Made a BIG Mistake Visiting Revival Meeting

[rsc2a]

I've never read an entire book by Bishop Spong, but I'm certain of what he is, and so is anybody with a pulse and a brain cell.  Now dismiss with the ad hominem and deal with the substance of what I've said.  Or just continue to be rsc2obtuse, as it suits you well.

Actually, you aren't certain of what he is. If you haven't actually engaged in something he personally said and/or wrote, you are certain of what other people claim he is. If you are going to be critical of him (or Miller) then, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to actually look at his own writings. You know...primary sources.

So far, I haven't seen where you've actually criticized anything that Miller has written, only thrown out blanket statements and buzzwords without any type of engagement with his thoughts whatsoever. As was stated previously by another poster:

[Convenient Label] like [person whose ideas differ from mine] is/are [predetermined flaw in Convenient Label's thinking].

You never have to engage in differing opinions OR be challenged!

Labels are helpful.  Paul used labels all the time, like "wolves", "foolish" and such.  You don't like dogma.  Miller doesn't like dogma.  Birds of a feather.

I'm fine with dogma. In fact, I can faithfully acknowledge that I accept the all of the "faith that was once delivered unto the saints" as expressed in the ecumenical creeds, quite unlike some people who post here...

That doesn't change the fact that you still haven't engaged with anything Miller has said, instead only calling him names. Since, if you had anything of substance to critique regarding his actual writings you would present that something, I can only assume that you have nothing and would rather accuse a brother than understand him.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'm fine with dogma. In fact, I can faithfully acknowledge that I accept the all of the "faith that was once delivered unto the saints" as expressed in the ecumenical creeds, quite unlike some people who post here...

lol, again you prove that your reliance on things extra-biblical show your lack of reliance on Sola Scriptura.

That doesn't change the fact that you still haven't engaged with anything Miller has said, instead only calling him names. Since, if you had anything of substance to critique regarding his actual writings you would present that something, I can only assume that you have nothing and would rather accuse a brother than understand him.

You've already established that you won't hear any critique of Miller other than a primary source analysis.  You've intentionally set up conditions for our discussion that are self-defeating.  That's how you roll.  There is ample evidence of what Miller is on the net, like this...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/green-like-puke-donald-millers.html

Any reasonable person can read for themselves and see what he is.  I've never been to Joel Osteen's church, or read any of his books either, but I know he's a promoter of a defective gospel from what others have cited about his very own words.  Go set your childish traps and play your sophomoric games somewhere else.  The fact that you'd even defend Miller's postmodern pablum shows what kind of sophist you are.

 

[subllibrm]

I'm fine with dogma. In fact, I can faithfully acknowledge that I accept the all of the "faith that was once delivered unto the saints" as expressed in the ecumenical creeds, quite unlike some people who post here...

lol, again you prove that your reliance on things extra-biblical show your lack of reliance on Sola Scriptura.

That doesn't change the fact that you still haven't engaged with anything Miller has said, instead only calling him names. Since, if you had anything of substance to critique regarding his actual writings you would present that something, I can only assume that you have nothing and would rather accuse a brother than understand him.

You've already established that you won't hear any critique of Miller other than a primary source analysis.  You've intentionally set up conditions for our discussion that are self-defeating.  That's how you roll.  There is ample evidence of what Miller is on the net, like this...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/green-like-puke-donald-millers.html

Any reasonable person can read for themselves and see what he is.  I've never been to Joel Osteen's church, or read any of his books either, but I know he's a promoter of a defective gospel from what others have cited about his very own words.  Go set your childish traps and play your sophomoric games somewhere else.  The fact that you'd even defend Miller's postmodern pablum shows what kind of sophist you are.

