God words
I remember William F. Buckley many years ago telling a guest on “Firing Line” that you can get away with mentioning the word “God” once, and maybe twice, at a party. But three times and you’ll never get invited back.
The man who no sooner graduated from Yale in 1950 than he excoriated his alma mater’s defection from Christ in God and Man at Yale might be amused by the following excerpt from the “Testimony of Harvard College against George Whitefield” (1744), signed by that institution’s President, Professors, Tutors, and Hebrew Instructor:
In regard to the danger which we apprehend the people and churches of this land are in, on the account of Rev. Mr. George Whitefield we have tho’t ourselves oblig’d to bear our testimony, in this public manner, against him and his way of preaching, as tending very much to the detriment of religion and the entire destruction of the order of these churches of Christ, which our fathers have taken such care and pains to settle, as by the platform, according to which the discipline of the churches of New England is regulated: and we do therefore hereby declare, that we look upon his going about, in an itinerant way, especially as he hath much of an enthusiastic turn, utterly inconsistent with the peace and order…of these churches of Christ….
You can always tell when the
1) It still uses lots of God words.
2) Its zeal is not for Christ but for “church order.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top65 Comments to “God words”
Andreu Seu,
I love your comment here:
“Its zeal is not for Christ but for “church order.””
It brings back some thoughts of lovely discussions of Christian orthodoxy in this blog!
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday I was so saddened by the death of WFB that it very well poisoned the remainder of the day. I got home to receive a joint announcemt from my wife and 7 yr old daughter, Tess.
Tess had mastered riding a bike without training wheels!
Thank you Lord for the life WFB lived so fully and thank you for a bike bereft of and no longer in need of training wheels. As the training wheels were no doubt happily cast aside, so too I’m sure did Bill happily cast aside the final constraints of our fallen mortality.
WFB R.I.P.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe that Christian orthodoxy and “church order” are one and the same thing, Musing. Why do you think they are?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe that Christian orthodoxy and “church order” are one and the same thing, Musing.
In the past few days there have been discussions on this blog about whether Bono, Buckley and Obama are “real” Christians or not. Bono and Obama because their politics are liberal, Buckley because used a profanity in a book title and published articles in Playboy magazine.
Many Christians seem to be very concerned with making sure they can point to people who are not as Christian as they are. At various times in my life, I’ve been told I can’t be a Christian if I don’t believe every word in the Bible literally; or don’t support conservative politics; or if I drink beer; or any of a couple of dozen other conditions.
This obsession with conformity is antithetical to Christ (I so declare). The story of Jesus is of a man who always met people where they were. He didn’t shy from challenging them … when people thought they were behaving well, he showed them how far short they were falling. When people came to him admitting they were falling short, he met them with grace and love.
People get caught up in analyzing whether other people (and occasionally themselves, but usually others) are believing the “correct” things and supporting the “right” politicians and hating the “right” sins. I don’t see much reason to think Jesus would care much about any of that. All he ever asked of people was that they not think themselves better than they are.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you and amen, SteveG. Beautifully put.
Report comment to moderator
get away with mentioning the word “God” once, and maybe twice, at a party.
Depends on the party.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
I think you are becoming “Randomized” – a syndrome named after a sabbaticalled previous wmb poster. In the few months prior to his leaving, he continually claimed that we Christians said things about him and his family that we never said, just to set up a straw man that he could then argue with.
The only poster who questioned Buckley’s Christianity because of the book title and Playboy association was your compatriot, Night Train. No one (go read for yourself) picked up on it even though he tried several time to bait us. And other than Victoria-the-Bold, who, I think we all agree is a little off the deep end, none of the Christians here “point to people who are not as Christian as they are.” On the contrary, I think most of us are quite humble about our own failures and weaknesses.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 3,
well being a bit flexible with logic, relaxing rigorous orthodoxy demonstrably results in less ordered and consistent theology.
Imposing strong orthodoxy has arguably been one of the tools that strongly centralized denominations used to ensure chruch order (c.f. the Inquisiton, Calvin’s activities etc.).
And as I look at the kinds of challenges I receive when I suggest non-orthodox interpretatons a tyical call is but the orthodox church has always ….
