Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Head's Bored Tavern

Since the fine folks over at BHT have suffered a complete meltdown (despite what you’re thinking, this happened years ago—the effects are merely continuing through today) and do not allow thinking on their blog, it is rather fun to argue with them. It’s not much unlike discussing anything with any other liberal. You give them a fact and they emote. You give them reason, they whine. I did honestly try to see things from their point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

Steve and I have offered several posts on prayer since Ted Kennedy was touched by an angel. We’ve actually put forth exegesis of Scripture as well as logical arguments using propositions. The response that BHT has given us is less than underwhelming.

In comments on this post, Randy McRoberts of the BHT said:


The thing is, Peter, that you don't realize that arguments don't always matter. It's character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care.

I don't care to mount an argument. That's not what I'm all about. If it works for you, have a ball with it. Don't expect most people to care a whole lot. You might win the argument, but it's an empty win.
Think about that for a moment. Randy has admitted that he doesn’t care about thinking, about intellectual consistency, about truth. It’s all about “character and integrity and love” not whether or not you’re actually, you know, correct and all. Mormons probably feel the same way, and I have to say they're a heck of a lot nicer than the BHT folks are.

Reality has this weird property though. It’s real. It doesn’t change because you’re a nice person. It doesn’t change because you feel warm fuzzies.

So I responded with the following parable:


Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Randy. Randy loved everyone and everything as much as possible. If his cruel, cold-hearted Dad was about to crush a spider, Randy would rescue the spider and lovingly toss it outdoors where it had a chance to live.

One day, an early spring day, Randy was walking down the sidewalk with his evil father when they saw a baby bird lying on the ground. It had obviously fallen from its nest.

"Leave it," the wicked adult said. "It's mother will come for it."

But that was unacceptable for Randy, who loved the poor little bird. So when the demon-in-human-form wasn't looking, Randy scooped up the baby bird and put it in his pocket.

When they got home, Randy rushed straight to his room. He took out the bird and placed it in an old shoe box. The bird chirped because it was very hungry. So Randy decided to feed the bird.

He asked his less-wicked-but-still-not-quite-loving-because-she-was-a-Presbyterian mother what baby birds ate. She said they ate worms. But Randy knew that couldn't be the case--worms were icky little creatures (that still deserved to live, mind you--that was why Randy would rescue them before his diabolical father went fishing).

There was a better solution. Randy liked Butterfinger candybars and Dr Pepper to wash them down with. They were his favorite treats. Because he loved the bird so much, Randy shared his favorite things with the bird.

The next morning he awoke to find a very dead bird in the shoe box. Because, you see, poor Randy never grasped the concept that love without knowledge is dangerous. If you love someone or something but you have no clue what they need then you will not be able to satisfy their needs and your love will condemn them to death.

Sadly, this episode did not teach Randy his lesson. Later, he would grow up to believe that it did not matter if a sinner was hell-bound. The important thing was the love them, not to argue with them. The important thing was to make sure the had a sugar buzz before they spent eternity in hell.

And as a result, Randy decided to attack those who were trying to rescue sinners by calling those apologists intellectual elitists in a Big-Brained Blog. And lo, he felt good about himself, and those who were hell-bound enjoyed his taunts. And merrily they continued on the path to destruction.

At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, "I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments."
Naturally, Randy didn’t bother to respond to this here on the T-Blog because he’s a coward and knows he’d get shredded. Instead, he retreated to the BHT (where comments are not allowed because Groupthink must prevail) and whined:


This is a response to a comment I made over there. (Should have known better.) See? I have love, but no knowledge. I’m putting people in hell by loving them. I don’t know what birds eat. I’m attacking those who rescue sinners by arguing with them. I feel good about myself for all this. I’ve learned a lot about myself today.

I don’t think it would take more than about three verses of “Just As I Am” to get me down front. I feel so bad about myself for feeling so good about myself.

Oh, yeah. In another comment I learned that for me to say that there are other ways to converse without putting forth an argument is “in itself an argument”. Now, that’s heavy. I’m not sure I get it, since I’m not intellectual at all.
Well it is obvious that Randy is no intellectual since he cannot grasp a simple parable. Instead, he thinks he needs to read everything literally. Frankly, I would be ashamed to speak in public if I was as dumb as Randy brags about being.

