Comments on: Rules of engagement http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:53:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Psalm Singer http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-246647 Psalm Singer Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:58:41 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-246647 The Amaerican Standard Version, 1901, would be more interesting since it is the only version which accurately uses the phrase "putting away" and the word divorce. The Amaerican Standard Version, 1901, would be more interesting since it is the only version which accurately uses the phrase “putting away” and the word divorce.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Harris http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-243441 Harris Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:32:03 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-243441 As always, late to the party, or too random on the site... Tony -- I appreciate the original post, and your interaction. In my experience it is often the manner as much as the message that proves winsome. For me, it was the life observed of Christians in my HS oh, 40 years ago, that made the Gospel credible. It's still the case. As always, late to the party, or too random on the site…

Tony — I appreciate the original post, and your interaction. In my experience it is often the manner as much as the message that proves winsome. For me, it was the life observed of Christians in my HS oh, 40 years ago, that made the Gospel credible. It’s still the case.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Tony Woodlief http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-242050 Tony Woodlief Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:51:14 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-242050 Train, I initially was the one who assumed Bradley wasn't talking about all Christian parents, and used that assumption to make my point. Subsequently, in your post #25, you seemed to argue that in fact Bradley was referring to all Christian parents -- at least, that's how I interpret your statement here: "Obviously, Bradley believes “Set C” is miniscule or nonexistent." Set C, recall, is Christian parents who are doing a good job. I didn't originally say you believed Bradley was referring to all parents (in my post #22), which was what I was talking about in post #66. You are right, I did say in post #62 that you concluded Bradley meant all parents -- I forgot about that when I wrote post #66, forgive me. So do you believe that Bradley meant all, or almost all, Christian parents? I just don't read his essay that way. At the very least, can we agree that there's room to interpret his remarks broadly, i.e., that he could have meant 20% of the youth in the meeting he refers to, or 100%? I, of course, assume he leans more to the 20% side, and hence I see no illogic in his subsequent call for more Christians to adopt. That's the crux of our disagreement, I think. Steve, I agree that in general one should read an essay before assuming one knows the author's intent. I certainly wish I had done so in this case. Train,

I initially was the one who assumed Bradley wasn’t talking about all Christian parents, and used that assumption to make my point. Subsequently, in your post #25, you seemed to argue that in fact Bradley was referring to all Christian parents — at least, that’s how I interpret your statement here:

“Obviously, Bradley believes “Set C” is miniscule or nonexistent.”

Set C, recall, is Christian parents who are doing a good job.

I didn’t originally say you believed Bradley was referring to all parents (in my post #22), which was what I was talking about in post #66. You are right, I did say in post #62 that you concluded Bradley meant all parents — I forgot about that when I wrote post #66, forgive me.

So do you believe that Bradley meant all, or almost all, Christian parents? I just don’t read his essay that way. At the very least, can we agree that there’s room to interpret his remarks broadly, i.e., that he could have meant 20% of the youth in the meeting he refers to, or 100%? I, of course, assume he leans more to the 20% side, and hence I see no illogic in his subsequent call for more Christians to adopt. That’s the crux of our disagreement, I think.

Steve,
I agree that in general one should read an essay before assuming one knows the author’s intent. I certainly wish I had done so in this case.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SteveG http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241979 SteveG Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:25:50 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241979 Night Train: To be fair, Tony did say "ALL Christian parents" in #62 and "ALL parents" in #66. I don't know if that distinction matters. Tony: I wasn't trying to be a thorn in your side with my post earlier, but I do think as a general rule, one should read essays before assuming one knows the author's intent. I think you two should shake hands and move on, not that anybody asked my opinion. Night Train: To be fair, Tony did say “ALL Christian parents” in #62 and “ALL parents” in #66. I don’t know if that distinction matters.

Tony: I wasn’t trying to be a thorn in your side with my post earlier, but I do think as a general rule, one should read essays before assuming one knows the author’s intent.

I think you two should shake hands and move on, not that anybody asked my opinion.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Night Train http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241972 Night Train Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:15:42 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241972 I'll let the readers compare these two quotes: From #62 <i>I read Bradley’s essay subsequently, and I don’t believe any fair-minded reader could conclude, as Train did, that he was referring to ALL Christian parents.</i> From #66 <i>I never said you believed it was ALL parents, nor did I intend to be disingenuous. I used set theory, for crying out loud.</i> I’ll let the readers compare these two quotes:

From #62

I read Bradley’s essay subsequently, and I don’t believe any fair-minded reader could conclude, as Train did, that he was referring to ALL Christian parents.