So yup, based on these observations, there do appear to be strong correlations both historically and in the present with using orthodoxy to justify and enforce chruch order.
And of course if we take the strong version of listening to the words of Christ as the touch stone for Christian religious truth, then strict orthodoxy would not seem to be necessary.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 7,
well I have specifically been called heretic, apostate, and regularly condemed to going to hell (see post by drill in the Pew Survey discussion or example).
These are easily demonstated from the record and I suggest support the observation which SteveG is making.
As victoria has nicely noted, only God can tell who is and who is not a Christian.
Knowing this, these calls by certain of the traditional christians certainly do sound as if it is a call to use orthodoxy as a club to maintain church order.
You might also look at some of Peter Leavett’s more intemperate comments as well.
Report comment to moderator
One of the tools the Lord used in my own life to bring him to himself was this very idea of
“zeal not for Christ but church order”.
You see I spent many years in the church but cared nothing for the Lord Jesus Christ and his work …only pretended to care by worrying about “church order”.
Then one day a fine pastor told me the truth about my life … ” you are that man”.
David J. O’Leary- Im still thankful that the Lord used you to bring the truth about my sin to me.
SO now I go to NO church meetings…after all its the Lords church and he will run it without me…so much that
“the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
Praise the Lord!
Report comment to moderator
Musing
If you are saying that Christian posters who are suggesting that others who don’t believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God are “point[ing] to people who are not as Christian as they are,” then you are correct.
However, I took Steveg’s point to be that we Christians were “fighting amongst ourselves” over who was more Christian than the next. I don’t believe we engage in that kind of rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Bill Buckley was a staunch Catholic who believed both in church order and reasonable evangelism. He rightly understood that effective churches need to be well ordered.
Lest we elevate Bill Buckley to sainthood, he was not above remarking to Gore Vidal, who called him a “crypto Nazi”: ” Listen you queer I’ll smack you in the goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.” He did say later that he regretted the remark. Buckley was, also, a bon vivant who enjoyed fine wine, cigars, food, and sailing. i.e. He enjoyed life with manliness and gusto.
Bill Buckley’s real greatness is that he welded together a movement of political, economic, cultural, and religious conservatives that has become a formidable force in American life.
Conservatives, however ought not to be complacent.The WSJ today quotes Buckley: “I think conservatism has become a little bit slothful.” At the Yale Political Union in 2005 he called for “a sacred release from the old rigidities” and a “repristinated” vision.” as the editorial concluded “it was a bracing challenge that conservatives must adapt eternal principles to new realities.”
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 11,
but of course since I am a Christian, saying that I am not a Christian because I (and the demographic denominatonal majority of Christians) do not believe in the Bible being the inerrant word of God is, to use your words, ““fighting amongst ourselves” over who was more Christian than the next.”
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 11,
you might also examine victoria’s various comments to vynette and Mr. Meaner.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 11,
and perhaps the discussion between Dr Dave, myself, and Theo goodwyn regarding Matthew 19:19-30 may be of interest here (ok Theo referred to the Luke version of these verses).
Report comment to moderator
The only poster who questioned Buckley’s Christianity because of the book title and Playboy association was your compatriot, Night Train.
Uh, he’s not with me. SteveG and I may both be former evangelicals, but that’s about all we have in common. Some people, when they leave the Christian faith, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. SteveG threw the baby out, and kept the bathwater.
Report comment to moderator
night train post 16,
so did you question Buckley’s Chirstianity:
“The only poster who questioned Buckley’s Christianity because of the book title and Playboy association”?
Report comment to moderator
Mommy, I agree with Night Train when he says we don’t agree.
I can’t figure out what he’s saying most of the rest of the time.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
re #11, I think we need a term to identify inerrant-Bible-believing Christians (perhaps we could use “inerrant-Bible-believing Christians”). Once we have that, they are who I refer to as Christians. My bad.
re #14, agreed on Victoria, which is why I specifically excluded her in my comment.
Night Train and Steveg,
I had no idea I’d invoke your ire by calling you compatriots. OK, so you disagree on a lot of things, but one thing you demonstrably do agree on is bashing us inerrant-Bible-believing-Christians here on this site. Can we agree on that?
Report comment to moderator
I do tend to use the term:
those Christians who believe in the strong version of Biblical inerrancy, but you hyphenated form is fine.
