Wasn't trying to make him mad; just trying to answer point for point.
Mind virus, huh! I'll have to use that.
I will be sure to let everyone here know, when #3 is on the way!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Making Progress on the church acceptance front
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
Mind virus, huh! I'll have to use that.
I will be sure to let everyone here know, when #3 is on the way!
Ya not saying you were trying to. Something about the issue or your steadfast defense just got under his skin.
Yeah! We went back and forth a bit more. My wife has seen the entire email exchange, which I will not share, because it gets too personal. He finally gave up, saying that we weren't going to change each other's minds (how many times have we heard that before). He seems to think that one day I might need to reach out to him. My only purpose was to determine if there was any way anybody could show me that I am\ wrong, using Scripture, and it appears the only way that someone can posit that claim, is if you make stuff up about why you think God has said whatever He has said. That was a great sparring session!
You have planted a seed and that's all you can do.
Keep in mind, that even if you were to have convinced him, it doesn't mean he would become your proponent. I've managed to get a handful of people to mostly agree with me, but they aren't proponents per se because it's just not a reality that is pursued in our culture. They will agree it's biblical, and not a sin, but will then say, "it's not for me" or "that just doesn't work in our time". Two have said "don't do it, it'll ruin your life".
Keep in mind, that even if you were to have convinced him, it doesn't mean he would become your proponent. I've managed to get a handful of people to mostly agree with me, but they aren't proponents per se because it's just not a reality that is pursued in our culture. They will agree it's biblical, and not a sin, but will then say, "it's not for me" or "that just doesn't work in our time". Two have said "don't do it, it'll ruin your life".
Yeah, I responded by telling him that if he still wants to get together for lunch, we can talk about something other than polygamy. Hopefully, I can have an opportunity to talk with him about how Feminism has invaded the church.
I like to listen to Sports radio a lot, and this broadcaster on SB Radio, Dave Smith, is completely in the tank with the emasculation of husbands, to hear him the past couple of Sundays, galls me! I know this has nothing to do with church, but while I am on the topic of feminism, I thought I would throw that out there.
I like to listen to Sports radio a lot, and this broadcaster on SB Radio, Dave Smith, is completely in the tank with the emasculation of husbands, to hear him the past couple of Sundays, galls me! I know this has nothing to do with church, but while I am on the topic of feminism, I thought I would throw that out there.
One other thought on that: I mentioned polygamy in a discussion with someone a few weeks ago, and he was mostly against it, but shortly after I answered all of the objections that he raised, I went with the point that while he may not wish to practice polygamy, we still need support from people who don't wish to engage in it, and he had brought up the legality aspect, but I pointed out that we also need support in the form of friendships, when a lot of outsiders turn their backs on us, and I left it at that.
I've been in similar situations on other issues. Unfortunately the one pastor system doesn't leave room for intellectual development among the flock and anyone so gifted is chased out. If you want solid challenges on something your best bet is a local pastor/teacher or finding a theologian online.
There is some truth to this. Too many Christians do scream about how things are bad, but cannot actually back it up from scripture. Often the thing is actually bad and that position can be easily supported from scripture, e.g. male homosexuality. Other times the point is very questionable, e.g. calling alcohol or tobacco sin. Or polygamy. But too many people equate all such issues, and yell about them with equal fervor, but are unable to back up their logic from scripture.
I wouldn't argue against the point he is making here. It is a real issue. I'd agree, and then turn the same point around to examine him with the rule he's just proposed.
He's the one with "redneck theology" if he's telling you polygamy is evil yet can't back it from scripture.
Yeah! But the point he is trying to make here, has nothing to do with backing it up from Scripture. He is trying to argue that something is wrong, because God has a reason for it, that He neglected to tell us what that reason is, and just left it up to us to speculate, and then from that reason, we can extrapolate that polygamy is wrong. He seems to think that he knows what that reason is, without pointing to ANYTHING in Scripture to back up his assumption. That is why he got upset with me, because I told him that I don't make those assumptions, and in doing so, implicitly pointed out that this was what he was doing.
People frequently see in others the faults that they have themselves. He accuses you of that because that is his own problem, that he is familiar with, and therefore he projects it onto others whenever there is the slightest hint of it that turns his thinking in that direction.
I have seen this so frequently that I actually think it is a defensive tactic of sorts - subconscious probably rather than intentional. Because if you accuse somebody of something, and they come back and say "actually, it's you that's like that", it sounds like they're just making up an unfair counter-accusation, so you cut off their argument at the foot. That might be hard to follow, so I'll give an illustration.
Bill has an obvious, central character flaw causing a problem - let's say he has a tendency to personalise arguments and make personal attacks instead of discussing the actual matter at hand. Bill has often done this and Bob knows it.
Bill is arguing with Bob about something. Bill criticised Bob, then Bob criticised Bill.
Bill, being familiar with personal attacks and sensitive to them, immediately interprets Bob's statement as a serious personal insult, and accuses Bob of 'always' making personal attacks against others.
