Pages

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Mother Teresa

BLACKHAW SAID:

“Also what is wrong with equating our suffering with the suffering of Christ. That is we can maybe share in the fellowship of his sufferings? Didn't Paul say something like that in Phillipians 3. And while baptism might be a way that we share in his sufferings I think Paul also had in mind the real sufferings we have in this world as we live for Christ.”

She was referring to the Passion of Christ. You know, Calvary and all that good stuff.

In that context, the sufferings of Christ are redemptive. It’s call the Atonement.

Are you claiming that sinners can also make atonement for their sins? In that event, who even needs a divine and sinless Redeemer to atone for our sins if we can atone for our own sins?

“I do not think her going through the dark night of the soul means that she probably was not a Christian.”

i) And I didn’t say otherwise. As a student in grad school, it wouldn’t hurt you to cultivate the habit of reading what people actually write. Try again. I offered an 8-point analysis.

On the first point I offered an interpretation of her experience consistent with her being reprobate.

Then, on points 2-8, I offered an interpretation of her experience consistent with her being a genuine, but genuinely confused Christian. What part of that didn’t you get?

I regard both interpretations as live options—which is why I presented two alternative interpretations.

ii) We’re not talking about a temporary crisis of faith or lapse of faith. In Teresa’s case, this went on for 50 years.

A Christian is, among other things, a believer. He can backslide and be restored, but a Christian cannot be a lifelong unbeliever. I’m merely judging her by her professed lack of a credible profession of faith.

“I think it is part of our Christian pilgrimage as is loneliness. I am married but there is still loneliness. That is just a part of life.”

Which misses the point in a couple of fundamental respects:

i) Single, childless adults are more likely to be lonely that couples with children. She chose a lifestyle that was a recipe for loneliness.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with her choice. But it’s a choice with very predictable emotional consequences.

ii) But instead of placing the obvious, mundane interpretation on her sense of isolation, she placed a theological interpretation on her sense of isolation. This is her dark night of the soul. She is a participant at Calvary. That sort of thing.

There’s no justification for this theological interpretation. Not only is it bad theology, but it’s also bad psychology since the source of her loneliness and emptiness is far more down-to-earth. Her father died when she was eight, and she became a nun. So she suffered from emotional deprivation—to some extent self-imposed.

“So I think one should just be a little more charitable to Mother Theresa wihtout making her a saint above everyone else especially when many did not really even know her at all.”

That would be good and well except for the fact that people are making her into a saint. They are treating her as a spiritual role model, and using her experience to validate Catholic theology. And she, herself, contributed to that interpretation.

ANONYMOUS SAID:
“I'm not a Roman Catholic - in fact, I'm a minister in good standing in a Reformed federation, and a Ph.D. candidate in theology. I'm a Reformed minister and theologian. Yet, this post literally has nauseated me. It is harsh, presumptuous, simplistic, and in my opinion evidences a sad lack of acquaintance with virtue and charity.”

i) How is my post presumptuous? I’m evaluating her experience by her published letters, as well as commentary supplied by her spiritual confessors.

You yourself obviously have a far more favorable evaluation of Mother Teresa. Isn’t that equally presumptuous?

ii) How is my 8-point analysis simplistic? It seems to me that an 8-point analysis is fairly nuanced.

What parts of my 8-point analysis do you take issue with, exactly? If you can’t be more specific, then your own dismissal is pretty simplistic.

iii) You and I define “charity” quite differently. I regard it as uncharitable to promulgate a false and damnable gospel.

“I do not presume to know Mother Teresa's motives or eternal destiny. But I do know that before I would ever attempt to exegete her life and motives in any way, I'd spend the next 40 year of my life picking up my cross, denying myself, and devoting my life to raising the poor from the dust. I'd spend the rest of my life practicing true religion by visiting orphans and widows in their affliction.”

i) If that’s how you really feel, then why don’t you drop out of your PhD program and buy a one-way ticket to Calcutta? Seriously.

ii) Unlike you, I don’t reduce the Good News to the social gospel.

iii) There are also serious questions about how well her ministry provided for the poor and needy. Was the money actually getting to the poor, in terms of quality health care and other material support, or was it sitting in interest-bearing bank accounts while the poor and needy were receiving very substandard care from the Missionaries of Charity?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

Or do you content yourself with empty gestures of good will, whether or not they actually do anyone any good?

49 comments:

  1. Wow what an angry post. But lets go through what you said to me point by point.

    1) I did not get the feeling that she believes her sharing in he sufferings of Christ means that her suferings are redemptive. Maybe I am wrong. But I know that sharing in the sufferings of Christ is biblical. So maybe I am wrong as to what she believes. I do not know why you have to take a combative tone with me.

    2) First actually most of points 2-8 do not really speak about whether she is a Christian or not. And given what you say about her sharing in the sufferings of Christ I would say # 5 would see to say that she was not a Christian. But again why are you so combative. I am not attacking you. All of my posts have been very polite and humble. I just think that your post was too negative agaist Mother Theresa given her life situation and just what this life is in general. Why all the anger? Also I am a seminary student. So I can read beyond what you write in your post to what you are meaning in he post. For instance if you said "I love Mother Theresa" in one sentence and then in the next you call her a bunch of names then I would know that you really do not love Mother Theresa. Communication is more than the words on the page. It is the meaning one can get beyond just the mere words on the page.

    3) I think the problem though is that there was no real demonstration of charity towards Mother Theresa. Calling Jesus her boyfriend is not the way to be charitable.

    4) Sure some of her lonliness and isolation might be self imposed. Okay. I do not see your grand point. Again lonliness is a part of this life. Christ was not married either. I am not equating her with Christ here except that by your logic some of Christ's you will have to be equally harsh with Christ for the same reasons as you are with her.

    5) "That would be good and well except for the fact that people are making her into a saint. They are treating her as a spiritual role model, and using her experience to validate Catholic theology. And she, herself, contributed to that interpretation."

    Okay I see your real beef. It is okay to not believe or condone catholic theology. But be charitable about it. Both this post and the one that this post is referencing are very negative. There is no love in them. I am not against you. I think some of your points are pretty good. And even if I did not like anything that you has to say I am still not against you. Can't we speak about Mother Theresa without so much anger? Can't we talk as two Christians?

    BH-CARL PETERSON

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really don't get where you're seeing "anger". It's a very matter-of-fact, casual rebuttal. I don't see any invective or emotional appeals.

    "Can't we talk as two Christians?"

    I don't see how a frank appraisal of MT's life vis a vis catholic theology prevents one from being Christian. Apostles like Paul and Peter used far less charitable terms when speaking about false doctrines.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BLACKHAW SAID:

    “I think the problem though is that there was no real demonstration of charity towards Mother Theresa. Calling Jesus her boyfriend is not the way to be charitable.”

    i) I think the problem is with your own theology as well as hers. Universal, unconditional charity is not a Biblical virtue. Do you think the tone of Scripture is always charitable?

    ii) Another problem is that you project. You’re the one who’s emoting all over the place, not me. You react to my material in very emotional terms. And that blinds you to the content.