Note that this is a subset of Christians: based on the Pew survey it would appear to be between 1/10 and perhaps 1/3 or all Christians.
So as I noted, the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not believe in strict Biblical inerrancy.
I do note that it is more than just victoria who strongly challenged vynette and Mr. Meaner, and both are believers in a Biblical inerrancy. So I am not sure that even with your qualification your assessment does not seem to be supported when one reviews the postings.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 19,
but to refute SteveG’s point, no inerrant-Bible-believing-Christain should be challenging any non-inerrant-Bible-believing-Christian’s Christianity (and of course vice versa, although I have no examples of the reverse).
And of course we see this all the time.
And hence SteveG’s comment would seem supported.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a moving tribute to Bil Buckley from Brit Hume’s panel remembers, Charles Krauthammer, Maura Eliasson, and Fred Barnes. You’ll need to scroll down a bit to catch it.
Report comment to moderator
Buckley had a number of famous public debates with Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and Norman Mailer in the 60s. Some of these (unfortunately, none involving Mailer) can now be found on Youtube.
When Mailer passed away last fall, Buckley’s wrote the following column in National Review. His description of the debates is classic Buckley, as are his remembrances of Mailer. Read the whole Buckley column, short excerpt below.
http://www.trussel.com/lyman/buckley2.htm
Somehow seems fitting that they both went down within months of each other.
I’m feeling pretty gypped right now that we are left with Hannity and Colmes.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, Re #21
While as humans, we could and should refrain from judging one another, my observation has been that inerrant-Bible-believing-Christians on this blog don’t usually attack individuals but rather, use scripture to point out the fallacy in their theology. However, since non-i-B-b-C don’t, by definition, believe all of the Bible, whenever i-B-b-Cs use it to make a point, it looks like we’re challenging their Christianity. And, just to get circular on you, since the Bible, itself, says it is inerrant and to be believed in total, perhaps it is a valid challenge.
And, I might point out, since World Mag falls into the i-B-b-C category, for the purposes of this blog, I think we can claim the term “Christian.”
Report comment to moderator
As long as the God we claim demands no change in behavior, and insists on no exclusive means of arrival, it is polite to talk about God.
Report comment to moderator
I have to laugh, you do flatter yourself. I have often been amused at those who gossip about others, but think themselves humble, and quite willing to expound on humbleness being one of their virtues.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 26,
please be rigorous: this is not my post you are quoting from.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy at #19: Night Train and Steveg,
I had no idea I’d invoke your ire by calling you compatriots. OK, so you disagree on a lot of things, but one thing you demonstrably do agree on is bashing us inerrant-Bible-believing-Christians here on this site. Can we agree on that?
I don’t think I “bash.” I disagree politely and with reason. But I suppose.
Mommy at #24: And, just to get circular on you, since the Bible, itself, says it is inerrant and to be believed in total, perhaps it is a valid challenge.
No it doesn’t. (Where? Remember, the Bible is a collection of 66 books selected by a committee about 400 years after the establishment of Christainity. It didn’t just drop whole from the sky.)
Secondly, even if it did, so what? Anyone can write something and include a line to the effect of “All this is inspired by God, true and you must believe it.” It means nothing.
Report comment to moderator
“You can always tell when the church of Christ is going bad, by these two marks:
1) It still uses lots of God words.
2) Its zeal is not for Christ but for “church order.””
Its Christ IS church order…that is the church gone bad
Report comment to moderator
Mommy at #7: The only poster who questioned Buckley’s Christianity because of the book title and Playboy association was your compatriot, Night Train. No one (go read for yourself) picked up on it even though he tried several time to bait us.
You are right about that. It was also Night Train who questioned Bono’s Christianity, asked to see quoted statements other than song lyrics where Bono expressed Christian faith and, when I provided four such, disappeared from that particular thread without further comment.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 27
My post # 26 is not posted to you.
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 24,
so your point:
“However, since non-i-B-b-C don’t, by definition, believe all of the Bible, whenever i-B-b-Cs use it to make a point, it looks like we’re challenging their Christianity.”
here is critical. The challenge has been, enough times to be interesting, that i-B-b-Cs actually challenge the Chrsitianity of non-i-B-b-Cs with terms such as heretic, apostate, and insisting that they are going to hell, as I noted earlier.