I have no idea who the two of you are arguing about but I did go to your link. The author there is also unknown to me. That said, I read this paragraph:

"On page 103 of Blue Like Jazz, Miller basically says that Christianity is not an intellectual issue for him any more because he has grown past that. According to him, having an intelligent, rational discussion and debate about the existence of God is pretty much a waste of time because doing so amounts only to a display of arrogance and ego since it reveals who the smartest debater is. To be fair, this can be true as far as it goes, but not all debaters are the same since some love the truth and believe they are obligated to defend it. In the context of this discuss Miller then says, "Who knows anything anyway?" There are a few obvious problems with a statement like this:"

Without going to the actual page 103 how do I know that I can trust this man's account of the content there? "... Miller basically says ..." followed by not any quotes but by what the reviewer says Miller "basically" said. Then when he finally gets done parsing the page to his satisfaction, he provides an apparently damning quote. This is the same technique used in political op-eds all of which I take with a grain of salt.

So is Miller all that you make him out to be? Very well could be and I suspect that I would find myself with you and "Dusman" (again, whoever he is) on the subject. But to say that this blog entry is more than enough evidence for you to make an informed decision (ala Osteen) on the subject is pretty weak sauce. Whatever it is it does not qualify as scholarship on your part.

Now if you want to find another critic who takes on page 103 with full quotes and context (as opposed to context as Dusman says it is) and comes to the same or similar conclusion, then I will find that much more convincing. Better than that would be for you to do the review and critic yourself (which is of course what rsc2a challenged to begin with). I would trust your critique if presented with full quotes and context but I do not trust criticism that is based on "... (he/she) basically says ...". That is Rush Limbaugh argumentation 101. In the mean time Mr. "Dusman" leaves me with the sense that his critique is not much deeper than the criticism of Lancaster Baptist using Getty music in their ministry.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm fine with dogma. In fact, I can faithfully acknowledge that I accept the all of the "faith that was once delivered unto the saints" as expressed in the ecumenical creeds, quite unlike some people who post here...

lol, again you prove that your reliance on things extra-biblical show your lack of reliance on Sola Scriptura.

So you solely rely on sola scriptura? Please do tell me where in Scripture the exact books to be included and excluded is mentioned?

Or perhaps you can acknowledge that you do, in fact, reject the dogma that "was once delivered unto the saints" as recognized by the vast majority of the Church across the expanse of time and space, dogma that I readily accept...in short, you were mouthing off and got called on it.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

That doesn't change the fact that you still haven't engaged with anything Miller has said, instead only calling him names. Since, if you had anything of substance to critique regarding his actual writings you would present that something, I can only assume that you have nothing and would rather accuse a brother than understand him.

You've already established that you won't hear any critique of Miller other than a primary source analysis.  You've intentionally set up conditions for our discussion that are self-defeating.  That's how you roll.[/quote]

Yup. I've established that pretty firmly. You are not critiquing Miller if you continue to refuse to engage in primary source analysis. You are critiquing what other people say about him. That is quite different. And, it's not self-defeating conditions. All you have to do is actually read what someone writes before you choose to slam him for it. Yes...that's how I roll. I believe one should actually be informed about a topic before they start accusing others in regards to that topic.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]There is ample evidence of what Miller is on the net, like this...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/green-like-puke-donald-millers.html[/quote]

"green like puke"? And you expect me to take this as a reasonable critique of Miller's writing?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Any reasonable person can read for themselves and see what he is.  I've never been to Joel Osteen's church, or read any of his books either, but I know he's a promoter of a defective gospel from what others have cited about his very own words. [/quote]

I assume you've heard some of his preaching. If you are, in fact, basing your views of Osteen solely on what others have said about him, then you only know what others say about him. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Go set your childish traps and play your sophomoric games somewhere else.  The fact that you'd even defend Miller's postmodern pablum shows what kind of sophist you are.[/quote]

You stick with name calling and call me a sophist while actively accusing the brethren. Yeah...I think I'm fine with that.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=subllibrm]I have no idea who the two of you are arguing about but I did go to your link. The author there is also unknown to me. That said, I read this paragraph:

"On page 103 of Blue Like Jazz, Miller basically says that Christianity is not an intellectual issue for him any more because he has grown past that. According to him, having an intelligent, rational discussion and debate about the existence of God is pretty much a waste of time because doing so amounts only to a display of arrogance and ego since it reveals who the smartest debater is. To be fair, this can be true as far as it goes, but not all debaters are the same since some love the truth and believe they are obligated to defend it. In the context of this discuss Miller then says, "Who knows anything anyway?" There are a few obvious problems with a statement like this:"

