Pages

Friday, March 05, 2010

Freewill idol

bossmanham said...

1.The primary problem with Hays' analysis is that it’s crucially disanalogous. For Arminians make no attempt to say we are not totally reliant on God. To the contrary, Arminianism accentuates the need of God for human agents.

Except for the awkward little fact that Birch belittled the idea that we are totally dependent on God. That was in his own words.

Hays' analysis would only work for non-Christians like Hitchens.

It works for Birth.

2.Moreover, it’s a very telling reflection on Hays' word twisting ambiguity that he would say that Arminian piety mocks the idea that human beings are totally dependent on God. "It’s crucially disanalogous."

Once again, I was responding to Birch on his own terms–verbatim.

3.Furthermore, to say that Arminians demand their “free will idol over God's sovereignty” is imputing a Calvinistic characterization of Arminianism to Arminians. That’s hardly an accurate characterization of how Arminians view Arminianism. As such, that’s hardly an accurate sentiment to attribute to Arminians.

Since I didn’t say, in response to Birth, that Arminians demand their “freewill idol over God’s sovereignty,” Brennon is falsely imputing to me an ascription that I never made.

4.Finally, Calvinists are not content to be imago dei bearing volitional agents. Rather, they have a stipulative definition of what human nature ought to be like. Indeed, Hays tips his hand with the business about “shemales” and "responsibility" in a car wreck experiment.

i) He’d need to exegete the concept of “volitional agent” from the Biblical usage of the imago dei.

ii) Calvinists don’t deny that human beings are volitional agents.

iii) I didn’t say anything about a “car wreck experiment” in my response to Birch.

In fact, the biggest problem we see in Calvinism is their redefinition of “Sovereignty."

Nice instance of begging the question.

“It's fun to play ad lib with Steve Hays.”

Except that Brennon made false representations of what I said. Is that his idea of fun? Yet another example of Arminian ethics in action.

Unfortunately, this is all-to-typical of the lynch-mob mentality that Arminian epologists exhibit. They only love their own kind.

55 comments:

  1. Unfortunately, this is all-to-typical of the lynch-mob mentality that Arminian epologists exhibit.

    Pot meet kettle.

    The enemy: Catholics, Arminians, Anybody who is not Calvinist like me.

    Tactics: Belittle them, call them stupid, question their character and motives, write disgusting essays riddled with sexual innuendo and then...have the audacity to accuse others of 'lynch mob' mentality.

    Conclusion: Wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don’t pretend that Arminian apologists are any exception. Every apologist for every theological tradition acts as though the distinctives of his particular tradition all-important. He treats the debate as a battle to the death. Take no prisoners. Give no quarter to the enemy.

    Whether the apologist happens to be Catholic, Lutheran, Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist, Orthodox–you name it–there’s no trace of ecumenicity in how he defends his own tradition and opposes every rival tradition.

    Moreover, don’t pretend that Arminian apologists are paragons of civility and charity. They use exactly the same tactics as everyone else. Sometimes worse.

    Same thing with Catholic apologists in spades.

    By your blind partisanship, you corroborate my point.

    Conclusion: Wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

    As for my recent posting on Catholicism,
    i) The Catholic reaction proved my point. For Catholics, there are two kinds of women: nuns, and all the rest.

    They idolize nuns. Nuns are off-limits.

    But if it were just a normal, garden-variety woman–like a wife and mother–no such fulminations would be forthcoming.

    So that, of itself, illustrates the problem.

    ii) In addition, my first satire was spoofing a pope who used to whip himself to draw closer to Jesus.

    Well, if you think it’s commendable for a pope to whip himself as a spiritual exercise, then why get offended at the (imaginary) spectacle of a nun whipping a pope as a spiritual exercise?

    Conversely, if you think that’s outrageous, then you should find self-flagellation equally outrageous.

    iii) And my second satire was spoofing Armstrong's own (mis-)appropriation of a Bible verse. He was the one, not me, who cited a verse on sackcloth to justify self-flagellation as a spiritual exercise.

    I began by pointing out that, on a standard interpretation, that had reference to a bare-breasted mourner.

    So if he thinks that “command” is applicable to modern-day Christians–which was, after all, the way he chose to use this text, then why should he wax indignant when I apply it to (imaginary) nuns?