Even you admit that victoria varies from your suggested model and I suggest that others (drill comes tomind) do as well.
The key to this point is that belief systems rest on assumptions. If a person does not agree with one’s assumption set, then, short of demonstrating an internal inconsistency in the assumption set, one must accept the validity of the other’s beliefs.
So I have no problem with an i-B-b-C, so long as they accept the implications of their belief. And I certsainly do not challenge their Christianity.
I suggest fair play, and what appear to be the posting standards of this blog, suggest that i-B-b-Cs also be willing to accept the Christinaity of non-i-B-b-Cs, although it is fair to call them on the implications of their beliefs.
There is an interesting assymetry: a look at the beliefs of i-B-b-Cs suggests that in the main they are a super set of non-i-B-b-Cs. The implication is that the non-B-b-Cs and i-B-b-Cs share a common sub-set of assumptions, and hence challenging these assumptions challenges them for both groups.
The additional assumptions, however, of the i-B-b-Cs are not shared.
So one can move arguments forward based on the shared assumptions. Appealing to the non-shared assumptions, however is in general not effective.
This shows up most often with an i-B-b-C making a sriptural argument for a theological point which is outright not accepted by the non-i-B-b-C, much to the frustration of the i-B-b-C. I can hypothesize that this frustration is at root of much of the rancor whch occaissionally flairs.
(Hmmm, this acroym form is a bit unwieldy!
).
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 31,
gee, post 26 did not have any heading on it at all.
Which was my point in post 27. Methinks you are a bit touchy here.
And of course, as has been noted before, this is an open blog and all posts are therefore explicitly to all posters!
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 26,
but more to the point, the issue on the table is whether it is appropriate or not to impugn the Christianity of other posters on the blog.
I sense you do have strong feelings here, and if so, it might be appropriate to express them for other posters to review.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I wasn’t gossiping; I was flat-out and publicly accusing you of being rude to other posters, including fellow Christians (inerrant-Bible-believing-Christians). Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Thank you for the non-belligerent and intelligent discussion. I, too, had a vision of the i-B-b-Cs being a super set of non-i-B-b-Cs when I was posting earlier. However, I’m thinking that it would only be valid to the non-i-B-b-Cs, who wouldn’t mind being a subset of the i-B-b-Cs, but not to the i-B-b-Cs, who would consider the two sets to be mutually exclusive. It reminds me of indexed.blogspot.com. Have you ever looked at that site? It’s quite interesting and amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 33
Musing, you were confused when you claimed “this not my post you are quoting” ….. so I agreed with you, and pointed out that it was not posted to you. Try reading more carefully, and this won’t happen.
Report comment to moderator
- 35 –
You can accuse me of whatever you like, in your self satisfied humble opionion.
It is gossip, and its happened before. It always reminds me of the ‘ladies sewing circle’ that some of the churches had when I was a kid.
LOL, carry on…….
Report comment to moderator
Would it be possible to shift the discussion on this thread back to to its topic, which happens to be about William Buckley?
Report comment to moderator
mommy post 36,
actually I think this whole area is a subject which needs to be thoughtfully discussed in more detail.
so I suggest the issue is tha assumption set, not the idnividuals themselves.
So for example i-B-b-Cs and non-i-B-b-Cs generaly accept that there was a Jesus. this generally follows fom the C. Both the i-B-b-Cs and the non-i-B-b-Cs accept that there is a Bible.
Most non-i-B-b-Cs and pretty much all i-B-b-Cs accept thatthe Bible was inspired by God.
So we can perhaps discuss what “God” is trying to speak to us through various passages in the Bible, and we can have a generally consistent discussion around what God is trying to say spiritually. An example might be Genesis 1 and 2.
When an i-B-b-C then suggests, to a non-i-B-b-C that for example Genesis 1 and 2 must be accepted literally as written, you will often get a disagreement.
So we see super-setting of assumptions BUT the additional assumptions lead to very divergent conclusions.
I will look at indexed.blogspon.com, thanks for the tip!
And indeed thanks for a lovely conversation!
Have a good day!