Without going to the actual page 103 how do I know that I can trust this man's account of the content there? "... Miller basically says ..." followed by not any quotes but by what the reviewer says Miller "basically" said. Then when he finally gets done parsing the page to his satisfaction, he provides an apparently damning quote. This is the same technique used in political op-eds all of which I take with a grain of salt.[/quote]


http://books.google.com/books?id=fNC3fdxYgZMC&lpg=PA172&dq=blue%20like%20jazz%20ego&pg=PA103#v=snippet&q=intellectual&f=false

 

[christundivided]

Miller basically says that Christianity is not an intellectual issue for him any more because he has grown past that. According to him, having an intelligent, rational discussion and debate about the existence of God is pretty much a waste of time because doing so amounts only to a display of arrogance and ego since it reveals who the smartest debater is.

You know.... it really is amazing how ignorant you two really are.... (rsca and sillybrm)

You don't have the slightest ability to put two and two together to make anything.....

Paul's entire ministry was based on preaching the intellectual existence of God. It is impossible for either of you to have study any theology what.... so.... ever and not have come to such an conclusion.

Alayman..... its really not worth the time dealing with the willingly ignorant.

 

[ALAYMAN]

... You are not critiquing Miller if you continue to refuse to engage in primary source analysis. You are critiquing what other people say about him. That is quite different. And, it's not self-defeating conditions. All you have to do is actually read what someone writes before you choose to slam him for it. Yes...that's how I roll. I believe one should actually be informed about a topic before they start accusing others in regards to that topic.

You say that a person can't be informed about a subject unless they read primary sources.  That's ridiculous and you know it.  Is it best to read the primary source and evaluate it for one's self?  No doubt.  But to say that a person can't take reliable secondary sources and their citations as evidentiary is just wrong.  But the sad part is that you admit <again> in this most recent snippet that you don't consider any critique of Miller valid unless I have read him personally.  That means that anything I offer via secondary critiques will be by default excluded from your consideration, so it's a self-defeating challenge.

I assume you've heard some of his preaching. If you are, in fact, basing your views of Osteen solely on what others have said about him, then you only know what others say about him. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

What isn't hard to grasp is that you set up all sorts of false tests that make you think you're a super-genius.  Yes, I've listened to him preach, but if I never heard a sermon, and only listened to his interviews where he bungles the gospel, or if I only read what reliable critics wrote through his own quotes in context, it would be sufficient to form an opinion.

 

[ALAYMAN]

... But to say that this blog entry is more than enough evidence...

I didn't say that.  I said that there's ample evidence on the web which reveals Millers affinity for the postmodern/relativistic mindset.  It's there, with a simple google search, for any objective person to see for themselves.  If you want me to supply the links I'd be glad to do so, but just understand that part of the POMO way of doing things lends itself to the practice of nailing jello to the wall.

 

[rsc2a]

... You are not critiquing Miller if you continue to refuse to engage in primary source analysis. You are critiquing what other people say about him. That is quite different. And, it's not self-defeating conditions. All you have to do is actually read what someone writes before you choose to slam him for it. Yes...that's how I roll. I believe one should actually be informed about a topic before they start accusing others in regards to that topic.

You say that a person can't be informed about a subject unless they read primary sources.  That's ridiculous and you know it.  Is it best to read the primary source and evaluate it for one's self?  No doubt.  But to say that a person can't take reliable secondary sources and their citations as evidentiary is just wrong.  But the sad part is that you admit <again> in this most recent snippet that you don't consider any critique of Miller valid unless I have read him personally.  That means that anything I offer via secondary critiques will be by default excluded from your consideration, so it's a self-defeating challenge.

I assume you've heard some of his preaching. If you are, in fact, basing your views of Osteen solely on what others have said about him, then you only know what others say about him. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

What isn't hard to grasp is that you set up all sorts of false tests that make you think you're a super-genius.  Yes, I've listened to him preach, but if I never heard a sermon, and only listened to his interviews where he bungles the gospel, or if I only read what reliable  critics wrote through his own quotes in context, it would be sufficient to form an opinion.