    He’s like a man who becomes very irate when he stares at an inkblot. “How dare you show me that tasteless picture!”

    But, of course, I’m just responding to him on his own terms. So why get so agitated?

    Then he and Alex also go on and on about masturbation. Well, since they’re the ones who are clearly obsessed about the subject, since they keep bringing it up, over and over again, what does that say about *them*?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don’t pretend that Arminian apologists are any exception.

    What does this have to do with your conduct?

    He treats the debate as a battle to the death. Take no prisoners. Give no quarter to the enemy.

    There are many apologists who manage to 'battle' without stooping to the levels that you have stooped.

    Whether the apologist happens to be Catholic, Lutheran, Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist, Orthodox–you name it–there’s no trace of ecumenicity in how he defends his own tradition and opposes every rival tradition.

    I've read countless apologists from almost every persuasion you mention who somehow manage to hold onto basic Christian charity while aptly defending their traditions.

    Only a special sort like yourself reaches so low as to paint images of Christian women as dominitrixes and refer to other Christians as the 'enemy' because they understand the minutia of the mechanics of salvation differently than you.

    Moreover, don’t pretend that Arminian apologists are paragons of civility and charity.

    And what does this have to do with the way you conduct yourself Mr. Hays?

    i) The Catholic reaction proved my point. For Catholics, there are two kinds of women: nuns, and all the rest.

    They idolize nuns. Nuns are off-limits.


    I am not Catholic but after reading the comments in those threads you completely miss the point. The reaction would have been exactly the same had you posted the same material about Catholic women, or Christian women, or Mormon women, or Muslim women.
    But if it were just a normal, garden-variety woman–like a wife and mother–no such fulminations would be forthcoming.

    I am sorry, I must have missed where you posted sexual insults about 'garden variety' women. Maybe you should do that and gauge the reaction?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also have to point out that this blog has a member who is not even a Calvinist who posts regularly. Somehow, I doubt you'll ever see a Calvinist contributor to Arminian Chronicles. That sort of goes against the "Anybody who is not a Calvinist like me" claim.

    Likewise, it's not like Calvinism is our only, or even primary, issue here. The majority of our discussions deal with other topics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wristwatcher posted again before my post posted (erm, yeah, I don't feel like editing that). I think he needs to look up the word "hypocrisy" and think about his own complaint for a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While we are critiquing tone, your own comments could be put more tactfully, Wristwatcher80. Your first comment here looks more like a cheap jab than a loving rebuke, which is what you should probably be aiming for if you actually wanted to turn this into anything other than an ad hominem back and forth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While we are critiquing tone, your own comments could be put more tactfully, Wristwatcher80.

    And I agree with that. I posted that after reading this thread, some preceding ones and the 'nun' ones and didn't respond with my concerns appropriately.

    I apologize.

    What I should have said was: Steve. This tone and the tone exhibited in other posts is devoid of Christian charity and is a mockery to the oneness of the Body of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  8. WRISTWATCHER80 SAID:

    “What does this have to do with your conduct?”

    It demonstrates your insincerity.

    Moreover, I reject your unscriptural standards.

    “There are many apologists who manage to 'battle' without stooping to the levels that you have stooped.”

    Assuming what you need to prove.

    “I've read countless apologists from almost every persuasion you mention who somehow manage to hold onto basic Christian charity while aptly defending their traditions.”

    You’re very selective. And the Bible is far from uniformly charitable.

    “Only a special sort like yourself reaches so low as to paint images of Christian women as dominitrixes.”

    i) I didn’t “paint images” of Christian women. Rather, I satirized fictitious members of religious orders.

    ii) Moreover, the Bible itself uses graphic (female) sexual imagery as a metaphor for apostasy. For starters, just read Ezk 16 & 23.

    That goes far beyond anything I did. So you can spare me your mock pious indignation. I’m not impressed with people who affect to be more pious than the Bible.

    “…and refer to other Christians as the 'enemy' because they understand the minutia of the mechanics of salvation differently than you.”

    Of course, if you were really oh-so ecumenical, you’d hardly exhibit all this hostility towards a Reformed blogger–to the exclusion of other theological bloggers who resort to all manner of invective. So your lopsided outrage is yet another instance of your fundamental dishonesty.