P.S. and indeed the nature of this discussion does, it seems to me, appear in various forms when we look at complex indexing!
Report comment to moderator
But, Musing, where do you draw the line? You call yourself a Christian, but — from what I have seen — you don’t adhere to ANY Christian tenets or creeds. You love to play the Devil’s advocate. You love to rip the Bible. And, you are a terribly proud, supercilious person.
So, when someone acts the way you do, and believes the way you believe, one has to wonder how true their supposed adherence to Christianity is.
I completely agree that the truth of it is firmly in God’s hands. But, you also know the tree by its fruit, and your fruit would normally be (at best) classified as Agnostic.
I guess, for me, the bottom line is, do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and the Lord of your life? If you do, then I can accept that you’re simply in error on much of the rest and can call you a Christian. If you do not, then it doesn’t make a person a butterfly just because the person wants to call himself so.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavett post 39,
actually if you look carefully it follows directly from Andree Seu’s comment in the introduction:
“Its zeal is not for Christ but for “church order.””
as I noted in post 1.
As an aside, it looks like less than half the text of the introduction is about William Buckley. The rest appears to be about whatm ight be termed religious intolerance and its implications. Methinks we may in fact be on topic.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 41,
which reflects back to the introduction:
should I be adhereing to tenent or creeds which in most cases arose after Jesus’ death (e.g. church order) or should I adhere to Christ?
I have answered this one many times. When you ask:
“I guess, for me, the bottom line is, do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and the Lord of your life?”
I have always answered yes.
When you make the next statement:
” If you do, then I can accept that you’re simply in error on much of the rest ”
I suggest you are falling into the trap which mommy first identifed in post 7.
If we are to take you position, then I merely respond, oh no, it is you who are in error.
Of course the truth is that you have added many assumptions beyond your comments on Jesus and I do not accept many of these additional assumptions.
Based on your own formulaton then, neither of us can be shown to be wrong or right, unless we are internally inconsistent with our own assumptions.
And when you assert that I am wrong, that is when you make there error which mommy was suggesting is not made by Christians in this blog.
Observationally she is incorrect: you just made the error.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 38,
actually I am not sure that this is gossip.
I suggest rather that we are viewing a fundamental disagreement both in terms of assumptions AND in terms of how to act on these assumptions.
It might be more useful, then to engage in the discussion rather than merely claiming another is a gossiper. Understanding will probably serve us better here than name calling.
Report comment to moderator
Monica Charen has a delightful tidbit today in her Washington Post encomium to Bill Buckley:
Like many a star-struck youngster, I maneuvered to meet him when I was in college. To my amazement, he agreed to be interviewed for my yearbook. Determined to ask questions that wouldn’t betray my outsized admiration for him, I posed the vaguely feminist query, “In what ways would your life have been different if you had been born female?” His reply: “I’d have seduced John Kenneth Galbraith and spared the world much pain.”
As an aside Bill Buckley and Galbraith, the tres liberal economist, were the best of friends who got together every winter while at their places in Gstaad Switzerland.
Report comment to moderator
you can get away with mentioning the word “God” once, and maybe twice, at a party. But three times and you’ll never get invited back.
Unless you say, “God, that Barrack Hussein Obama sure has some big ears.” That’s an appropriate conversation starter, and cause for the host to break out the good scotch.
Report comment to moderator
Travis Birkenstock post 48,
or for radio commentators and state republican parties to be chastised by the RNC and/or McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Musing and Mommy.
For the irresponsibility you have both displayed toward Victoria, you should both be ashamed of yourselves. Fake humility, false accusations, distortion of one’s comments… Like she said, carry on.
Report comment to moderator
fyne jr post 48,
but I suggest that these are not fake accusations but are well documented behaviors in this blog. I have posted examples of such behavior by victoria with respect to vynette and Mr. Meaner in particular, and victoria has not challenged them.
I have, however, suggested that it not unreasonable to discuss the rationale behind various approaches to those on this blog who have beliefs with which we disagree.
If it is appropriate to challenge the Christianity of others who post on the blog, then lets explore why this is appropriate, how it should be pursued, and the appropriate forms of expression.
My sense is that few on this blog are truly willing to suggest that such posting etiquete is appropriate, but lets explore the issue and lay the various rationales out on the table.