But to clear up the record, when Randy says “I have love, but no knowledge” he is wrong. He has just as much love as he has knowledge: none.

I, for one, have never read a loving remark from Randy about me. No, I just get his hate poured out upon me. (These are the same people who complain about us when we debate Arminians because “we should treat brothers in Christ better than non-believers” yet they have no qualms treating the “TR”, as they call us, as badly as possible. Then again, you shouldn’t expect consistency from those who hate intelligence in the first place.)

Secondly, I wouldn’t say that Randy is attacking apologists by arguing with us because nothing Randy’s ever said could be misconstrued as an argument.

Naturally, the other bored skulls acted shocked by what went on. For instance, JS Bangs said:


Wow. I mean, wow.
To which I respond: “Like totally! I mean, TOTALLY!

Bangs continued:

What exactly gave any of them the impression that we don’t care about the salvation of the lost?
The fact that you’re not trying to convince the lost they’re on the wrong path is a great indication that you don’t care where they’re headed. Then again, I use logic.


The fact that several people admitted they had trouble grokking the concept of Hell?
Well, it is kinda hard to see how someone not going to Hell needs to worry about going to Hell. Then again, I use logic.


Or the fact that we actually pray for the unsaved?
Except I don’t believe you. You claim to pray for the unsaved, yet you do everything in your power to impede those who are seeking the unsaved. What exactly do you pray regarding the unsaved? And frankly a general prayer “Lord save the unsaved” is no substitute for genuine prayer either. Then again, I use logic.


I have zero interest in reading any TR blogs, so I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say.
And this, of course, is the first sign that you’re dealing with a moron. Ask questions, and then say, “I’m not going to listen to the answer.” This works when you’re three years old, but we expect more from adults. Then again, I use logic.

Not content to leave it at that, Strawfoot said:

Is he actually saying that he and his BBB fellows have actually talked people into becoming Christians?
Yes, I am.

WHAT?! How can this be? Well, Strawfoot, it’s really quite simple if you actually cared about what the wicked TRs believed (which you don’t, cuz God forbid you’d actually have to talk with one!). God uses…are you ready for this now?...MEANS to enact His will.

I know, revolutionary concept. Not found in any Reformed literature except for all of it.

And since I get e-mails sent to me, I know that there do indeed exist people who’ve been convinced of the truth of Christianity by way of some of the arguments that I’ve presented. God’s used me to bring some to Himself, and I am honored to be of use to Him.

The BHT is a great example of what happens when Politically Correct thinking runs amok. They preach tolerance by being intolerant of everyone who disagrees with them. They teach that love is most important by being as unloving as possible toward other Christians. They think that something’s wrong with you if you use the brain God gave you.

Frankly, if their version of Christianity was true, I’d be an atheist. And that’s something that Randy and other BHTers don’t get. They think that everyone is as emotive as they are and that no one cares about thinking correctly. But I do. My mere existence refutes their notion that everyone agrees with them. I do enjoy thinking, I am intellectually oriented, I do study, I do use my brain. And because of that, I can actually interact with the atheists in our world who are likewise intellectually oriented.

That’s something that none of Randy’s self-serving emotive bleating will ever be able to accomplish.

30 comments:

  1. I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

    Considering they are one and the same, I have a hard time believing this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My, my, how uncharitable of you. Aren't we supposed to be loving our enemies?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A few years ago I actually made the big mistake of joining the HBT as a poster (I used a different screen name). I quickly found out that people weren't listening to what I was saying. Oh they were reading my posts, mind you. But all I had to do was start exegeting Scripture and the emotional outbursts started. Near the end, I was told by more than one poster that they refuse to engage my arguments because I was a venom-spewing devil (or words to that effect).

    I thought it was just me. It's nice to know, after all this time, it wasn't. There was one guy I liked, though. The madcap militant Lutheran whose creed was "Luther said it, I believe it, that settles it". It was fun to throw out words like "consubstantiation" and watch him foam at the mouth. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I visited BHT a couple of times only because of a silly curiousity in I-Monk's blog. A curiosity that was sparked by seeing I-Monk touted on other people's blogs or blogrolls.

    Anyways, I-Monk's blog is moderated. Which means that he acts as bully gatekeeper. And he filters out comments and commenters that he doesn't like from ever being posted.

    Peter talks about how the BHT posters emote rather than reason. I-Monk is a terrific example of that. I'm not saying that he's devoid of any reasoning, but that he's a major emoter who relies HEAVILY on his feelings and emotions.

    Recently, I-monk posted on BHT that in the past year or two that his wife swam the Tiber and that that accounted for some difficult stress in his life. Which is understandable. It's rather embarrassing to have an SBC pastor-professor-blogger whose wife swam the Tiber.

    There was an outpouring of sympathy for I-Monk upon his release of that domestic news so I don't know why he yanked the post about his wife becoming Roman Catholic.

    Sorry for this convoluted path to what I'm trying to conclude with. If BHT was being moderated and led by I-Monk, then it's only expected that Peter Pike and Steve Hays got the reception they did from the denizens of Boar's Head Tavern.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TU...AD,

    Considering this isn't my first time interacting with the BHT, I was completely unsurprised at their response. Actually, the only thing that did surprise me was that they picked up on my comments on Steve's post (I wasn't surprised they went after Steve since they hate him so much) and decided to include me in the barrage to begin with.

    It reminds me of the time I dealt with Spencer over the subject of the New Life Church shootings. Spencer (the iMonk himself) went out of his way to misread everything I wrote and try to frame it in the worst possible light. I called him out for it, and suddenly I was the bad guy for demonstrating he was making stuff up.

    I haven't read anything from him on this particular issue, but I could have missed something in the avalanche of posts (and yet they're criticizing us for writing 20 page rebuttals of their lunacy...) Double-standard is too generous a term to apply to what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jonah said:
    ---
    A few years ago I actually made the big mistake of joining the HBT as a poster (I used a different screen name).
    ---

    And they're already trying to guess who you were.

    Notice that none of them have yet to address an argument? I really don't understand what they're aiming for there, or what they think they accomplish on that blog.

    I know that many times people criticize the T-Bloggers for being blunt and to the point. Thnuh even once said (sarcastically, I presume) something to the effect that you never had to say, "Tell me what you really think" to one of us. I know that's the T-Blog rep.

    But for all the complaining that we're just a bunch of big meanies over here, one thing that you cannot say is that we don't provide arguments for our position. It's plainly obvious that we provide support for our positions, whether you think we are charitable in our defense of it or not.

    BHT on the other hand doesn't provide any arguments at all. In the meantime, I think they're far more cruel than anything that any of the T-Bloggers has ever written. Of course I am biased, being a T-Blogger myself. Even so, I would have no problem presenting my worst post to compare to their best.

    On this blog, Steve and I have now presented several different arguments. They take on every single point that the BHTers try to make. The BHT response is to stick their fingers further into their ears and yell all the louder.

    I'm not sure who that's supposed to impress, but it ain't winning me to their cause, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just went over to BHT. How does anyone track a conversation over there? It's so random.

    Anyways, here's something from the FAQ:

    "Michael Spencer owns and moderates the BHT, but the actual responsibilities are shared by several members."

    As I said above, I-Monk is the stressed out control freak bully-in-charge of Political Correctness run amok. Hence, it's no surprise that Randy retreated to the protective shield of Mother Hen I-Monk's BHT blog. That way he can snipe like a coward from afar. What a wuss.

    Anyways, fwiw, here's the only reference that I can find to I-Monk's wife swimming the Tiber:

    Tuesday, May 06, 2008

    The Whole Story

    Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk) reveals what he's been struggling with over the past year. I'm glad he wrote this, as it gives a lot of personal insight into how my parents probably feel about my move to Catholicism, since I am a preacher's kid.

    The Whole Story: What's Been Happening At Our House
    Update: And plenty of comments here.

    Just after Good Friday, 2007, my wife Denise told me that God had told her to start going to the Roman Catholic church. At the time, we were worshiping with a group of Christians on campus called soli deo after being together in ministry in churches for more than 30 years.

    I didn't react well to that announcement then, and I didn't react well for the last year.

    Tomorrow, my wife Denise has her first class in the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. Sometime in 2009, she will become a Roman Catholic.

    posted by Chad Toney at 8:36 PM

    --------

    But the two links that Chad linked to have been yanked by I-Monk.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Randy McRoberts said, "I don't care to mount an argument." and "arguments don't always matter."

