularly relating to the notiont that "amusement" has no place in the somber and reverent life and death matter of preaching the gospel?
FSSL said:
I made three posts yesterday, but I attempted at least a modicum of dialogue when I responded. If you don't want honest intellectual give and take, and you don't want to have reasoned civil discourse, but instead just want to have a little fun at my expense, then don't complain when you get similar contempt handed back to you. After all, you're the fella who snidely commented recently about how I didn't answer ONE question/challenge out of an entire page-length response, where I answered near every point rsc2a made. Hypocrisy much?
FSSL said:
Could you explain how Psalm 2:4's usage of God's mockery of pagans/atheists in any way parallels the meaning of "amusement" as it is being used in the discussion to accurately describe what the seeker sensitive crowd is effectively doing in their "distraction" from the core of the gospel message?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,482
- Reaction score
- 3,093
- Points
- 113
[quote author=themagneticfields]I'll hop in to say my church "is a church of seekers, followers and doubters who are learning to follow and worship Christ." There is no making Jesus palatable, no elimination of distasteful theology. You can engage seekers and doubters with the truth of the Bible.[/quote]
If there's no elimination of core doctrines of Lordship, sin, atonement, etc, then I don't think your church meets the essential definition of SS that is being critiqued in the OP.
Having said that, it appears to me that your model of evangelism doesn't match the basic premise/model of what our obligations to the lost (and conversely, to the church) are. Can you show me in Scriptures where the invitation to the assembly of believers (contrary to your "Welcome", bolded below) is extended evangelistically to the lost?
Bring your faith and your doubt, your joy and your tears, your praise and your selfishness. As a church, we want to emulate Jesus
If there's no elimination of core doctrines of Lordship, sin, atonement, etc, then I don't think your church meets the essential definition of SS that is being critiqued in the OP.
Having said that, it appears to me that your model of evangelism doesn't match the basic premise/model of what our obligations to the lost (and conversely, to the church) are. Can you show me in Scriptures where the invitation to the assembly of believers (contrary to your "Welcome", bolded below) is extended evangelistically to the lost?
Bring your faith and your doubt, your joy and your tears, your praise and your selfishness. As a church, we want to emulate Jesus
[quote author=ALAYMAN]As is usually the case, poisoning the well with epithets like "fundy" only serves to illustrate that your bias in this matter stems from an over-reaction or over-correction on your part from what you came out of. Simply because I stand against a pragmatic philosophy doesn't mean that I spew party lines. Some things people believe come from actual thought-out convictions, not merely regurgitation. I am the type of person who loathes group-think. My maverick tendencies won't allow my conscience to "go along to get along", and that truth prevents me from blending in with the likes of the FFF prevailing temperature that folk like you put forth. Is Sproul, Mohler, and Zacharias "fundy's" too?[/quote]
I doubt they would have left out half of the point as you did in your OP. Fundies like to focus on the negatives and "thou shalt nots" like you consistently do...
I answered it but you are too dense to read and understand why I used the word "butterfly" to show you the fallacy of etymology.
The discussion of the etymology of amusement does nothing to prove your point because the CONTEXT and type of amusement can make it either moral or immoral.
I doubt they would have left out half of the point as you did in your OP. Fundies like to focus on the negatives and "thou shalt nots" like you consistently do...
I answered it but you are too dense to read and understand why I used the word "butterfly" to show you the fallacy of etymology.
The discussion of the etymology of amusement does nothing to prove your point because the CONTEXT and type of amusement can make it either moral or immoral.