    “The reaction would have been exactly the same had you posted the same material about Catholic women, or Christian women, or Mormon women, or Muslim women.”

    Really? Do Catholic bishops and Catholic laymen routinely protest, say, Italian films which depict ordinary women as loose women? Feel free to point me to all the news coverage of these mass protests.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of course, if you were really oh-so ecumenical, you’d hardly exhibit all this hostility towards a Reformed blogger–to the exclusion of other theological bloggers who resort to all manner of invective. So your lopsided outrage is yet another instance of your fundamental dishonesty.

    And how do you know that I exclude other theological bloggers when they veer off into the direction that you have taken this blog? While I have been saddened by the tone of other Christian blogs lately your posts take the cake. But that doesn't mean I have not made similar criticisms to others.

    Really? Do Catholic bishops and Catholic laymen routinely protest, say, Italian films which depict ordinary women as loose women? Feel free to point me to all the news coverage of these mass protests.

    I am pretty certain, although not positive, that the Catholic Church does not condone the depiction of women in the films you describe.

    It would be nice if the Catholic Church (or the Reformed Church or the Arminian Churches).

    The absence of 'mass protest' does not equal not caring or condoning.

    I was recently exposed to JP2's theology of the body and it is very tough on how our sexuality should be geared towards marriage and away from sin/carnal lust.

    Or what about Humane Vitae? It stresses that the acceptance of birth control is related to the sexual objectification of women.

    Those texts don't only apply to nuns, unless you care to correct me. So, unless you can produce Catholic teaching about sexuality that objectifies women who are not nuns than you are just at best mocking and at worst lying.

    And, before others jump on me for trying to hold Mr. Hays accountable...please read his recent series about dominitrixes and nuns first. And then ask yourself, 'Is this the sort of indignation that scripture demonstrates?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I’d also note that WRISTWATCHER80 blew past the explanations. So, for example, he’s offended by a satire of masochistic piety, but he’s not offended by actual masochistic piety (papal self-flagellation). He passes that over in silence. No biggie.

    So all he cares about are appearances, not reality. Etiquette rather than ethics.

    Likewise, I pointed out that Dave Armstrong is the one who pointed to a topless mourner as a role-model. Well, if you think that’s appropriate, then why wax indignant if I apply that same line of reasoning to a convent?

    But WRISTWATCHER80 simply emotes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. wristwatcher80 said...

    "I was recently exposed to JP2's theology of the body and it is very tough on how our sexuality should be geared towards marriage and away from sin/carnal lust."

    He wasn't very tough on sexual predators in the priesthood. Once again, all you care about are words, not reality.

    ReplyDelete
  12. WRISTWATCHER80 SAID:

    And, before others jump on me for trying to hold Mr. Hays accountable...please read his recent series about dominitrixes and nuns first. And then ask yourself, 'Is this the sort of indignation that scripture demonstrates?

    ************************

    When was the last time you read Ezk 16 or Ezk 23?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve.

    Your first response to me was, "Hey, look at Arminian bloggers and how they act!"

    Now your response is, "You don't care about reality, only words."

    Can you say that it honestly has not occurred to you that you are at least somewhat in the wrong? Or is that simply not a possibility? Are you beyond reproach? Are you proud of everything you have written on this blog over the past several months?

    For the record, self flaggelation is misguided and an abuse I am sure. I am also sure that the abuse in the Catholic Church was a horrible injustice, this topic especially has drawn much anger from my mouth.

    ...but none of this excuses you from what you are doing here.

    You can point fingers and claim that your mockery is really piety. You can make your jokes and call other Christians the 'enemy' while at the same time comparing your devicive words to holy scripture but I don't think its fooling anybody.

    I am surpised that you are so indignant that people are offended by you. You write this stuff. You put your name on it. You post it for the world to see. Maybe you should grow thicker skin if you want to be an important theologlical figure?

    ReplyDelete
  14. WRISTWATCHER80 SAID:

    "...comparing your devicive words to holy scripture but I don't think its fooling anybody."

    Let's see. This is how you started off:

    "disgusting essays riddled with sexual innuendo..."

    How does that compare with Ezk 16 or 23?

    "There are many apologists who manage to 'battle' without stooping to the levels that you have stooped."

    How does that compare with Ezk 16 or 23?