I must assume, however, that if victoria or others are unwilling to discuss this issue rationally, then their silence speaks for itself.
You should note that I specifically suggested victoria should come over here so victoria could participate in this discussion.
And I do note that this discussion would seem to follow directly from Andree Seu’s observation:
“Its zeal is not for Christ but for “church order.””
Report comment to moderator
#28~
Secondly, even if it did, so what? Anyone can write something and include a line to the effect of “All this is inspired by God, true and you must believe it.” It means nothing.
If it means nothing, then the rest can be categorized just as easily as meaningless and man becomes his own god.
Then exactly where do you get any truth about who God is and what He is about?
Report comment to moderator
#25
As long as the God we claim demands no change in behavior, and insists on no exclusive means of arrival, it is polite to talk about God.
as in The Great Mush God?
Poem that I love by Steve Turner has a line:
We believe that all religions are basically the same
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of Creation, Sin, Heaven, Hell, God, and Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that these are fake accusations, and your behaviour in post 33. You start by imposing a fake standard (”gee Victoria, this posting did not have any heading on it at all…” Even though victoria did specify the quote she was responding to, thereby making it clear to anybody who is currently sober and can actually read, that she wasn’t talking to you). Then the rest of your arguement follows the dishonesty with which you then lay out the rest of your arguement. It’s one of the main symptoms of the victim’s complex. Everybody is against you (even those who aren’t even referring to you).
Report comment to moderator
The first line should read: I suggest that these are fake accusations, and your behaviour in post 33 proves it.
Report comment to moderator
As per your question, the reason why it is appropriate to challenge one’s Christianity is simply because you cannnot claim another opinion of 1+1=2, and stilll claim to be doing math. Christianity is an absolute truth (or an absolute falsehood). Truth (or falsehood) has foundation. This foundation is not optional. It is basic. You cannot reject the basic foundation of Christianity (which is as mentioned earlier, is not optional) and still claim to be a Christian. Now this may hurt your feeling, but it’s time for you to grow up. It is specifically because of the obsession with church order (instead of Christ) that we now have a crop of people who are obsessed with being “accepted” as something they are not, or into something they make no honest attempt to live up to.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.
I appreciate your kind words of support.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
After an exhaustive search on my calendar, I have found no available time to answer your many ’so called questions’ or to launch into yet another so called “DEBATE” which you have arranged, and made explicit rules for, under your guidance. However, in the spirit of civil discourse I would like to offer you a “STAND BY APPOINTMENT” which will be “RED FLAGGED” for the occasion, IF and WHEN it should arise.
Don’t hold your breath, don’t stay up late, it could be hours, weeks, months.
Report comment to moderator
fyne jr post 52,
well you might look at the anti-intellecutal thread:
anti-intellectualism thread
I suggest that posts 94 – 100 are most interesting here.
This refers to the following discussions:
one of vynette’s arguments
Jesus Geneology Discussion
post 282 is perhaps interesting here
<A HREF=”http://online.worldmag.com/2007/12/01/lord-lunatic-liar-or-product-of-propaganda/” discussion on revelations
There are more cases but these should suffice. I suggest that one may review the material for themselves and draw thier own conclusion.
But lets be clear, I am not concerned with victoria personally.
Rather I am concerned with a general set of behaviors which we see at intervals in these discussions, and I suggest that we should discuss our positions on such models of postings.
Report comment to moderator
fyne jr post 53,
I do see that there is an interesting proposed syllogism here.
So first:
is 1 + 1 = 2?
I suggest that 1 + 1 = 10.
Second if we accept a base larger than base 2, the equation 1 + 1 = 2 is defintional.
We have asked this many times in thius blog, but since you raise it again, what is the definition of a Christian?
When we do this in this blog we continue to revert to:
A Christian is one who follows Christ
And I note that victoria agrees that only God knows who is and who is not a Christian.
So if you accept this statement, it would seem, based simply on one’s identity, difficult for humans to know who is and who is not a Christian and it would seem inappropriate for humans to suggest that one is or is not Christian so long as an individual self-identifies as a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
fyne jr post 54,
now of course there are many kinds Christians, as is noted in the Pew survey material discussed elsewhere on this blog.