    This is part of an effeminized version of Christianity in which blunt, manly talk is reinterpreted as “anger"—a la Deborah Tannen.

    iii) A related reason is that you’re more sympathetic to her theology than I am. You’re in a transitional phase.

    iv) Why did I use the “boyfriend” language? Because that’s descriptive of how she related to Jesus. And that’s one source of her problematic relationship with Jesus. She expected him to treat her the way an attentive boyfriend would treat his fiancé. When Jesus didn’t play the role she had assigned to him, she was disappointed and disillusioned and perplexed.

    “Sure some of her lonliness and isolation might be self imposed. Okay. I do not see your grand point.”

    I already explained my “grand point.” She is foisting a false, theological interpretation on something that has a perfectly natural explanation.

    You don’t see my grand point because you’re emoting and because you’re more sympathetic to her theology than I am.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mathetes,

    "I really don't get where you're seeing "anger". It's a very matter-of-fact, casual rebuttal. I don't see any invective or emotional appeals."

    Hmm. I see it when he cuts me down.

    "As a student in grad school, it wouldn’t hurt you to cultivate the habit of reading what people actually write. Try again."

    If this does not display anger than I do not know what does. But the whole tone of the post is that he is upset at me attacking what he said and he is taking a very combative tone towards it. That is clear.

    "I don't see how a frank appraisal of MT's life vis a vis catholic theology prevents one from being Christian. Apostles like Paul and Peter used far less charitable terms when speaking about false doctrines."

    Well in context this was speaking about how he was treating me. I am not a Catholic nor a heretic. But even so I do not think Catholics are heretics. That does not make me one but I think there is a huge jump from a heresy like Arianism to Catholicism.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    "i) I think the problem is with your own theology as well as hers. Universal, unconditional charity is not a Biblical virtue. Do you think the tone of Scripture is always charitable?"

    Well it mattes what you mean by charitable. But the tone of scripture is usually pretty charitable to Christians. But first not only words spoken in scripture relate something that we should emulate. Many portions of scripture describe actions and words that we should avoid. Just because it is scripture does not mean it is right. That is obvious. But also some of what I think you are defining as nonChatitableness in scripture comes from God himself and we cannot judge exactly the way God does. So that throws out some more of those texts. Also much of those "unchritable" portions of scripture are directed to the pharisees. I do not see you saying Mother Theresa is a pharisee and since you stated you do not know if she was a Christian or not then these have to be thrown out also. So what scriptures do you have to show uncharitable speech? I am not saying we should not speak the truth but that we should do so in love. So I can tell someone that I think they are going to hell but I must do it in a loving way. And maybe a few instances the loving thing to do is to be harsh with someone but I do not see how a post on Mother Theresa, who you do not really know, is the place to do that.

    "ii) Another problem is that you project. You’re the one who’s emoting all over the place, not me. You react to my material in very emotional terms. And that blinds you to the content."

    I understand the content. I jsut reacted to the way you said it. I even agreed that Mother Theresa might have never become a Christian. I do not know. I just rejected the harsh tone used in the post. There seems no appropriate reason for it. But what content did I miss? I know what you said but I am not so ignorant to not see what the post meant.

    "This is part of an effeminized version of Christianity in which blunt, manly talk is reinterpreted as “anger"—a la Deborah Tannen."

    Huh? When did overly harsh talk become "manly talk?" A man is gentle and wise. He knows when to be harsh and when not to be. Read Ephesians 4:1-3. And remember to be slow to speak and to be slow to anger. A man can be strong and not a jerk to others.

    "iii) A related reason is that you’re more sympathetic to her theology than I am. You’re in a transitional phase."

    I probably am. I have read a lot in the church fathers so I am pretty sypathetic to CAtholic theology. I am really more sympathetic to Eastern Orthodox theology but it has some similarities to Roman Catholic theology. Okay but I hope that I am still very charitable to Christians whose teology differs from mine.

    "iv) Why did I use the “boyfriend” language? Because that’s descriptive of how she related to Jesus. And that’s one source of her problematic relationship with Jesus. She expected him to treat her the way an attentive boyfriend would treat his fiancé. When Jesus didn’t play the role she had assigned to him, she was disappointed and disillusioned and perplexed."

    Where did you get this from? I did not see where in your previous posts. I am sure many people when they go through a spiritually dry time in their life wonder where is God? I do not think that makes them think of God as their boyfriend. It seemed you used this phrase because she was a nun. But I would want more than what you have posted to believe in this kind opf charectorization. In the posts it seems just like you are being overly harsh and critical.

    "I already explained my “grand point.” She is foisting a false, theological interpretation on something that has a perfectly natural explanation."

    "You don’t see my grand point because you’re emoting and because you’re more sympathetic to her theology than I am."

    I read what you said but even if there is a natural explanations does not means that there is not another explanation. For instance there is probably a natural explanation for the creation of the Earth. Okay but I am sure we both believe God had something to do with it also. So just giving a natural explanation does not make a spiritual explanation obselete. That is why I said I did not understand your grand point because it did not make sense. If the only thing you can demonstrate is that there is a natural explanation then you have proved nothing.

    And BTW I often say what is on my mind and do not hold back just because someone's feelings may get hurt. Ask Wade Burleson. He will not agree wiht much I have to say but he must state that I am more than willing to call people out when I do not think they are doing the right thing. I do not know how you can say that I have "an effeminized version of Christianity." But I think that was just said to get my goat.

    BH-CARL

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmm. I see it when he cuts me down.

    "As a student in grad school, it wouldn’t hurt you to cultivate the habit of reading what people actually write. Try again."

    If this does not display anger than I do not know what does. But the whole tone of the post is that he is upset at me attacking what he said and he is taking a very combative tone towards it. That is clear.

    ==========

    Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. If Steve had posted some sort of teary-eyed invective or adopted a tone of indignant emotionalism, I could see it, but that isn't the case. He cut you down - so? You reached a conclusion that completely betrayed an understanding of what he actually posted and he offered a sarcastic remark in return. If I deal with someone who clearly hasn't understood my argument, or if they beg the question, etc., I do the same. If this is problematic, then perhaps you should make more of an effort to read and understand someone's argument before responding.

    And again, a sarcastic dismissal of a bad argument is not "anger". You're seeing something that isn't there, especially giventhe lack of any kind of invective, personal insults, emotionalism, etc.

    Also, a Christian who gets involved in public discourse should be able to take their fair share of lumps.

    "Well in context this was speaking about how he was treating me. I am not a Catholic nor a heretic. But even so I do not think Catholics are heretics. That does not make me one but I think there is a huge jump from a heresy like Arianism to Catholicism."

    You miss the point again (I guess this makes me "angry").This falls on the heels of where you said, "Can't we speak about Mother Theresa without so much anger?" Even assuming Steve's comments were "angry", how is such a thing not Christian? Was Paul being un-Christian to the judaizers when he wrote to the Galatians?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pertaining to harsh language....