From #66

I never said you believed it was ALL parents, nor did I intend to be disingenuous. I used set theory, for crying out loud.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Tony Woodlief http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241952 Tony Woodlief Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:39:46 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241952 To clarify, in comment #22 above, I said that while I hadn't read Bradley's essay, I assumed he didn't mean ALL parents. The point was to demonstrate that your logic was faulty, i.e., that it was consistent for Bradley to say that "some" (or even, as you argue, "many") Christian parents are messing up, and yet still admonish Christians to adopt, because in the latter admonition he is referring to parents who are getting it right. I never said you believed it was ALL parents, nor did I intend to be disingenuous. I used set theory, for crying out loud. You then said I was arrogant, was telling you that you didn't know what you were talking about, etc., etc. So hopefully we agree, right, that my original assumption was correct, that Bradley did not mean ALL Christian parents? If so, I think it's fair to assume that he wasn't being illogical when he said more Christians should adopt, i.e., to assume that when he says so, he means those Christian parents who are doing their jobs. Also, though I haven't spoken to Bradley about this, I think one could conclude from his essay that while he thinks this is a widespread problem, he doesn't necessarily think it applies to "most" (your word) Christian parents. Imagine that a third of the kids in that youth group raised their hands. Imagine further, as you suggest Bradley believes, that this proportion holds in all other churches. That would be, I think, a widespread problem. Yet it still wouldn't be most Christian families. We don't know what those numbers are, of course, nor do we know what numbers Bradley had in mind when he wrote the essay. To clarify, in comment #22 above, I said that while I hadn’t read Bradley’s essay, I assumed he didn’t mean ALL parents. The point was to demonstrate that your logic was faulty, i.e., that it was consistent for Bradley to say that “some” (or even, as you argue, “many”) Christian parents are messing up, and yet still admonish Christians to adopt, because in the latter admonition he is referring to parents who are getting it right. I never said you believed it was ALL parents, nor did I intend to be disingenuous. I used set theory, for crying out loud.

You then said I was arrogant, was telling you that you didn’t know what you were talking about, etc., etc.

So hopefully we agree, right, that my original assumption was correct, that Bradley did not mean ALL Christian parents? If so, I think it’s fair to assume that he wasn’t being illogical when he said more Christians should adopt, i.e., to assume that when he says so, he means those Christian parents who are doing their jobs.

Also, though I haven’t spoken to Bradley about this, I think one could conclude from his essay that while he thinks this is a widespread problem, he doesn’t necessarily think it applies to “most” (your word) Christian parents. Imagine that a third of the kids in that youth group raised their hands. Imagine further, as you suggest Bradley believes, that this proportion holds in all other churches. That would be, I think, a widespread problem. Yet it still wouldn’t be most Christian families.