    "I've read countless apologists from almost every persuasion you mention who somehow manage to hold onto basic Christian charity while aptly defending their traditions."

    How does that compare with Ezk 16 or 23?

    "Only a special sort like yourself reaches so low as to paint images of Christian women as dominitrixes..."

    How does that compare with Ezk 16 or 23?

    "Can you say that it honestly has not occurred to you that you are at least somewhat in the wrong? Or is that simply not a possibility? Are you beyond reproach? Are you proud of everything you have written on this blog over the past several months?"

    Which conveniently stops at the doorstep of your own strictures.

    "...call other Christians the 'enemy'"

    It wouldn't hurt you to master the concept of a metaphor, including martial metaphors.

    "I am surpised that you are so indignant that people are offended by you."

    You're projecting.

    "...if you want to be an important theologlical figure?"

    I have no grand ambitions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. wristwatcher80 said:
    "And, before others jump on me for trying to hold Mr. Hays accountable...please read his recent series about dominitrixes and nuns first. And then ask yourself, 'Is this the sort of indignation that scripture demonstrates?"

    Me:
    As Steve has already pointed out, you cannot read the Old Testament (or the NT, e.g. Jude) without noticing that the various authors do in fact use the rhetoric of derision toward pagans and heretics.

    Nuns are representatives of a false religion. And no, Romanism is NOT simply another version of Christianity. It is a Christianized paganism. It is not just because it adds human merit to the work of Christ (i.e. that which is ANATHEMATIZED by Paul in Gal 1), but it is also because of its egregious idolatry (i.e. something that also condemns one to eternal damnation).

    Could the offense that you mention have been avoided for the sake of the gospel? Yes. But the rhetoric of derision isn't necessarily wrong.

    Secondly, most of the Arminians that Steve and the readers of this blog debate usually liken the Calvinist 'conception of God' to the Devil.

    But to the Calvinist, the Calvinist 'conception of God' IS God.

    Thus, the Arminian mocker has simply committed BLASPHEMY. So, sometimes the Arminian deserves what is coming his way as well.

    Is it better to, at times, simply pat the Arminian on the head rather than whacking him upside the head? Yes. But sometimes they just have it coming for them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Saint and Sinner writes: "As Steve has already pointed out, you cannot read the Old Testament (or the NT, e.g. Jude) without noticing that the various authors do in fact use the rhetoric of derision toward pagans and heretics."

    I think that's the most honest route to take. How do you "lovingly" tell someone they're going to Hell, anyhow?

    If you really think someone's ideas, beliefs (and maybe even actions) are enough to send them to a cold, dark abyss for all eternity, why the formalities of being "polite"?

    Modern Christianity has really been Oprah-fied.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sure Steve.

    I guess you have license to say anything you want about other Christians and feel good about it because of the specific narratives in Ezk 16 or 23.

    Do you tell your children that they can be bullies at school because of Ezk 16 or 23?

    Do you teach your sons to call women whores that they don't agree with because of Ezk 16 or 23?

    Pitiful.

    Fred Phelps justifies himself in the same way.

    Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

    Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

    Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).

    With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. James 3:9-12

    ReplyDelete
  18. By the way...in case you didn't notice.

    The one giving judgment about Israel in Ezekiel is God Almighty. Not Steve Hays.

    ReplyDelete
  19. WRISTWATCHER80 SAID:

    “I guess you have license to say anything you want about other Christians and feel good about it because of the specific narratives in Ezk 16 or 23.”

    i) It’s called answering you on your own terms. You were the one who expressed disapproval of “sexual innuendo.”

    But when I cite Biblical examples (indeed, “innuendo” would be an understatement for what we find in Ezekiel), you backpeddle and change the subject. Another symptom of your chronic dissimulation throughout this exchange.

    If you were an honest and honorable critic, you’d concede that I’d answered you on your own terms and withdraw the objection. The fact that you persist just goes to show that your stated reason wasn’t your real reason.

    ii) And, yes, I think Biblical discourse sets the standard for Christian discourse. But, of course, you’re a legalist who is so better than the Bible.

    But if you spurn the standard of Scripture, then what do you put in its place? Do you look to the world? Is MTV your standard of Christian discourse?

    “Pitiful.”