This suggests that mommy’s approach of hyphenated Christians is perhaps necessary here.
The one discussed with mommy are those Christians who believe in strict Biblical inerrancy, and those who dont. Parenthetically as I have noted many times, the demographic denominational majority of Christians do nt believe in Biblical inerrancy. We can extend this to other aspects of Christinaity as well.
In short, it is perhpas appropriate, if the definitions are established firmly, to argue that someone may be a specfici hyphenated form of Christian based on objective evidence.
If one is a followerr of Christ, however, no one has demonstrated a valid objective model for determining who is and who is not a Christian and, as victoria has noted, only God knows who is and who is not a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Corrected reference in post 57:
discussion on revelations
Report comment to moderator
You are right about that. It was also Night Train who questioned Bono’s Christianity, asked to see quoted statements other than song lyrics where Bono expressed Christian faith and, when I provided four such, disappeared from that particular thread without further comment.
Not true, SteveG. I was busy for a couple days, but I replied to you yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
So about now in the discussion someone typically posts thw World Mag Blog posting policy:
“WORLD | On the Web, a sister publication to WORLD magazine, receives funding from donors who grasp the importance of using new media to reach new readers and develop new, young writers. We report from a biblical worldview and provide an open forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of religion and culture.
Our comment policy
The free speech goals of World on the Web parallel the view enunciated by Puritan poet John Milton three and a half centuries ago: “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”
Based on that faith, we hope for a forum within which truth will emerge — but WOW does not endorse the truth or accuracy of any comment posted on this site. The posting of any comment or other statement is not an endorsement or acceptance of the statement by WOW nor by any individual, agent or employee on behalf of WOW. We yearn for a forum in which participants will be tough-minded in their analysis but respectful toward each other.
Debate is a contact sport, so we don’t discourage intellectual blocking and tackling within free and open encounters. But obscene, profane, or racist rhetoric – to cite only some obvious examples – shuts down debate. WOW reserves the right to delete or edit any posting as its editors determine. That WOW reserves this right does not mean that it will exercise such editorial control over the content of this site: Our desire is to let truth and falsehood grapple. Failure of WOW to delete or edit any material does not mean that we are accepting the content of any posting; our staff is small.
Our lawyer puts it this way: “Any individual making a posting to this site agrees (by submitting the posting) to indemnify and hold WOW harmless from any and all liability or injury that WOW may incur by reason of any posting.” What that means is that no one need worry about defending or attacking an idea, but if (for example) you post a personal attack on another blogger and he sues for libel, you’re the one who would be responsible for the legal fees, not us. So, as your mother might say, be polite.”
Where as Peter Leavett has often pointed out:
“Debate is a contact sport, so we don’t discourage intellectual blocking and tackling within free and open encounters.”
And I do suggest that even though this blog is supported by conservative Christians, neither conservative NOR Christian ideas are entitled to get a pass on this point, as is amply demonstrated in the discussions.
Report comment to moderator
Which segues nicely to thoughts on Buckley and argumentation.
Buckley was among the best minds I am aware of in the twentieth and early twenty first century. He was insightful, cogent, and his arguments were always (well almost always: his closure on the PBS Intelligent Design show might be argued to have been a bit thin) well supported and thought out.
Further, one could always depend on him to clearly and trenchantly demonstrate the fallacies in the arguments of his opponents.
This was excellent for conservatism: he helped provide a strong well grounded intellectual foundation for conservative ideas.
Interestingly, this was also good for liberalism: his well grounded and effective arugments forced Liberalism to refine its ideas and provide a sounder foundation for these ideas.
Which, perhaps, is the key point: a rigorous debate with both sides energetically supporting their arguments in a sound intellectual, not emotional, manner is good for both sides of the argument.
It is also good for those who are watching: the argument becomes very clearly defined in such a rigorous and honest debate.
Report comment to moderator
tough round getting links right in post 57.
the anti-intellectualism thread is at:
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/15/anti-intellectualism-is-the-leftsrights-fault/
Report comment to moderator
Night Train at #61: Not true, SteveG. I was busy for a couple days, but I replied to you yesterday.
So you did. That thread had dropped out of the Top 25 list and I’d stopped checking it. Thanks.
I’ve now replied to your reply.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!