Bill has pointed out the speck in Bob's eye (Bob is not flawless), ignoring the log in his own. But in this case, it is a strategic move that places Bob in a difficult position. How can Bob respond?
- If he responds in a factually correct way, he could point out the log in Bill's eye and argue that it's worse than his own problem ("Actually Bill, you're the one always making personal accusations"). But then it sounds like he's the one ignoring his own character flaws. It also sounds like he just invented this accusation because Bill said it about him. And it's a further escalation of the argument.
- But if he ignores this central issue and makes a peripheral point (e.g. defensively tries to explain away his own statement as not a personal attack, or criticises Bill for a different matter), he is ignoring the fundamental problem, being intellectually dishonest, and knows the discussion will achieve nothing positive. So again it's a further escalation of the argument.
Bill's accusation is therefore a pre-emptive defence - it has put Bob in an awkward position where he cannot make points he believes is truthful without coming across badly and making Bill himself look like the victim.
I don't think anybody really goes through all this logic and does this intentionally. But I do commonly see people accusing others of the faults they themselves obviously exhibit. Likely we learn on some subconscious level that this argument method causes us to win arguments more frequently, so we automatically adopt it without really knowing or caring why it is successful, it just becomes instinctual.
I have seen this so frequently that I actually think it is a defensive tactic of sorts - subconscious probably rather than intentional. Because if you accuse somebody of something, and they come back and say "actually, it's you that's like that", it sounds like they're just making up an unfair counter-accusation, so you cut off their argument at the foot. That might be hard to follow, so I'll give an illustration.
Bill has an obvious, central character flaw causing a problem - let's say he has a tendency to personalise arguments and make personal attacks instead of discussing the actual matter at hand. Bill has often done this and Bob knows it.
Bill is arguing with Bob about something. Bill criticised Bob, then Bob criticised Bill.
Bill, being familiar with personal attacks and sensitive to them, immediately interprets Bob's statement as a serious personal insult, and accuses Bob of 'always' making personal attacks against others.
Bill has pointed out the speck in Bob's eye (Bob is not flawless), ignoring the log in his own. But in this case, it is a strategic move that places Bob in a difficult position. How can Bob respond?
- If he responds in a factually correct way, he could point out the log in Bill's eye and argue that it's worse than his own problem ("Actually Bill, you're the one always making personal accusations"). But then it sounds like he's the one ignoring his own character flaws. It also sounds like he just invented this accusation because Bill said it about him. And it's a further escalation of the argument.
- But if he ignores this central issue and makes a peripheral point (e.g. defensively tries to explain away his own statement as not a personal attack, or criticises Bill for a different matter), he is ignoring the fundamental problem, being intellectually dishonest, and knows the discussion will achieve nothing positive. So again it's a further escalation of the argument.
Bill's accusation is therefore a pre-emptive defence - it has put Bob in an awkward position where he cannot make points he believes is truthful without coming across badly and making Bill himself look like the victim.
I don't think anybody really goes through all this logic and does this intentionally. But I do commonly see people accusing others of the faults they themselves obviously exhibit. Likely we learn on some subconscious level that this argument method causes us to win arguments more frequently, so we automatically adopt it without really knowing or caring why it is successful, it just becomes instinctual.
People tend to think everyone else is just like them.
At least it never happens on a national scale with a president being accused of something that an ex-vice president actually bragged about it in front of an operating camera.
That is very instructive for people who ever wondered what the term "projecting" means, and yes, it is ironic to see our President get impeached over something the ex VP is actually guily of, and to think that an entire political party is either willfully blind to this, or just flat-out dishonest, I have to go with the latter.
I had a funny exchange with somebody on YouTube, real tough guy who seemed to enjoy throwing around foul language, and somewhere in the conversation, I told him that he was projecting his own fault onto me, and his response was that he was projecting my own fault onto me. Clearly he didn't understand the concept of projecting.
Bob shoud be the bigger man. He should thank Bill for pointing out his speck, acknowledging his own flaw. Apologize, correct what was misspoken, whatever. Ignore the fact that Bill has the same flaw, cuz that will only encourage more of the same behavior. Return to factually discussing (not arguing). Or not; if the outcome doesn't actually matter, maybe just let it drop.
Consider your goal. If you don't actually need to convince Bill, but are actually interested in changing the minds of others who are watching the debate, then letting Bill appear petty helps you. If you do need to convince Bill, then change tactics; you need to make Bill want to change his mind, not dig in his heals with personal attacks.
We had lunch with my friend from the trombone section, last week. He told us that Mr. H is like that, and that he just has an interpretation of Scripture that, if you don't agree with him, he gets frustrated with you. We had a fun conversation with him talking about stuff that has gone on in the church. He said that he is surprised that we are still going to church there. I kind of smiled, and my wife and I both told him that they haven't kicked us out yet, so....here we are!
