God vs Satan

 

Bob Schlessman said:

And your replies have all bypassed my statements that we see in Scripture the use of strong language not only by our Lord but the Apostles at times where truth is concerned.

Are there occasions in Scripture when strong language is used to describe and respond to people and their teachings? Yes. No doubt.

Do those passages justify the language of this thread? No. (Bible study along with theological reflection and discernment, anyone?)

 

Bob Schlessman said:

Opinions are one thing but we weren't discussing opinions when the langauge in question was used..

From this thread....

“Full of distortion of Scripture and half-truths:”  First used by you to describe the content of the “God vs. Satan” documentary

"Rubbish:"  First used by Chris Roberts as his response to the kind of documentaries raised in your OP. Then used by you to describe what you called the “overall content” of the “God vs. Satan” documentary, including the parts of which you considered “correct.”

"Rigged:"  First used by Danny Baskin to offer his assessment of the process by which producers of said documentaries select the scholars who appear in their programs. Then used by you to describe what you called the “overall content” of the “God vs. Satan” documentary, including the parts of which you considered “correct.”

"Mockumentaries:"  First used by Thomas Black as an assessment of the genre of said documentaries.

“Hostile to the Scriptures:”  First used by Danny Baskin to describe the scholars chosen to appear in the documentaries

“A container of trash:”  First used by you to describe the “God vs. Satan” documentary

“(Apparently) intent upon spewing a singularly errant viewpoint” and “mock anything that remotely resembles accurate scriptural teaching:”  First used by Thomas Black to describe the intentions of the documentaries “from inception to direction to production.” (Thomas recently amended his claim to include the word “apparently”)


This is the language of this thread, Bob. This is the language “in question.”

This is not language that critiques solely alleged factual misstatements. This is language that editorializes on (my word: judges) work product and the intentions of the people responsible for that product. The claims this language communicates may be accurate or inaccurate – as I have tried to make clear in my posts, that’s not my concern – but they reflect obvious, blatant opinions, that together form far more than a collection of biblical or ecclesiastical errata. Surely you know that! (Which of the available emoticons stands for exasperation?!)

One more time: Why the obvious resistance to: “The program said this.... I believe that’s false because....”  or “I believe the presenter was incorrect when he/she said....because....” What in the world is so hard about those? Why do you folks cling so passionately to a combative vocabulary (and people on my side of the theological spectrum do the same thing)? Why can’t you disagree with people – including pointing out what you believe are their factual errors – without characterizing their work as “rubbish” or their intentions as “hostile”? 

It’s obvious that you don’t want to take my Golden Rule challenge, Bob. But I must remind you that it’s not really my challenge. It’s His.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill Coley said:

I'm confident you won't agree, but I contend the still more excellent way is to focus on the facts, on the specifics of your disagreement

At least now I understand Bill what is at issue.  I had heretofore assumed your point of disagreement was with the content of the programs (i.e. backing them up.)  I was interpreting all of your consternation through that lens. See how slow I am to comprehend some days.

Bill Coley said:

Intentions can be asserted or assailed, but not proven.

And assert is precisely what I have done with a one line summary of my exposure to dozens of like programs.  We will not agree on my use of the terminology - which by the way judges the fruit as rotten and only then makes inference to the trees.  I am not convinced that my terms are wholecloth final judgements on the hearts of men, they are - I would contend right discernment based upon the criteria the Lord has given us.

Somewhere above it was said treat them like tax collectors and sinners - yes, and that treatment would be two fold and yet singular: Separation with the intent to win.  I will certainly meditate on that truth today.

Alas here is where I might enjoy beginning a point by point analysis of said programs but we have already drifted so far from the intent and purpose of the forums - not to mention recklessly breaching the Forum Guidelines which I am supposed to uphold that I feel it best we let it rest here. 

Hopefully I have not offended you Bill (nor anyone else I trust).  This medium is often insufficient for communication.

It is now Sunday Morning and I must get busy.

Thomas Black said:

Hopefully I have not offended you Bill (nor anyone else I trust).  This medium is often insufficient for communication.

It is now Sunday Morning and I must get busy.

 

No offense taken at all, Thomas. Thank you for your concern.

I agree with your take on the insufficiency of this, or likely, any, communication forum.

To whatever ends, in this thread I have said my piece and tried to make my point. Thanks to the tone and content of your response, Thomas, I am content with our discussion; time to move on. Your words blessed my day. Thank you.

Blessings,

Bill

 

p.s.  I pray that your Sunday morning busy-ness became Sunday morning fruitfulness.