We don’t know what those numbers are, of course, nor do we know what numbers Bradley had in mind when he wrote the essay.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Night Train http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241889 Night Train Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:29:54 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241889 Insulting me and badly misrepresenting my position, that is. I challenge anyone to read that article and find a single indication from Bradley that this evangelical church was in any way out of the ordinary. There isn't a single one. And yet he assumes that most of the kids in the youth groups have been damaged by their parents, so badly that they'll require counseling well into their 20s and 30s. Can Woodlief point out where Bradley described what was out of the ordinary about this church that led him to assume that the kids were damaged by their parents, whereas he wouldn't have made that assumption at other churches? No, he can't. Because it's not there. Because the tone and thrust of Bradley's article is how widespread the alleged problem is. And Woodlief knows it. So he simply creates a straw man, says I was claiming that ALL Christian parents are this way, when he knows very well I said no such thing. Insulting me and badly misrepresenting my position, that is. I challenge anyone to read that article and find a single indication from Bradley that this evangelical church was in any way out of the ordinary. There isn’t a single one. And yet he assumes that most of the kids in the youth groups have been damaged by their parents, so badly that they’ll require counseling well into their 20s and 30s. Can Woodlief point out where Bradley described what was out of the ordinary about this church that led him to assume that the kids were damaged by their parents, whereas he wouldn’t have made that assumption at other churches? No, he can’t. Because it’s not there. Because the tone and thrust of Bradley’s article is how widespread the alleged problem is. And Woodlief knows it. So he simply creates a straw man, says I was claiming that ALL Christian parents are this way, when he knows very well I said no such thing.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Night Train http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241887 Night Train Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:13:01 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241887 Once again Woodlief's being disingenuous. I never implied or said or even hinted that Bradley was referring to ALL Christian parents. But he obviously thinks this is a widespread problem, and judging by his handling of the matter at the youth group, he must assume that most Christian parents are this way. He didn't ASK them if any of their parents are screwing them up mentally/emotionally. He simply assumed that it was the case, and then asked them for particulars. And since he made it clear that this was no out of the ordinary congregation, any reasonable person can only conclude that he would assume that the situation is the same in most churches. Woodlief is simply being disingenuous here, because he doesn't want to admit the truth about what Bradley was saying. So he resorts to insulting me, instead. Once again Woodlief’s being disingenuous. I never implied or said or even hinted that Bradley was referring to ALL Christian parents. But he obviously thinks this is a widespread problem, and judging by his handling of the matter at the youth group, he must assume that most Christian parents are this way. He didn’t ASK them if any of their parents are screwing them up mentally/emotionally. He simply assumed that it was the case, and then asked them for particulars. And since he made it clear that this was no out of the ordinary congregation, any reasonable person can only conclude that he would assume that the situation is the same in most churches. Woodlief is simply being disingenuous here, because he doesn’t want to admit the truth about what Bradley was saying. So he resorts to insulting me, instead.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: musing http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241597 musing Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:24:40 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241597 T%on Woodlief post 62, did I understand you correctly? Areyou suggestign that we should actually look at the sources, interpret them logically, and then use logic in our postings? Thank you so much: please make sure the memo gets out!!! T%on Woodlief post 62,

did I understand you correctly?

Areyou suggestign that we should actually look at the sources, interpret them logically, and then use logic in our postings?

Thank you so much: please make sure the memo gets out!!!

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Tony Woodlief http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/comment-page-2/#comment-241596 Tony Woodlief Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:14:52 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/19/rules-of-engagement/#comment-241596 Hi SteveG, Train's #25 post was a series of insults disguised as a question. A civil person might have written: "Tony, you might assume that Bradley didn't mean ALL Christian parents are failing, but you really ought to read his essay, because I'm not exaggerating when I say that he meant ALL parents. Then let me know if you still hold to your A-B-C sets thing." Instead, he accused me of telling him he didn't know what he was talking about. Any level-headed reader of my #22 post would see that I said no such thing to him, and that I admitted up front that I was working from an assumption (and a reasonable one, at that). I read Bradley's essay subsequently, and I don't believe any fair-minded reader could conclude, as Train did, that he was referring to ALL Christian parents. Therefore, Train's string of logic, such as it is ("Bradley said all Christian parents are failing, so it is foolish for him to tell Christian parents to adopt") breaks down. So yes, I noticed his question, but I'm not going to converse with someone who insults people as a matter of course (notice his posts #35, 43, and 44), and who is more interested in picking a fight than having a discussion. Hi SteveG,

Train’s #25 post was a series of insults disguised as a question. A civil person might have written: “Tony, you might assume that Bradley didn’t mean ALL Christian parents are failing, but you really ought to read his essay, because I’m not exaggerating when I say that he meant ALL parents. Then let me know if you still hold to your A-B-C sets thing.” Instead, he accused me of telling him he didn’t know what he was talking about. Any level-headed reader of my #22 post would see that I said no such thing to him, and that I admitted up front that I was working from an assumption (and a reasonable one, at that).

I read Bradley’s essay subsequently, and I don’t believe any fair-minded reader could conclude, as Train did, that he was referring to ALL Christian parents. Therefore, Train’s string of logic, such as it is (”Bradley said all Christian parents are failing, so it is foolish for him to tell Christian parents to adopt”) breaks down.

So yes, I noticed his question, but I’m not going to converse with someone who insults people as a matter of course (notice his posts #35, 43, and 44), and who is more interested in picking a fight than having a discussion.

Report comment to moderator

]]>