 

[Frag]

So, the Baptist Church around the corner from my house is having revival meetings. The speaker is the son of a pastor I knew for about 15 years. So, I took my two eldest, one of their friends, and we went last night to hear what he had to say. This, and a tun of old friends were there to see the preacher, so it was kind of nice to catch up with old faces. I kind of expected a half decent message ....

What a BIG mistake.

He ranted and hooted about the "old stuff" that Churches are casting away. Old music mentioning the blood. Old KJV "inspired" Bibles. Old this and old that. He said Christian's need to stand by and protect that old stuff ... bla bla bla. He yelled and hooted and screeched 50+ minutes of nothingness. His text was so off base it wasn't funny. His message was filled with false assumptions .... at one point he said he was against drama ministries in the Church .... and yet his delivery and preaching style was all drama in my book. He made this one loud comment, "The day it is okay for ME (a 300+ lb preacher) to wear a tutu and dance in Church ... i'll be okay for the young girls dancing in Church ... after all, it is all about the younger girl's dancing .... bla bla bla"

It was bad. The whole place was yelling out AMEN and PREACH ON PREACHER!

Oh ... yes ... I did bring a ESV Bible to the meeting.  8)

What a waste if time .... and then my poor wife had to listen to me go on and on about how wrong he was and why .... lol

Timmy, I had a word of knowledge.  God has obviously prepared you for a great work!

You should spend every night of your life attending revival meetings around the country, then report back each day telling us how YOU would have done it differently.  THAT IS OBVIOUSLY YOUR GIFT!!!!

I will anxiously await your next insightful critic..... 

 

[Frag]

This thread smacks of....


"God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican."

I thought you were going to say DOEG!


;D

DOEG!!!


I hate it when someone beats me to it!!!

 

[subllibrm]

... But to say that this blog entry is more than enough evidence...

I didn't say that.  I said that there's ample evidence on the web which reveals Millers affinity for the postmodern/relativistic mindset.  It's there, with a simple google search, for any objective person to see for themselves.  If you want me to supply the links I'd be glad to do so, but just understand that part of the POMO way of doing things lends itself to the practice of nailing jello to the wall.

Of the ample evidence available you could have chosen a better example. That was all I was getting at.

And I agree the guy is a first rate navel gazer.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

While hooting and hollering about the KJV, he also said that the punctuation from the King James was inspired and preserved .... "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" he quoted ....

Makes me want to yell out "IT ALREADY HAS BEEN FULFILLED WITH CHRIST!" (after the roar of ignorant people yelling "AMEN" or "PREACH ON!")

Wonder what would happen ....

I take it the loue instead of love and hee instead of he in the 1611 is also inspired, huh?!!?!?!?!?!!?>

 

[ALAYMAN]

... But to say that this blog entry is more than enough evidence...

I didn't say that.  I said that there's ample evidence on the web which reveals Millers affinity for the postmodern/relativistic mindset.  It's there, with a simple google search, for any objective person to see for themselves.  If you want me to supply the links I'd be glad to do so, but just understand that part of the POMO way of doing things lends itself to the practice of nailing jello to the wall.

Of the ample evidence available you could have chosen a better example. That was all I was getting at.

And I agree the guy is a first rate navel gazer.

I can accept that as a valid criticism.  I guess I just really never figure there would be much if any challenge to the squishiness of Miller from "fundamentalist" Christians.

 

[ddgently]

I can accept that as a valid criticism.  I guess I just really never figure there would be much if any challenge to the squishiness of Miller from "fundamentalist" Christians.

You didn't bank on so many non-fundamentalist Christians moving into the neighborhood!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Is "Doeg" a secret password or something?  Does it have some meaning besides Doeg the Edomite? 

 

[prophet]

Is "Doeg" a secret password or something?  Does it have some meaning besides Doeg the Edomite?

Nope, that's about it.  It means: traitor and idiot.

Anishinaabe