Another wonderful lady last week, asked me about why I am not in the orchestra any more, and I told her that I had gotten kicked out. I told her that I had come to learn something that they did not agree with. I know I can't tell her exactly what the issue is, and this is not the first time I have had this conversation with a friend at the church, who knows that I played in the orchestra. I talked to her yesterday, and she agreed with me that sometimes you just have to take a stand for what you know to be right. If only she knew! I think she is still single. She has a great heart for evangelism too! She is not the only single lady in the church that I know has a great heart for reaching the lost, either.
From another thread:
The way things currently stand you're likely to be booted out anyway one day, so you've got nothing to lose raising this issue. Still, do it politely. There is a slim possibility that this could help to actually heal your relationship with at least some individuals in the church, if you approach it delicately.
Have you considered formally, but politely, raising this with the pastor and/or whoever was involved censuring you? There are people defending homosexuality as acceptable for Christians. That is the exact position you took regarding polygamy. Raising this in a manner that means they have to choose how to address it could have several results. They could be forced double-down on conservativism in both matters, which would on the whole be a positive move (at least it would mean they taught against homosexuality). Better, it could quietly encourage them to look harder into scripture on this matter. Worse, they could choose to accept this but reject you, revealing themselves to be hypocrites - but if they reveal themselves as hypocrites in the eyes of others in the church, that could get others to look into scripture more deeply.
The way things currently stand you're likely to be booted out anyway one day, so you've got nothing to lose raising this issue. Still, do it politely. There is a slim possibility that this could help to actually heal your relationship with at least some individuals in the church, if you approach it delicately.
I have thought about it somewhat. I know in the past when I raised the "silence regarding homosexuality" issue with him, he brushed it off with this idea, that focusing on politics is a distraction, and that it hasn't been working. His primary focus is prayer, and this "Unceasing Prayer Movement". He is really big on IHOP, which I have found to be somewhat disturbing, from what I know about that group. There are other ministers in the church that I believe I will get more traction with, if I bring this up to them. One of them in particular, I told him to tell his daughter that polygamy is Biblical. My wife and I sat down for coffee (I drank hot coco) at StarBucks on Saturday afternoon, and we had an extensive discussion on polygamy, and I know I posted about that in this thread. He is the head of Adult Discipleship, so the Bible Study classes are under his authority.
The funny thing is, this same Bible Study group has been together, since we joined the church six and a half years ago. There were two former homosexuals who were members of the class, and every one of those people who spoke out, diminishing the seriousness of homosexuality, was a member of the class back then. Even the woman who said she sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, was part of the class back then. Last time we went through Romans, we spent three weeks going through a video on homosexuality and how to help people trapped in that lifestyle to escape it, and every one of those people there, attended those sessions. It boggles my mind. Now there was also a gentleman there, who was talking about his homosexual coworker, and how he tried to reach him, so not everyone in that class seems to think there is nothing wrong with it, but the leader who led those sessions, has moved on, and the current leader, seems to be against it, but is not very strong is his position or knowledge of what Scripture has to say about it. I figure at some point when everything reopens, and we are back together, that subject will come back, and I will address it to the best of my ability, and if it turns out that I am unable to persuade the people there, I will prayerfully consider what steps to take.
How does and IHOP guy get to be hired as a pastor of an SBC church? Talk about disconnect.
This would not be the first time that "former" homosexuals ended up leading a church astray.
Given how big the pro-homosexual push is in the culture one can only conclude either 1) he doesn't object to it or 2) he fears alienating donors. This is one of those issues you have to hammer to counterbalance the culture or the flock will be led astray by the rhetoric in the culture.
This would not be the first time that "former" homosexuals ended up leading a church astray.
Given how big the pro-homosexual push is in the culture one can only conclude either 1) he doesn't object to it or 2) he fears alienating donors. This is one of those issues you have to hammer to counterbalance the culture or the flock will be led astray by the rhetoric in the culture.
His time at SWBT and serving at Travis Avenue Baptist.
They had nothing to do with it. They are no longer part of the class, but when they were, they were staunch opponents of the homosexual agenda/movement.
I have thought it was #2, or #3) He has his own interdenominational agenda, this prayer movement he keeps harping on, and he fears alienating leaders from other denominations whom he wants to be part of this prayer movement. He is convinced that if he can get enough people to engage in 24/7 prayer, city wide, revival will come. That sounds good in theory, but OTOH, is also comes across as a gimmick. I cannot disagree with you at all though on what you are saying about hammering this issue, because we can pray until the cows come home, but if we quench the Holy Spirit of God, by embracing sin, we won't see an answer to those prayers. I heard him preaching one time about how there are times that we may face opposition for standing for what is right in our culture. I was sure he would bring up homosexuality and abortion. Instead, he brought up, fighting the urge to eat twinkies, as an example of opposition we might face. I was aghast! I emailed him on that. He responded by saying he thought the people got the point.