    What is pitiful is the way you abandon the terms of your original objection and then try to change the subject without admitting your error.

    “Fred Phelps justifies himself in the same way.”

    You then demonstrate your Christian “civility” by indulging in defamatory comparisons.

    Not doubt it would be asking too much of you to emulate the virtues that you are so quick to urge on others.

    “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).”

    That’s a good example of how you abuse scripture. In context, it refers to the fact that a Christian shouldn’t retaliate if he’s wronged by someone else.

    Well, I’ve never been wronged by popes or priests or monks or nuns. So this is hardly an exercise in personal retribution on my part.

    But you don’t care what the Bible verse really means. You’re just casting about for something to justify your prejudice.

    And, like a typical hypocrite, you denounce others for being judgmental while you yourself are quintessentially judgmental in the process.

    “By the way...in case you didn't notice. The one giving judgment about Israel in Ezekiel is God Almighty. Not Steve Hays.”

    By the way…in case you didn’t notice, the Bible obligates Christians to judge false teachers and false teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How man of you to delete comments like that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I held you to the terms of your original argument. Since you can't debate in good faith when you are answered on your own grounds, you're wasting my time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve,

    I'll pray for you. You are obviously a bitter, angry and hateful man.

    ReplyDelete
  23. wristwatcher80 said...

    "I'll pray for you. You are obviously a bitter, angry and hateful man."

    Statements like that unwittingly reveal the attitude of the speaker.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ha. thats rich.

    And your statements about nuns being dominatrixes are just like scripture!

    Here is what you don't know Steve Hays.

    I know you. We go to church together. This whole thing is going to be brought up publicly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Since Tblog is already a public medium, there's nothing to "bring up in public. But thanks for the hollow threat.

    And I'm sure that PCA elders will be fascinated to learn that core differences in Catholic and Reformed soteriology merely represent the "minutia of the mechanics of salvation."

    They'll also be fascinated to learn how much you admire the theology of Pope John-Paul II.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rob Zechman said:
    "If you really think someone's ideas, beliefs (and maybe even actions) are enough to send them to a cold, dark abyss for all eternity, why the formalities of being "polite"?"

    Me:
    That's NOT what I said. I never said that using such rhetoric is for *all* unbelievers.

    However, it is for some.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Methinks that wristwatcher80 is a soon-to-be convert to Romanism.

    His love for JP2 may be a symptom.

    We saw this with Francis Beckwith in his blog posts defending Romanism before he came out and proclaimed that he was a convert.

    Pray for him, and pray that all Christian brethren here would be reconciled.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Steve,
    These are some comments you made about Michael Spencer back in 2005 (from "Liar! Liar!"; December 2005):

    ***********************
    "The fact that Spencer has become so jaded that he edits out R-rated vulgarity, but allows PG-rated vulgarity to slide on by is symptomatic of personal decadence which parallels the cultural decadence."

    "In addition, Spencer also allows R-rated vulgarity to be posted as long it is thinly disguised under the transparent ploy of wink-wink abbreviations."

    "BTW, if I were the moderator of a group-blog, and I had to keep editing out the R-rated language of my junior bloggers, I would take that as a pretty good indication that they were too immature to be blogging on a Christian weblog in the first place."

    "As I recall, Turk only used vulgarity in quoting one of his critics. As I made clear in my original, qualified statement, my objection is not to the usage of vulgarity (obscenity/profanity) under any and all circumstances, but where it is used in a worldly, braggadocio fashion."
    *********************
    In light of the above comments and the fact that you've used a good deal of vulgar humour recently in your posts on nuns and the Pope, are we to conclude that you've changed your views on the "appropriate" use of vulgarity? If so, what changed? If not, how would you escape the charge that you've used vulgarity (obscenity/profanity) in a worldly and/or braggadocio fashion?

    ReplyDelete
  29. One more quick quote of yours from 2007:

    "I’m curious about Evangelicals who flaunt bad language. Who go out of their way to be obscene or scatological. Who are quite self-conscious in their use of vulgarity."

    "I wonder what they’re trying to prove. Is it just to show how hip they are? How they don’t suffer from Victorian hang-ups?"

    "Why do they think this is a good witness? Or do they even care?"