    Here's the argument he mounted before he came to this conclusion:

    "The thing is, Peter, that you don't realize that arguments don't always matter. It's character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care."


    ...and the "Self-Refuting Argument of the Day Award" goes to Randy McRoberts. Congratulations, Randy. If you don't feel that you deserve this award, feel free to pose an argument discussing why.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jonah,

    It's amusing to be called uncharitable when I'm quoting an insult from a rather lengthy insulting post.
    Yes...I'm the one who is uncharitable.

    TU..AD

    What you do here is truly reprehensible.

    It's bad enough to make snide comments about the argument, but to personally try and slander someone and bring their personal life into a conversation, which has nothing to do with their perosnal life, is just slimy gossip-mongering.

    I have lurked through several blog posts over the last year, whenever one of these dust-ups occurs, and guess who is always there ready with slanderous tones and the worst kind of insulting rhetoric?

    none other than Truth Unites...And Divides.

    Funny thing is...I hardly ever read any truth in your comments, but ther is always plenty of division to be had.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The rational nature of man is impressed with arguments only after his feelings have been impressed." - the father of pragmatism, William James

    ReplyDelete
  11. Liza,

    Double standard from you, again.
    Amazing that you can't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Liza, you've just made the point about modern liberals. "I'm tolerant of you as long as you agree with me."

    The corollary is, "When you disagree with me, you're evil, so I have the right to be evil back to you, but when I do it, it's not evil, it's good."

    Make any sense to anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jonah,

    Will you email me please?
    See my email in my profile.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I haven't said anything about what I believe or think...so categorizing me as a "modern liberal" is kind of funny.

    Re: double standard:

    It's not a double standard.

    I have not said one thing about TUAD's family, personal life, problems with kids/spouses/parents/co-workers..etc..all in an attempt to discredit him.

    I also don't pretend to be advancing an argument as a cover for insulting and tearing down other individuals.

    If I'm going to insult someone...it'll be in an honest, direct way that doesn't try to hide behind trite words, false sentiments, or attempting to co-op God as a player on my team.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ho, ho! TUaD, re Spencer's wife, did you know the big Calvinist hero is after all James White, whose sister converted? You can't infer anything about someone just because a family member converts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Liza,

    Your ability to totally misunderstand things is quite remarkable.

    First, I-Monk himself offered the information about his wife swimming the Tiber so that people would understand the difficulties and stress that he's undergoing. Do you understand that?

    Second, because of his disclosure I offered that as a possible reason for the reception that Peter and Steve received from BHT denizens. If the lead guy is an incoherent mess, then it's quite likely that he'll seek out enablers who will mirror and support his blithering confusion.

    HENCE, I'm suggesting that Peter and Steve and all triabloguers factor that into consideration when conversing with any BHT denizen.

    Do you understand that?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Ho, ho! TUaD, re Spencer's wife, did you know the big Calvinist hero is after all James White, whose sister converted? You can't infer anything about someone just because a family member converts."

    Yes, I recently read about that. I've also scanned James White's response to that. Which to his credit he didn't yank, unlike the I-Monk.

    But you draw a faulty conclusion. I wasn't inferring anything that the I-Monk himself didn't explicitly say regarding his wife's conversion and how it affected him.

    Do you understand that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Liza said:
    ---
    It's amusing to be called uncharitable when I'm quoting an insult from a rather lengthy insulting post.
    Yes...I'm the one who is uncharitable.
    ---

    A) You added your own insult.

    B) I've never staked my writing on the claim that we should be charitable. You're the hippocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jonah: "Liza, you've just made the point about modern liberals. "I'm tolerant of you as long as you agree with me."

    The corollary is, "When you disagree with me, you're evil, so I have the right to be evil back to you, but when I do it, it's not evil, it's good."

    Concise and apt summation of Liza's gross hypocrisy. Compounded even worse with her prideful denial of her hypocrisy.

    Seriously, just look at her first comment:

    I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum."

    Liza: "Considering they are one and the same, I have a hard time believing this."

    ReplyDelete
  20. hahaha...gross hypocrisy..prideful denial..hahaha.

    you crack me up.