    ---
    O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

    (Galatians 3:1-3)
    ----

    Seems like Paul didn't have trouble calling professing Christians "foolish" when they were. Read the book of Galatians--Paul isn't just harsh with the Judaisers, he's harsh with the Christians who are falling for it when they ought to know better too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. If Steve had posted some sort of teary-eyed invective or adopted a tone of indignant emotionalism, I could see it, but that isn't the case. He cut you down - so? You reached a conclusion that completely betrayed an understanding of what he actually posted and he offered a sarcastic remark in return. If I deal with someone who clearly hasn't understood my argument, or if they beg the question, etc., I do the same. If this is problematic, then perhaps you should make more of an effort to read and understand someone's argument before responding."

    I guess I am getting nowhere. But for the last time I read what he said. I understood his argument. I think I made that clear in my reponses. I just see what he is really saying. Part of reading and interpreting is being able to read in between the lines. One has to be able to move beyond just what the person states in words and get to the meaning of the words, of the sentences, and of the piece in general. I can't make it much more plain than that.

    "And again, a sarcastic dismissal of a bad argument is not "anger". You're seeing something that isn't there, especially giventhe lack of any kind of invective, personal insults, emotionalism, etc."

    I think "As a student in grad school, it wouldn’t hurt you to cultivate the habit of reading what people actually write. Try again." is a cut down. You can say it is just sarcastic but that does not mean it is not a put down of course. But clearly this is a personal insult. What else can it be? I think you just think it is justified. But it is still a personal insult and the tone of the post was very combative and angry.

    "Also, a Christian who gets involved in public discourse should be able to take their fair share of lumps."

    I ma not whining because of the insult. I could insult back. I just stated the fact that his post was angry and I wanted to know why since I did nothing to him. I am not really upset because of his comment I am though getting frustrated with this weird version of what it means to be man and how one should act on a blog. I just do not get it.

    "You miss the point again (I guess this makes me "angry").This falls on the heels of where you said, "Can't we speak about Mother Theresa without so much anger?" Even assuming Steve's comments were "angry", how is such a thing not Christian? Was Paul being un-Christian to the judaizers when he wrote to the Galatians?"

    Like I said to Steve I do not think Catholics are in the same camp as judaizers. And Steve, nor you, nor I are Paul for Mother Theresa or Catholics in general. However I would not be upset with one who might thinks Catholics are not Christians and even one who states that opinion. But it must be down in a Godly way. That is all I am saying.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter,

    "Seems like Paul didn't have trouble calling professing Christians "foolish" when they were. Read the book of Galatians--Paul isn't just harsh with the Judaisers, he's harsh with the Christians who are falling for it when they ought to know better too."

    First who was Paul to the Galatians? Who are we to Mother Theresa or the Catholic church in general. I am not saying we cannot say anything aobut Catholic theology in general but I think taking the way in which Paul adressed a church he had some authority over is not the same as us speaking about Catholics. But even if it were true I do not know if just calling some one foolish is that bad. Again I am for telling the truth and for sometimes being harsh. However one should only be harsh at hte proper times. I do not think Steve's post was one of those times nor was it a proper time when he was comenting on my reply. Are Catholics or myself to be equated with the Judaizers or even to a church in which Steve is an elder of? And again I am not saying Steve or anyone else can't say anything to me but he is not an elder over me so our relationship is different than that of Paul to the church of Galatia or the Judaizers.

    BH-CARL

    ReplyDelete
  10. “If this does not display anger than I do not know what does. But the whole tone of the post is that he is upset at me attacking what he said and he is taking a very combative tone towards it. That is clear.”

    No, what is clear is that I’m holding you to an elementary standard of accuracy. Unlike you, my definition of charity includes accurately representing what someone said.

    “Where did you get this from? I did not see where in your previous posts.”

    As I explained in the original post, I’m responding to the Time article. Have you read it?

    “I read what you said but even if there is a natural explanations does not means that there is not another explanation.”

    Okay, for the third time—she is interpreting her loneliness and spiritual aridity and lack of faith as a God-sent experience which enables her to participate in the Passion of Christ on the cross.

    Once again, have you read the Time article I was responding to?

    There is no validity to her interpretation. On the one hand, there’s a natural explanation for her experience. On the other hand, her theological interpretation is predicated on bad theology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Like I said to Steve I do not think Catholics are in the same camp as judaizers."

    Actually, I do think the Pauline anathemas (in Galatians) are applicable to the Catholic church. Whether they're applicable to individual Catholics depends on who we're talking about. Some Catholics are more theologically astute and self-consistent than others. Mother Teresa doesn't strike me as a theological sophisticate by any means, so I've left questions concerning her state of grace open-ended. I wouldn't make the same allowance for the Tridentine Fathers or Karl Rahner or Benedict XVI.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve,

    I have lost patience.

    "No, what is clear is that I’m holding you to an elementary standard of accuracy. Unlike you, my definition of charity includes accurately representing what someone said."

    It is clear that I did represent what you said. You make it clearer every post you write. This whole discussion is revolving more on how you said what you said than what you said. But I have demonstrated that I know what exact words you wrote but also how you wrote them and why that changes the overall meaning of what you wrote. What is puzzling is that you make statements about your post and when I refute them then you jsut drop it. You have not come back to me and stated that I was wrong about #s 2-8. You are using a rather worn out debating techinque that is often used on the web. You just answer parts of replies and do not answer what you can't or when you get shown up. I have been doing this kind of thing for awhile and what you are doing is easy to spot.

    "Once again, have you read the Time article I was responding to?"

    yes.

    "Okay, for the third time—she is interpreting her loneliness and spiritual aridity and lack of faith as a God-sent experience which enables her to participate in the Passion of Christ on the cross.

    Once again, have you read the Time article I was responding to?

    There is no validity to her interpretation. On the one hand, there’s a natural explanation for her experience. On the other hand, her theological interpretation is predicated on bad theology."

    again whether there are natural reasons is not a major concern. I disagree that it is necessarily bad theology.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Actually, I do think the Pauline anathemas (in Galatians) are applicable to the Catholic church. Whether they're applicable to individual Catholics depends on who we're talking about. Some Catholics are more theologically astute and self-consistent than others. Mother Teresa doesn't strike me as a theological sophisticate by any means, so I've left questions concerning her state of grace open-ended. I wouldn't make the same allowance for the Tridentine Fathers or Karl Rahner or Benedict XVI."

    Okay we disagree on that also. But the main reason for my post is still appropriate. You are no Paul.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blackhaw said:
    ---
    But even if it were true I do not know if just calling some one foolish is that bad.
    ---

    And I don't know if telling someone they need to read is that bad.

    Besides, it's not like you are sticking to what is written here. You are complaining about what you are interpreting "between the lines" as you yourself admit. You do realize that reading "between the lines" is your subjective take and is not necessarily accurate, and furthermore cannot be substantiated by the actual statements (if it could be, it would be reading the lines rather than between them).

    The only person I see here who is emoting is you. You are the one taking everything as a personal insult. You are being offended on behalf of Teresa, and you are assuming written now must be a direct assault against you. This is merely projection; it is not interacting with what is actually there.

    Just some words of advice: don't get angry over what you read between the lines of someone's statements. If something seems offensive, make sure it's what was actually said and not simply your misunderstanding or assumption of what was meant.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Blackhaw said:
    ---
    But I have demonstrated that I know what exact words you wrote but also how you wrote them and why that changes the overall meaning of what you wrote.
    ---

    Unless you can demonstrate your omniscience, then you do not know "how [Steve] wrote" what he wrote, nor "why that changes the overall meaning" of what has been written.

    To claim what you do here is just plain silly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow. This post is really sad. I read the original post, and "anonymous' " response is exactly what I felt and thought.

    Steve, it is apparent that you have many issues clouding your judgment and negatively influencing your behavior here. Your first post was indeed uncritical, presumptuous, and harsh. You doubled the score on the second post.

    You resort to sophomoric fallacies such as false dichotomies and tu quoque. And you do so with anger and resentment. I hope you're not married.

    As the "anonymous" reader said, you do lack charity, and contrary to what you seem to imply in your answer, "charity" is a normal word relating to love, compassion, and giving the other the benefit of the doubt, not just an of-the-devil-evil-Roman-Catholic-will-burn-in-hell code word for fides formata caritate.

    It is not the case that, if one realizes the ethical burden to earn the right to make certain statements about others who exemplify virtue, one redefines the gospel as a social gospel. This is so silly as to be childish. You exemplify the worst kind of angry, black-and-white fundamentalism when you argue this way. Apparently in your mind if anyone recognizes the need to “visit orphans and widows in their distress” one has rejected the true gospel for a social gospel and is bent for hell.

    Your comments about what Mother Teresa expected or did not expect in her relationship with Jesus as her “boyfriend” would seem more appropriate to an angry, uneducated and insecure 15 year old. Truly appalling.

    Also, it is not the case that if one greatly hesitates to judge motives of others who for one reason or another have displayed great amounts of virtue, that one is a relativist who thinks nobody should judge anybody. Neither is the case that if one realizes that more is needed to fulfill the prophets indictment and Jesus’ commands to do justice and righteousness to those who cannot help themselves, that one should leave his calling and buy a one-way ticket to Calcutta.Your childish fallacies pile up with almost every sentence you write.

    I have read some helpful posts here in the past, but as far as I’m concerned (and apparently as far as at least some others are concerned) you have diminished your credibility greatly, if not lost it. Your attitude is resentful, your reasoning is very poor.

    Go ahead and post another text with 257 points and sub points about how everybody who disagrees with you in this is either a bogey man Roman Catholic destined for damnation, or someone in a “transitional phase,” and that you are not really angry. Go ahead and continue you vitriol argument that it logically follows that if Mother Teresa espoused wrong Roman Catholic theology it means that one should be harsh as Paul was and conclude that it is more likely she was unregenerate, had devious, selfish motives of wanting to earn salvation, and was mentally and spiritually retarded enough to think of Jesus as a bad boyfriend.

    I don’t think it will be very compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here are some words of the(evidently unregenerate, ignorant of the natural explanations, and espousers of bad theology) sons of Korah.

    Psalm 88:

    1 O Lord, God of my salvation; I cry out day and night before you.
    2 Let my prayer come before you;
    incline your ear to my cry!

    3 For my soul is full of troubles,
    and my life draws near to Sheol.
    4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit;
    I am a man who has no strength,
    5 like one set loose among the dead,
    like the slain that lie in the grave,
    like those whom you remember no more,
    for they are cut off from your hand.
    6 You have put me in the depths of the pit,
    in the regions dark and deep.
    7 Your wrath lies heavy upon me,
    and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah

    8 You have caused my companions to shun me;
    you have made me a horror to them.
    I am shut in so that I cannot escape;
    9 my eye grows dim through sorrow.
    Every day I call upon you, O Lord;
    I spread out my hands to you.
    10 Do you work wonders for the dead?
    Do the departed rise up to praise you? Selah
    11 Is your steadfast love declared in the grave,
    or your faithfulness in Abaddon?
    12 Are your wonders known in the darkness,
    or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

    13 But I, O Lord, cry to you;
    in the morning my prayer comes before you.
    14 O Lord, why do you cast my soul away?
    Why do you hide your face from me?
    15 Afflicted and close to death from my youth up,
    I suffer your terrors; I am helpless.
    16 Your wrath has swept over me;
    your dreadful assaults destroy me.
    17 They surround me like a flood all day long;
    they close in on me together.
    18 You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me;
    my companions have become darkness.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As I predicted in my original post, you're always going to have a lot of folks who rush to the defense of Mother Teresa in just the same way fans of Evis or Princess Di rush to the defense of their cult icon.

    Any perceived slight against their cult icon is greeted with indignation. Thanks, all, for comfirming my original prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve,

    You continue with your sophomoric falacies. This time, you try in vain to make your arguments unfalsifiable.

    1. I will say something bad about someone who is an icon.

    2. People don't like to have their icons questioned of criticized.

    3. Therefore, if you disagree with me, it's just because you don't like your icon questioned or criticized.

    Voila, you're right if you're right, and you're right if you're wrong.

    How old are you? What is your level of education?

    Do I even need to list the formal and informal fallacies of this?

    Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Peter,

    "And I don't know if telling someone they need to read is that bad."

    But is that what he really said? Did he say that I just need to reread the post? No. What he siad is this:

    "As a student in grad school, it wouldn’t hurt you to cultivate the habit of reading what people actually write. Try again."

    Clearly that is more than just I need to read the post or the Time article.

    Surely you can see that. What I just said was more than just me asking you whether you can understand me or not. It is clearly written with an arrogance. Steve is doing even more than that. He is saying that I am ignorant in no uncertain terms. I can deal with that personally but I see no reason just to take it or to give it back.

    "The only person I see here who is emoting is you. You are the one taking everything as a personal insult. You are being offended on behalf of Teresa, and you are assuming written now must be a direct assault against you. This is merely projection; it is not interacting with what is actually there."

    Huh? Steve was replying to me. And it was an insult. Both of these things are clear. AS far as my 1st post goes I think it is okay if I reply to a post like his with concerns over how it was written. I do not see a problem with that. I am not being overly emotional about it. I am just wondering why he is so combative.

    "Unless you can demonstrate your omniscience, then you do not know "how [Steve] wrote" what he wrote, nor "why that changes the overall meaning" of what has been written.

    To claim what you do here is just plain silly."

    Huh? Why? Can't I understand the overall tone of the message? How can one understand sarcasm from what you say unless they are omniscient? No part of reading is understanding what someone is trying to accomplish by what he says. It is not just taking the actual words in one way but seeing how the person is using the words to convey something. Much of communication goes beyond just the mere written word. The implications from the words and the tone of the words come into play. Also the context does. Plus the relationship of the speakers. They all have a place when it comes to determining what is the message of a text.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think Jeff has hit the nail on the head. However as you know Steve I am not a Roman CAtholic neither do I claim that she was a Christian or not a Christian. So to claim that I am making an icon of her makes no sense and is just silly. It is obviously a really poor debating technique.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I think Jeff has hit the nail on the head."

    Oh yes, with ridiculous ranting and raving about how stupid and immature Steve is, Jeff is really hitting it home.

    "So to claim that I am making an icon of her makes no sense and is just silly. It is obviously a really poor debating technique."

    Like gratuitous assertions?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Matthew,

    "Oh yes, with ridiculous ranting and raving about how stupid and immature Steve is, Jeff is really hitting it home."

    Huh? I think you are just being too sensitive and need to not be so upset and emotional about what another posts about someone else. Right?

    "Like gratuitous assertions?"

    The claim I am making MT into an icon is silly. It makes no sense from anything that I have said or how I have said it. To claim that I have done so because I honestly and respectfully have told Steve that I think he was a little harsh on her is beyond stretching. It makes no sense. And like Jeff said what Steve did is a logical fallacy. Is that hard to understand? Should I be more curt with you and Steve?

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Do I even need to list the formal and informal fallacies of this?"

    This from a guy who's guilty of poisoning the well:

    "Go ahead and post another text with 257 points and sub points about how everybody who disagrees with you in this is either a bogey man Roman Catholic destined for damnation, or someone in a “transitional phase,” and that you are not really angry. Go ahead and continue you vitriol argument that it logically follows that if Mother Teresa espoused wrong Roman Catholic theology it means that one should be harsh as Paul was and conclude that it is more likely she was unregenerate, had devious, selfish motives of wanting to earn salvation, and was mentally and spiritually retarded enough to think of Jesus as a bad boyfriend.

    I don’t think it will be very compelling."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mathetes,

    Poisoning the well is a fallacy in which one argues that *any* claims made by person P (whether at all or in a particular issue) are false because of some deficiency in person P.

    This has nothing to do with what I said, since my rhetorical claim was clearly that Steve *has been* arguing the way I characterized, and as a result of the fallacies of his arguments, to *continue* to argue *in the same way* will not be compelling.

    This clearly has nothing to do with saying that whatever Steve says is wrong. It is saying that his arguments so far have been very bad, both in form and content, and if he continues with long posts arguing the very same things and in the very same way, it won't be compelling.

    Ironically enough, it is Steve who stacks the deck against anybody who disagrees with him in this issue. They're just Roman Catholic sympathizers (or devotees) who want to protect their beloved icon. How silly is this?

    And no, I haven't called Steve "stupid." I did point out that his arguments include sophomoric fallacies, and that is not an ad hominem because I supported my claim.

    Also, I did point out his arguments, and their tone, were immature. Incidentally, immaturity causes one to feel personally attacked or demeaned when his arguments are attacked, particularly in public. And what else can be said of somebody who crowns his post with "Thanks, all, for comfirming my original prediction"?

    ReplyDelete

  26. Go ahead and post another text with 257 points and sub points about how everybody who disagrees with you in this is either a bogey man Roman Catholic destined for damnation, or someone in a “transitional phase,” and that you are not really angry. Go ahead and continue you vitriol argument that it logically follows that if Mother Teresa espoused wrong Roman Catholic theology it means that one should be harsh as Paul was and conclude that it is more likely she was unregenerate, had devious, selfish motives of wanting to earn salvation, and was mentally and spiritually retarded enough to think of Jesus as a bad boyfriend.


    A. As nun, she is, in Catholic nomenclature a "bride of Christ." So, the "boyfriend language" is certainly apt. Steve is drawing on Catholicism's own admitted thinking here, so to claim this is a problem is to point the finger not at Steve but at Catholicism

    B. Of course some Catholics and some Protestants who are sympathetic to Rome are often importing their Protestant leanings with them, so that's likely why they find the language problematic. They don't want to deal with Catholicism as it presents itself, rather, they choose to filter Catholicism through their evangelicalism, either what they possess or what they left behind or what they are in the process of leaving behind.

    C. As to the bit about bad theology and her being unregenerate, I do recall that quite some time ago, Steve discussed the difference between a credible profession and a saving profession. Before villifying Steve for what he has said here, one should understand what he means by this language:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/06/credible-profession-of-faith.html

    Here's what he said:

    To be a Christian is to be, among other things, a Christian believer. One must believe certain things, and not believe certain other, contrary things. On the one hand, some dogmas are damnable dogmas. On the other hand, the Bible lays out certain saving articles of faith.

    This is God's criterion, not mine. I didn't invent it. By the same token, how God applies that criterion in any individual case is up to God, not to me. I'm not the judge, God is the Judge.

    To take a concrete example, Scripture teaches sola fide (Romans; Galatians). I'm saved by faith in Christ. And I'm saved by the sole and sufficient merit of Christ.

    But in Catholic dogma, one is saved by the merit of Christ plus the merit of the saints plus one's own congruent merit. And this results in a divided faith.

    Now, in Reformed theology, we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith. For purposes of church membership, since we cannot know of a certainty who is or isn't saved, we only require a credible profession of faith.

    A Catholic qua Catholic cannot offer a credible profession of faith. But whether a Catholic can offer a saving profession of faith is a different question. The answer varies on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to say who isn't saved than to say who is.

    D. I'd add that, as he demonstrated this is a tradition usage of terms found in the Reformed tradition. I'd add that it's quite common in most Protestant denominations - including Baptists.

    E. So, did Mother Teresa manifest a credible profession of faith?" The answer, the one that Steve has the courage to state is "No," not if she was a consistent Catholic, and, being a nun, you know, one would think that would be the case. Why? Because, in Catholic theology, one's faith is in the merits of Christ, one's own merit, and the congruent merit of others.

    Now, if one of you would like to engage in a protracted dispute regarding Catholic soteriology, by all means go ahead. Steve is only observing what is admitted by Catholicism.

    And I would further add that in Catholic dogma assurance of salvation is, itself, considered "presumption," so for anybody here to get upset for Steve to observe that she might not be saved, from the perspective of her own theological tradition, she was denied assurance and told to claim it was "presumption." Why are you according to her what her own hierarchy denied, indeed denies every member of their communion?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow, I actually thought Steve's post was a bit soft on Mother Teresa and I'm a girl.

    I read no anger at all in any of Steve's post - the first show of emotionalism came up in the comments by blackhaw and anon. Continuing to focus in on Steve's emotional status and motivation about this topic is irrelevant. If you can counter his points, great, but the focus on the mental status of the writer is a bit odd.

    As for MT, she experienced decades of darkness along with many documented universalist quotes and belonging to a church that teaches a false gospel (Roman Catholicism). Perhaps she was saved despite all of that, but it certainly isn't a slam dunk (which is how the RCC has defined it with her beatification).

    Blackhaw, may I suggest you study Catholic theology a bit more? Just look at their salvation doctrines and move on from there and I think you will see that the Roman Catholic Church is a modern-day judaizer. If I am right, I hope that you would agree that being sympathetic to judaizers is not a wise thing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gene,

    This all started from a pot of mine that said I thought he was too harsh on Mother Theresa. Whether RC theology is correct or not was not my point. I am not a Catholic so I feel no need to make an apology for their soteriology. But to ask me to do so has nothing to do with what the discussion is really about.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  29. Carrie,

    I do not know what you being a girl has to do with anything. But anyways I do not agree with not only their soteriology but also (and probably in the end more importantly) their ecclesiology, tradition, and maybe most importantly the catholicity of the church. But that is really not the point. I cna disagree with their theology and still be charitable. Just like I can listen to Jarsolav Pelikan on my computer right now (I am BTW listening to a speech he made about tradition and scripture after he became an Orthodox)and not agree with his views on the reformation but still listen to what he has to say.

    A lesson fvrom church history might be in order. I like Cyril. He gets a bad rap often. However if he would have treated Nestorius better than maybe Nestorius could have been brought back into the fold. Nestorius was a heretic but the way Cyril handled the situation was not very good. Thus we possibly have one more heretic in our church history text books that maybe could not have been there.

    I have to go home now so I probably will not be able to post again until maybe tomorrow. But I do not know if continuing this thread is productive.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  30. Actually, it has everything to do with it, sir, you're the one that spoke in terms of equating suffering with Christ. That's a theological distinction. The issue isn't what you want to say about that, but what Catholic theology says about it.

    Steve addressed what MT said herself in the context of her own theological tradition.

    And "the dark night of the soul" for MT would be, at least in part, due to her own theological tradition and what it has to say about assurance.

    Steve specifically wrote about "the practical impact of bad theology." So, let's talk about that theology, or do you want to frame the issue in terms of something else? Steve addressed the issue, in part, due to the inner logic of Catholic theology/soteriology.

    You say you feel no need to make an apology for their theology. Good, but that's not what I said at all.
    What I asked was, essentially, why you and Jeff are getting so upset when Catholic theology, the theology of her own choosing, denied to her assurance? You're upset at Steve for questioning if she was saved or not, but why, given Catholic theology, isn't that precisely what we should expect? You guys are calling his assessement "uncharitable," but if true, then it's true not because of Steve's alleged "attitude" toward you or MT, but because of Catholic theology, for he is only making an observation that, when it cashes out, arrives at precisely the place a consistent Catholic theology cashes out as well.

    So, yes, my friend, the underwriting theology is VERY pertinent to this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wow, the bloggers here seem to be woefully lacking in four things:

    1. Charitable, scholarly interaction

    2. Logical reasoning

    3. Knowledge of Roman Catholic theology

    4. Love of virtue

    And I'm not even Roman Catholic.

    It is a pity to see this kind of angry fundamentalism. It seems to me that you'd represent protestant theology better if you invested in a little more formal training in philosophy and theology.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wow.

    And it was thought that by banning Orthodox, T-Stone, and Curry the level of interaction in the combox would improve.

    Who are these fanny-pack wearing nancy boys and what have they done to the Christian image? The effeminate sensitivity levels are rising to a critical high in these past couple of entries!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Who are these fanny-pack wearing nancy boys and what have they done to the Christian image? The effeminate sensitivity levels are rising to a critical high in these past couple of entries!!! "

    Wow! MR. Anonymous you really showed all of us up. I mean i should really listen to someone who won't even say who they are. Cutting people down and then not even having the guts to state who you are is more effeminate than any fanny pack wearing man. just go to a playground and the 8 year olds will tell you that.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gene,

    I do not have the energy to debate RC theology here. But again my main point from the beggining was not RC theology it was the uncaritabeness of his post. Back in the first post i think that was my only real complaint.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  35. I do not know what you being a girl has to do with anything.

    Well, it was obviously a bad joke since you didn't get it.

    Women tend to be more sensitive and less tolerant to harsh words, yet I thought Steve was quite charitable in his post. The majority of the post was explanations of how MT could be saved yet experience the darkness she did. That's why I am a bit baffled by all these accusations of anger and uncharitable behavior.

    But anyway, all this bickering of who is a big meany or not is below the level of Christian men so I don't want to mention it further.

    I did want to make one small point about your sympathy for EO and RC because your comment about Cyril strikes me as off.

    You said:However if he would have treated Nestorius better than maybe Nestorius could have been brought back into the fold. Nestorius was a heretic but the way Cyril handled the situation was not very good. Thus we possibly have one more heretic in our church history text books that maybe could not have been there.

    From the way you state this (and maybe I am misreading you) it sounds like Nestorius may have had a chance of being saved if Cyril had used a better approach. But that would mean that Nestorius's salvation was actually dependent on Cyril, with which I hope you would disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Blackhaw,

    Wow what an angrey response. But lets go through what you said to me point by point.

    1) I did not get the feeling that you were attacked at all when Steve pointed out that you didn't read what he had written. Maybe I am wrong. But I know that what a person says is (come to think of it) what a person says. So maybe I am wrong as to what Steve said as I am not reading between the lines but am actually reading what was written. I do not know why you have to take a combative tone with me.

    2) First, despite this being number 2, I will begin this sentence with the word first. Most of what you quoted when you said "Clearly that is more than just I need to read the post or the Time article" is clearly not what you clearly say it clearly is. Frankly, you are about as clear as Miss Teen North Carolina. But again, why are you so combative. I am not attacking you. All of my posts have been very polite and humble. I just think that your comment was too negative against Steve given his life situation and just what this life is in general. Why all the anger? Also I am a seminary student which explains my stellar punctuation and vocabulary, not to mention by Award Winning(TM) logic. So I can read your mind and know what you backspaced over and didn't submit before rewording your text to what you did submit. For instance if you said "I love Steve" in one sentence and then in the next you called him a bunch of names then I would know that you do not love Steve. Communication is more than the words on the page. It involves ESP, telepathy, and sometimes the NSA. It is the meaning one can get beyond just the mere words of the page.

    3) I think the problem though is that there was no real demonstration of charity towards Steve. Calling him angry is not the way to be charitable.

    4) Sure some of his points might be self-evident. Okay. I do not see your grand point. Again anger is a part of this life. Christ got angry in the temple once. I am not equating Steve with Christ here except that by your logic some of Christ's you will have to be equally harsh with Christ for the same reasons as you are with Steve (not that I understand this sentence any more now that I am cutting and pasting it than I did when I first saw it on my NSA satellite feed).

    5) "If this does not display anger than I do not know what does. But the whole tone of the post is that he is upset at me attacking what he said and he is taking a very combative tone towards it. That is clear."

    Okay I see your real beef. It is sirloin with A-1. Speaking of A-1, it is A-1 okay to not believe or condone Steve's theology. But be charitable about it. Both this comment and the one that this comment is referencing [some day I will avoid passive statements and go for the more active "references" in such sentences, but seeing as how I am only a seminary student who can read between the lines I need no concern myself with proper grammar] are very negative. There is no love in them. I am not against you. I think some of your points are pretty good. And even if I did not like anything that you has to say I am still not against you. Can't we speak about Steve without so much anger? Can't we talk as two Christians? Or at least as one Rodney King unto another? Or maybe even like Al Pacino in Scarface, I can introduce you to my little friend too.

    But I write that in love. I write it for the same reason that I will now say this is my last response of the night but will then respond in another three hours as if I never made this statement.

    Oh, and you're a big meanie.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Peter,

    funny post. Now do you think that was sarcastic or not and how do you know juat from the words themselves?



    This discussion reminds me of speaking with people recently converting to Calvinism. They think it is the end all be all thing. of course they have yet to find out that Calvin, while maybe being a 5 point Calvinist maybe not, did not put as much stress on what are in the 5 points than they do. Heck he of course did not know of any such thing as someone being a 5 point Calvinist and probably would not of liked someone caling themselves that.

    I can understand Calvinists though because i was one at one time. And I still enjoy reading Calvin especially his commentaries.

    But this whole thread and the arrogance in it really remind me of the phrase that there are many out there that know just enough to make them dangerous. And those people will yell as loud as they can and display their ignorance.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  38. Peter,

    funny post. Now do you think that was sarcastic or not and how do you know juat from the words themselves?



    This discussion reminds me of speaking with people recently converting to Calvinism. They think it is the end all be all thing. of course they have yet to find out that Calvin, while maybe being a 5 point Calvinist maybe not, did not put as much stress on what are in the 5 points than they do. Heck he of course did not know of any such thing as someone being a 5 point Calvinist and probably would not of liked someone caling themselves that.

    I can understand Calvinists though because i was one at one time. And I still enjoy reading Calvin especially his commentaries.

    But this whole thread and the arrogance in it really remind me of the phrase that there are many out there that know just enough to make them dangerous. And those people will yell as loud as they can and display their ignorance.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anyone know where the aspirin is? I'm starting to get a killer headache. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  40. BH said:
    ---
    funny post. Now do you think that was sarcastic or not and how do you know juat from the words themselves?
    ---

    Why are you asking me if I think that was sarcastic? Can't you read between the lines and figure out what I think already?

    BH said:
    ---
    This discussion reminds me of speaking with people recently converting to Calvinism.
    ---

    This comment reminds me of talking to someone who ignores the immediate context of any discussion in order to latch on to whatever pet peeve he currently has.

    BH said:
    ---
    They think it is the end all be all thing. of course they have yet to find out that Calvin, while maybe being a 5 point Calvinist maybe not, did not put as much stress on what are in the 5 points than they do. Heck he of course did not know of any such thing as someone being a 5 point Calvinist and probably would not of liked someone caling themselves that.
    ---

    That reminds me. Tide is my favorite detergent. Not so much because it does a better job (it may not), but because I like the fact that it has four letters that you can rearrange to spell Ited. And ited sounds like it deserves to be a real word. As in: Ited been fun talking wit' ya if I'd not hadta read tru all de lie-nz.

    BH said:
    ---
    I can understand Calvinists though because i was one at one time. And I still enjoy reading Calvin especially his commentaries.
    ---

    If you read between the lines on Calvin's commentaries you can see that Calvin didn't exist at all, but instead some other guy named Calvin wrote Calvin's Commentaries. With proper exegesis, we perceive said Calvin was a conglomeration of postreformational thought compiled by didactic scholars who were only interested in preserving the status quo en situ coinciding with the prevailing "se" of the time, usually demarcated by Owen's "oblation and intercession are coextensive"; and in genuflection toward that amalgous attitude, much of what we attribute to Jean (John) Calvin (Caulvin) must be redacted in light of postmodern deconstructionism as nothing more than a patristic relic that no longer bears significant adherence to the archetypal presupposition of theistic nihilism, as exemplified by Streinhold's reinterpretation of Kant in light of Descartes' neoplatonic epicyclic Calvinism (which was misunderstood at the time, due to the Cartesian mathematical framework, as being more Jesuit than Lutheran, as it followed Ptolemaic astronomy instead of Aristotelian physics--but this can also be explained as a novum theologicum of preapocalyptic dialasis systemic in the epistemological variance of the Hellenistic substrata found in most Reformational texts, excluding Zwingli, and therefore is not a necessary conclusion, although it remains necessary for this bloviated declaration to foredoom its terminus).

    All this does bring up the next important question, and since you're a current student I'm sure it's weighing heavily on your mind: Sind Sie ein Dummkopf, oder sind Sie nur dumm?

    Man, it sucks having to read between the lines on that one....

    BH said:
    ---
    But this whole thread and the arrogance in it really remind me of the phrase that there are many out there that know just enough to make them dangerous. And those people will yell as loud as they can and display their ignorance.
    ---

    Indeed, you exemplify that well. In fact, you bring to mind Lincoln's famous quip: "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

    Words for you to take to heart, Blackhaw.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Blackhaw said:

    Peter,

    funny post. Now do you think that was sarcastic or not and how do you know juat from the words themselves?


    The irony has apparently been lost on Blackhaw.

    of course they have yet to find out that Calvin, while maybe being a 5 point Calvinist maybe not, did not put as much stress on what are in the 5 points than they do.

    Perhaps this is a common misconception. "Calvinism" isn't necessarily identical to everything Calvin said and taught or how much or how little emphasis he put on certain things he did teach. For example, other terms which have been used in the past to describe the same are Augustinianism and the doctrines of grace.

    But the important point here is that what we commonly refer to as "Calvinism" is based on a systematic exegesis of the Holy Scriptures -- which "Calvinists" in the past and present have gone to great lengths to demonstrate by reasoned argumentation.

    But this whole thread and the arrogance in it really remind me of the phrase that there are many out there that know just enough to make them dangerous. And those people will yell as loud as they can and display their ignorance.

    Leaving aside the issues of whether it's true and also whether it's right for the moment, I don't understand why Blackhaw is taking us to task for the exact same things he does? Blackhaw doesn't appreciate our tone, and apparently finds anger and mean-spiritedness and so on in it, not to mention he now accuses us of arrogance and ignorance. He finds our tone "uncharitable," yet we could arguably conclude his tone to be the same.

    In any case, let's assume it's true that our tone is overly harsh and in addition that it's wrong to be this harsh (both of which are debatable), I would then hope these words from our Lord would impress themselves upon Blackhaw: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt. 7:3-5).

    ReplyDelete
  42. Patrick said:
    ---
    The irony has apparently been lost on Blackhaw.
    ---

    Actually, I think the question of whether it was sarcastic was referring to his statement "funny post."

    I read between the lines and realized he was talking about a fence post.

    On the other hand, I think future etemolygists will look back at the above comment as the source for the odd new phrase that suddenly occurined in Triabloglandia: "How do you know juat?" answered with the extremely popular "You don't know juat!"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Peter,

    I do not know exactly why I am replying. I guess I hope you might actually engage what I am saying. But you probably will just do what you are doing because you cannot really engage in what I am saying. Another poor debating technique on this board.

    But of course why I asked you if that first sentence was sarcastic is because it was. however nothing in the wording of that sentence told you it was. Oh wait though you can't look beyond the words to their intent. So you can't see sarcasm. I forgot. Sorry.

    In the end you call me a fool. Wow! I did not see that coming on this blog. I am only a foolish because I am keep on having faith that you will wake up and be respectful. You are obviously young and immature but maybe my patience will help you.

    But one last time everyone goes beyond just the words on the page. You have to interpret the words with teh context of the passage and the overall tone of the passage ( among other things). I feel sorry because you cannot enjoy poetry or metaphors.

    But anyways I am sure you will come back with your "witty" reply that is just a waste of time.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  44. Patrick,

    First of all I know Calvinism is not just based on Clavin and is teaching. That is one of the ironies of it. It emphasizes items which Calvin did not and probably would not. But it is called Calvinism anyways.

    "But the important point here is that what we commonly refer to as "Calvinism" is based on a systematic exegesis of the Holy Scriptures -- which "Calvinists" in the past and present have gone to great lengths to demonstrate by reasoned argumentation."

    I do not agree fully with Calvinism but really it is not so important. It really speaks to a lot of things no one knows about. It speaks aobut things like election which the Bible largely leaves in a cloud of mystery. unfortunately much of scripture and what scripture is about is ignored by many Calvinists. (especially many new zealous Calvinists)


    Now on to your diatribe against how I lost my temper and was overly harsh with you. True I was. I ask forgiveness of that. I was and I am very tired of this. It seems this blog just wants to be what it wants to be and in the end does not enjoy theological competition.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  45. BH said:
    ---
    Peter,

    I do not know exactly why I am replying.
    ---

    Seems like a wonderful reason to reply then.

    BH said:
    ---
    I guess I hope you might actually engage what I am saying. But you probably will just do what you are doing because you cannot really engage in what I am saying.
    ---

    A false dichotomy.

    What you are saying is too silly to engage seriously.

    BH said:
    ---
    Another poor debating technique on this board.
    ---

    Yes, we really do wish you'd stop that.

    BH said:
    ---
    But of course why I asked you if that first sentence was sarcastic is because it was.
    ---

    No way!

    BH said:
    ---
    however nothing in the wording of that sentence told you it was.
    ---

    Just like nothing in the wording of your above sentence conveys any meaningful information either.

    BH said:
    ---
    Oh wait though you can't look beyond the words to their intent. So you can't see sarcasm. I forgot. Sorry.
    ---

    I looked beyond the words and I saw pixels on a screen. I was quite impressed. I wrote a haiku about it.

    An explicit sound
    It comes of radiation:
    The PoMo student.

    BH said:
    ---
    In the end you call me a fool.
    ---

    Did you read between the lines?

    BH said:
    ---
    Wow! I did not see that coming on this blog.
    ---

    Whoa, that's like so unexpected that you wouldn't see what didn't happen coming.

    BH said:
    ---
    I am only a foolish because I am keep on having faith that you will wake up and be respectful.
    ---

    The reason you are foolish is that this is the reason you think you are foolish.

    BH said:
    ---
    You are obviously young and immature but maybe my patience will help you.
    ---

    God help us if this is you displaying patience.

    BH said:
    ---
    But one last time everyone goes beyond just the words on the page. You have to interpret the words with teh context of the passage and the overall tone of the passage ( among other things). I feel sorry because you cannot enjoy poetry or metaphors.
    ---

    Aside from the fact that you are wrong, I feel sorry that you cannot understand basic grammar and sentence syntax. You think everything is a metaphor and nothing is as it is. Even Sickmind Fraud knew that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

    BH said:
    ---
    But anyways I am sure you will come back with your "witty" reply that is just a waste of time.
    ---

    So on the one hand I don't know what sarcasm is, but on the other hand I'm quite witty. Yeah, makes sense.

    The fleeting image
    Of the man in mental pain
    Blackhaw is his name.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Just some thoughts....

    First, it is really scary and pathetic that some here think that a call for gentleness is equal to being wimpy or feminine thinking. Whether or not the original poster was overly harsh (and he has always admitted to being willing to be harsh, just like Paul was), we need to remember that Christ was gentle in His language with most people...and I would hope that all would be willing to emulate Christ, regardless of gender. He used language and words wisely, knowing when gentleness was called for and when harsh language was called for. It is much easier to do this when we actually know the people invovled.

    Secondly, I urge all involved to examine their hearts, for while I agree that harsh language may be necessary and certainly Paul was brutal in some of his rebukes, it seems that some here go beyond feeling the necessity and enjoy their wit at other's expense. We need to differentiate between "speaking the truth in love" and enjoying putting the other person down. Paul many times expressed pain at the need for writing of his concerns. So the question ultimately becomes one of the heart...."am I enjoying the distress that this is causing the other person?" The tongue is treated as a dangerous weapon in scripture and Paul constantly urges us to love one another.


    C.S.Lewis had a marvelous way to approach this in "The Weight of glory"...

    "THe load, or weight, or burder of my neighbor's glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and on the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature, which , if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all politics." The Weight of Glory

    In Christ

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peter,

    Nothing you write makes sense. you are stupid. See I can do it also.

    "A false dichotomy.

    What you are saying is too silly to engage seriously."

    Then don't. Why change your precedent?

    "Just like nothing in the wording of your above sentence conveys any meaningful information either."

    Just like nothing in the wording of your above sentence conveys any meaningful information either.

    "I looked beyond the words and I saw pixels on a screen. I was quite impressed. I wrote a haiku about it.

    An explicit sound
    It comes of radiation:
    The PoMo student."

    You know what a haiku is? I would not of guessed that. You have trouble with metaphors and saracsm but I guess you have the haikus down. great Job!

    "Aside from the fact that you are wrong, I feel sorry that you cannot understand basic grammar and sentence syntax. You think everything is a metaphor and nothing is as it is. Even Sickmind Fraud knew that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

    Wow! you actually said something of meaning. But of course i never said everything is a metaphor. You made that up. So I guess it really was just like all the rest of your responses. Just a joke with no wit behind it.


    "So on the one hand I don't know what sarcasm is, but on the other hand I'm quite witty. Yeah, makes sense."

    You obviously do not know what sarcasm is if you think I think you are witty.

    "The fleeting image
    Of the man in mental pain
    Blackhaw is his name. "

    From you this is a compliment. Thank you! you would not know intelligence if it hit you in the face.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  48. "From you this is a compliment. Thank you! you would not know intelligence if it hit you in the face."

    Mr. Peterson, The "blackhaw" handle shows up frequently in the comment section of a series of Baptist blogs. For better or worse, whenever I see the "blackhaw" handle I will always think of the above line. Is that the kind of association you want?

    ReplyDelete
  49. FArmboy,

    No. and you are right to call me on it. i apologise to Peter for all I have said. I am very irritated and annoyed. But that is no excuse. Thanks Farmboy for the reproof.

    BH

    ReplyDelete