    ReplyDelete
  30. I didn't use R-rated language. Rather, I used sexual metaphors to symbolize heterodoxy or heteropraxy. The Bible, itself, uses sexual metaphors the same way (e.g. spiritual adultery/prostitution).

    Are you suggesting that stock biblical imagery is out of bounds? Should we gag the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I wouldn't be the least surprised if Wristwatcher80 turned out to be simply another lying Romanist.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yes, the Bible uses plenty of course language. Yet you've been critical of believers who've used it in the combox and even banned (or at least threatened to ban) individuals for using coded profanity. When they alluded to scriptural usage of obscenity to justify themselves, you appear to have just waved it away.

    A reference to the Pope being spanked by "Carmelite dominatrices" (a clear allusion to sadism-masochism) is more R rated than the word a__h___ . Yet you've taken people to task for the using the latter on your blog, while justifying your use of the former.

    How is the lewd sexualization of a non-sexual practice (so far as we all know) for the purpose of getting a laugh not the very sort of "worldly" behavior you've decried in the past?

    There are no dirty jokes in the Bible, are there?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I never admonished anyone for using Biblical language. Indeed, I've repeatedly defended that practice.

    And, predictably, you're not offended by self-flagellation. You're only offended by a satire of self-flagellation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. And, even in quoting me, you had to quote my qualifications:

    "As I recall, Turk only used vulgarity in quoting one of his critics. As I made clear in my original, qualified statement, my objection is not to the usage of vulgarity (obscenity/profanity) under any and all circumstances, but where it is used in a worldly, braggadocio fashion."

    ReplyDelete
  35. I also don't think it's appropriate to revisit the Michael Spencer thread at this time, given the medical situation which he and his family are coping with. That wasn't in play that the time I raised the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It seems you've made dirty jokes out of one side of your mouth and out of the other you've condemned those who've used--in coded form even--some of the 7 or so words that church culture has decided are off limits--though this is rapidly changing, as you know.

    So how do you decide what constitutes obscenity?

    "And, predictably, you're not offended by self-flagellation. You're only offended by a satire of self-flagellation."
    Please don't presume to know something about me that I haven't told you. Let's stay on the relevant topic.

    My opinion (on self-mortification) has nothing to do with whether you're conduct is consistent with your words.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Didn't see your last comment. I'll desist.

    However, the other quote has nothing to do with Michael Spencer, so this could go on without reference to him.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "And, even in quoting me, you had to quote my qualifications..."

    You've never made your qualifications explicit.

    When is it okay to crack a crude joke?

    ReplyDelete
  39. You've rigged the answer by the way you've framed the answer. To begin with, satire isn't reducible to telling a "joke." Rather, it's an ironic way of making a serious point.

    I used a masochistic metaphor to satirize a masochistic practice. The nature of the metaphor suits the nature of the practice. Isn't that obvious?

    And there's plenty of Scriptural precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I used a masochistic metaphor to satirize a masochistic practice. The nature of the metaphor suits the nature of the practice. Isn't that obvious?"

    Since you're in no position to know whether the individual engaged in self-mortification derives sexual pleasure from it, your blanket claim that self-mortification is interchangeable with masochism strikes me as intellectually irresponsible.

    But maybe I've misread you. If so, please let me know...

    ReplyDelete
  41. JEN H. SAID:

    "Since you're in no position to know whether the individual engaged in self-mortification derives sexual pleasure from it, your blanket claim that self-mortification is interchangeable with masochism strikes me as intellectually irresponsible."

    What's intellectually irresponsible is your idiosyncratic definition of masochism, which arbitrarily narrows the semantic range to sexual pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jen H. said...

    "It looks like a double standard. What am I missing?"

    You're missing the rudimentary distinction between the gratuitous use of sexual metaphors (or R-rated language), and a purposeful use.

    Likewise, there's a difference between degrading imagery for the sake of degradation, and degrading imagery to make a worthwhile point.