    I haven't denied anything. I am openly taunting you.

    I used an insult already formulated and added a twist.

    What is hypocrisy is to write:

    I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum....and pretend that it's OK because no cursing was involved.

    Why not honestly say...you have your head up your ass?

    same meaning...but not said because that would be BAD.

    So...it's OK to say the same thing without using the crass, coarse words...because it's all about the words one says and not the intent behind it...right?

    It reminds me of Jesus warning about calling one's brother a fool and impending hellfire.

    I'll admit to that in this case and stop posting...will you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I haven't denied anything."

    It's to your credti that you owned up to your gross hypocrisy.

    "I am openly taunting you."

    Me or Peter or both? You're a self-confessed unloving taunter, eh? To repeat Jonah's earlier statement: "My, my, how uncharitable of you. Aren't we supposed to be loving our enemies?"

    Like what you see in the mirror?

    ReplyDelete
  22. An observation,

    We can't control what other people do, but we do have great influence over our spouse. If a husband is spiritually stable and solidly orthodox (and leads his family consistently with his profession of faith), then such instances as a wife converting to Roman Catholicism would be rare.

    James White, to his defense, probably had little influence on an estranged sister.

    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  23. Liza said:
    ---
    you crack me up
    ---

    Trust me, everyone in here knows you're cracked up.

    Liza said:
    ---
    I haven't denied anything. I am openly taunting you.
    ---

    I though I felt a loving taunt.

    Liza said:
    ---
    What is hypocrisy is to write:

    I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum....and pretend that it's OK because no cursing was involved.
    ---

    Okay, as soon as someone pretends that that's OK because no cursing was involved I'll get back to you.

    Liza said:
    ---
    Why not honestly say...you have your head up your ass?
    ---

    Because "ass" isn't the correct word in that sentence. The appropriate, and therefore "honest", use of the term "ass" is to refer to the animal.

    On the other hand, "rectum" has only one meaning. Ergo, my terminology used the "honest" word and left out all ambiguity.

    Thanks for playing. You can get your parting gift at the door.

    Liza said:
    ---
    same meaning...but not said because that would be BAD.
    ---

    Not the same meaning, although colloqually bastardized (dost ye gasp yet again?) to mean the same. And I've never said using profanity is "bad" anyway.

    However, I respect the rights of those who do think it's bad and don't go out of my way to use profanity, especially when a less ambiguous term supplies the same meaning quite nicely.

    Liza said:
    ---
    So...it's OK to say the same thing without using the crass, coarse words...because it's all about the words one says and not the intent behind it...right?
    ---

    Who exactly are you responding to here? You invented a meaning for a passage, imputed a framework you made up, and are now condemning me for hypocrisy over your hallucination.

    As I said earlier, we already know you're cracked up. You can stop trying to prove it.

    Liza said:
    ---
    It reminds me of Jesus warning about calling one's brother a fool and impending hellfire.
    ---

    In your case, I'd say the use of language isn't why you should be concerned with impending hellfire.

    Liza said:
    ---
    I'll admit to that in this case and stop posting...will you?
    ---

    Will I admit to something you invented as if it were true? To use the only kind of language you seem to understand: Hell no.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Since the fine folks over at BHT have suffered a complete meltdown (despite what you’re thinking, this happened years ago—the effects are merely continuing through today) and do not allow thinking on their blog, it is rather fun to argue with them. It’s not much unlike discussing anything with any other liberal. You give them a fact and they emote. You give them reason, they whine. I did honestly try to see things from their point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

    I should have quoted the above paragraph in my previous comments about I-Monk and his wife swimming the Tiber. It would have given a better context for the rationale of my posting: to simply proffer a reasonable hypothesis as to why BHT is suffering a "complete meltdown".

    Tirian observes: "We can't control what other people do, but we do have great influence over our spouse. If a husband is spiritually stable and solidly orthodox (and leads his family consistently with his profession of faith), then such instances as a wife converting to Roman Catholicism would be rare."

    Tirian, do you this passage might be applicable in the situation you described?

    "But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." (James 1:6-8)

    ReplyDelete

  25. It's amusing to be called uncharitable when I'm quoting an insult from a rather lengthy insulting post.
    Yes...I'm the one who is uncharitable.


    Pity you're a chronic liar, Liza.

    Here's the actual quote from Peter:

    did honestly try to see things from their point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

    Here's your actual post:

    I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

    Considering they are one and the same, I have a hard time believing this.

    Tell us, Liza, where did Peter post that last sentence in his OP. Seriously, I can't find it.

    You see, what makes your post uncharitable isn't the quote, it's the commentary.

    hahaha...gross hypocrisy..prideful denial..hahaha.

    you crack me up.

    I haven't denied anything. I am openly taunting you.

    I used an insult already formulated and added a twist.


    Actually, yes, you DID make a denial, for in the previous post you said

    You wrote:
    It's amusing to be called uncharitable when I'm quoting an insult from a rather lengthy insulting post.
    Yes...I'm the one who is uncharitable.

    Where's the bit about "adding a twist" in that post. I can't find it.

    Your story changes with each passing moment as you add caveats not in the original.

    That, Liza, makes you a chronic liar.

    I have not said one thing about TUAD's family, personal life, problems with kids/spouses/parents/co-workers..etc..all in an attempt to discredit him.


    No, you've just accused TUAD of slandering a person "in an attempt to discredit him." But that's an assertion, not an argument. You haven't demonstrated that TUAD was engaging in "an attempt to discredit Michael."

    And Michael DOES yank posts from time to time. Michael DOES emote. Michael DOES rely heavily on his emotions. He frankly admits that fact. TUAD just chose one example out of several. How, pray tell, is that slander?

    What you've done, rather than approach a brother in love - which is the common refrain at the BHT about the way we should treat other believers - is come out with phasers on full, and that, Liza, is why you are demonstrating a double standard. Stop trying to be the Klingon Chancellor.

    And by the way, the I-Monk and I have a relatively calm and respectful relationship. We don't always agree, but when we do, I appreciate it. He and I came up through SBTS and SEBTS respectively at around the same time and witnessed some of the same shenanigans, so we have some common ground. I actually like Michael, and my reasons for that are personal. He knows I'm not afraid to tell him to dial it back from time to time, because I have; and he's not afraid to tell me the same thing. I can respect that, and I think he respects me. So, I dare you to say that I have no respect for him or have it out for him, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Tirian observes: "We can't control what other people do, but we do have great influence over our spouse. If a husband is spiritually stable and solidly orthodox (and leads his family consistently with his profession of faith), then such instances as a wife converting to Roman Catholicism would be rare."

    TUAD: "Tirian, do you think this passage might be applicable in the situation you described?

    "But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." (James 1:6-8)"

    Tirian: Yes.

    Our humble diagnoses are in agreement with Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If a husband is spiritually stable and solidly orthodox (and leads his family consistently with his profession of faith), then such instances as a wife converting to Roman Catholicism would be rare.

    TUAD, Tirian, conversions from/to RCCism probably have nothing to do with reasoning about beliefs. It's probably due to some gene that controls people's aesthetics: people who remain or convert to Catholicism prefer a high church look and feel, and a mechanistic system of imparting "grace" such as sacramentalism. Protestants prefer a low church feel and a "rationalist" system of imparting grace (imputation/regeneration).

    I predict that within a few decades scientists will discover which gene(s) control this and Catholic and Protestant parents will be able to genetically modify fertilized embryos to insure there are no more cross conversions.

    Bottom line, it all probably boils down to a gut feel that people subsequently build edifices of argumentation and systems on.

    Note I'm not talking about the theism/atheism question, so don't try to tell me I'm in the same boat.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think Thnuh has a point. A lot of the Roman conversions these days happen because the Protestant churches have lost their way, and are "3000 miles wide and one inch deep", as someone has said. Romanism holds a certain mystery for the average uninformed Protestant and therefore when they get sick of easy-believism, they defect. In some cases they defect to "emergentism", in some cases to the Roman church.

    We as the evangelical Protestant church need to take responsibility for this and restore the Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Romanism holds a certain mystery for the average uninformed Protestant and therefore when they get sick of easy-believism, they defect."

    I couldn't agree more. I am completely amazed at anyone who finds Roman Catholic prooftexting at all convincing. Then again, when you don't teach Scripture and exegesis...

    ReplyDelete