    Try to keep more than one idea in your head a time. It greatly facilitates rational and moral discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "What's intellectually irresponsible is your idiosyncratic definition of masochism, which arbitrarily narrows the semantic range to sexual pleasure."
    You made allusions to dominatices and "Girls Gone Wild". This is an obvious and purposeful sexualization of a (so far as you know) non-sexual practice (as I already said above). So, I was merely indexing my usage of the term "masochistic" to yours.
    Even if I were to grant your point that you've been using the term to refer non-sexual pleasure, it changes not one wit my original point, which has nothing to do with the meaning of "masochistic" and everything to do with presuming to know what you don't. I'll ammend the original as follows:
    "Since you're in no position to know whether the individual engaged in self-mortification derives pleasure from it, your blanket claim that self-mortification is interchangeable with masochism strikes me as intellectually irresponsible."

    ReplyDelete
  44. In this context it's the self-infliction of pain and suffering for (imaginary) spiritual gain.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "You're missing the rudimentary distinction between the gratuitous use of sexual metaphors (or R-rated language), and a purposeful use."

    Yes, obviously I'm missing the dinstinction you make, which is why I've asked you over and over to explain how you make the distinction.

    "Likewise, there's a difference between degrading imagery for the sake of degradation, and degrading imagery to make a worthwhile point."

    What about the guy who used degrading sexual imagry to characterize your apologetic method. I'm sure he thought he was making a worthwile point. So why did you delete it?

    ReplyDelete
  46. "In this context it's the self-infliction of pain and suffering for (imaginary) spiritual gain."

    The intent is spiritual growth (maybe that is what you meant by "gain"). I know your views on this, but since there is no clear biblical principal being violated, how do you know that the practice can not lead to spiritual growth in some cases? Fasting too, for that matter. Once again, you presume to know what you can't. What works for one individual may not for another. Isn't that a reasonable principle to apply here, in the interest of charity?

    ReplyDelete
  47. i) To begin with, you suffer from an unhealthy preoccupation with this issue.

    It's rather ironic, really. You, as well as Catholic critics (of which you may or may not be one) feign disapproval while, at the same time, being utterly obsessed. I did two little posts. And I've been posting on other subjects since then.

    ii) There is also a difference between carping critics and constructive critics. And I've already given you a lot more attention than the question merits.

    iii) Moreover, I don't owe anyone an explanation for what I choose to delete. Everyone is free to start his own blog and talk about whatever tickles his fancy. This isn't a platform for someone else to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. Rather, Tblog exists to expresses the viewpoints of the various team members. We allow a lot of feedback here, but at the end of the day we control the agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jen H. said...

    "The intent is spiritual growth (maybe that is what you meant by "gain"). I know your views on this, but since there is no clear biblical principal being violated."

    Self-harm to accrue supererogatory merit (or other eccentricities of Catholic dogma) represents a gross distortion of Christian redemption.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "To begin with, you suffer from an unhealthy preoccupation with this issue."

    What issue? Consistency?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sexual metaphors, for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Peter Pike wrote:

    I also have to point out that this blog has a member who is not even a Calvinist who posts regularly.

    I didn't know that. Good for you guys. Just curious though, would your Arminian (or non-Calvinist) contributor be allowed to write posts arguing against Calvinism? If not, that weakens your point quite a bit in my opinion.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ben,

    Do you have Calvinist team members at Arminian Perspectives who argue against Arminian theology?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Steve wrote,

    Do you have Calvinist team members at Arminian Perspectives who argue against Arminian theology?

    Nope. But I am not the one who said this either:

    I also have to point out that this blog has a member who is not even a Calvinist who posts regularly. Somehow, I doubt you'll ever see a Calvinist contributor to Arminian Chronicles. That sort of goes against the "Anybody who is not a Calvinist like me" claim.

    Like I said, it is great that you have a non-Calvinist on board, but if you don't allow him to argue against Calvinism then I don't see how Pike's point is very strong.

    But let's suppose you did let him post against Calvinism; would you treat him the same way as you treat Arminians who post on their own sites against Calvinism? I suppose we will never find out.

    BTW, is there a reason why Peter cannot answer for himself?

    ReplyDelete
  54. ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:

    "But let's suppose you did let him post against Calvinism; would you treat him the same way as you treat Arminians who post on their own sites against Calvinism?"

    How I treat Arminians depends (up to a point) on how they treat Calvinists who post on their own sites against Arminianism.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How I treat Arminians depends (up to a point) on how they treat Calvinists who post on their own sites against Arminianism.


    I guess I will just have to take you at your word on that, and I will take that as a reminder to be as gracious as possible with those who disagree with me at my site.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete