Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[UnTraditional]

MB, ministers are not higher than we are. All are ministers in Christ, part of the royal priesthood. The fact is, he did do wrong by adding to the Word what is not there, and yes, doing so is sin. If anything, we must call men of God to accountability for doing so. Heaven and Hell are way too serious to play with.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It wasn't that quick, because if I do lurk, I'm not here for long. Dragging his comments over here to have the wagons circle is what I don't like about his place anymore. It wasn't necessary to do it that way. You didn't have to say a "pastor from FB" or however you worded it. That is where some of the disrespect is making people not interested to participate.

I would like many people to come back, but I know they won't. No one wants pellets raining down on them all day. It's just a waste of time.

I would think that we all have made mistakes where we realize we have no right to point out, aggressively, the errors/faults/opinions of others.

Discussing the passage would have been enough. But, IMO, you are the one that made it personal. And I don't mean to offend, because I do like you. It's just that while we are on the subject, we might as well lay the cards on the table and - well - read them. LOL!

Yes, it was very quick. Admin can tell you the time of the post and the time it was removed. I'm guessing less than 2 minutes? Either way, that was my bad for the 1 or 2 that may have viewed the thread with his name.

I tried to make an attempt to NOT make it personal.

If I have on consolation, it's that I should have not quoted him verbatim. I guess. But either way, someone, somewhere will relate it. It wasn't personal until he rode in on his horse announcing himself. Otherwise, it was a nameless pastor who posted something on FB.

And I like you too, btw...

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

MB, ministers are not higher than we are. All are ministers in Christ, part of the royal priesthood. The fact is, he did do wrong by adding to the Word what is not there, and yes, doing so is sin. If anything, we must call men of God to accountability for doing so. Heaven and Hell are way too serious to play with.

I didn't say anything at all about RM being a minister. I didn't even know who he was until I read this thread and looked him up on fb. Respectful discourse means presenting your views as persuasively as possible without personally attacking your opponent. That's it. That's all I'm proposing.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Yes, it was very quick. Admin can tell you the time of the post and the time it was removed. I'm guessing less than 2 minutes? Either way, that was my bad for the 1 or 2 that may have viewed the thread with his name.

I tried to make an attempt to NOT make it personal.

If I have on consolation, it's that I should have not quoted him verbatim. I guess. But either way, someone, somewhere will relate it. It wasn't personal until he rode in on his horse announcing himself. Otherwise, it was a nameless pastor who posted something on FB.

I did happen to actually catch the name, but even without it, I knew who you were speaking of. So, really, I think the personal onus is on you. Guess you better man up, huh? LOL! Although can a "Socialite" be a man? Are you a man? I hate to slap a woman. I'd have to revert to hair pulling. Now, that really hurts ya know. Just want to get that straightened out.

And I think that Rob has exhibited himself as a fine gentleman the whole way. Kudos to Rob!

And I like you too, btw...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Flaming:

"Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users."

In other words: Comments that only serve to insult the opponent rather than contribute to the conversation.

Examples of flaming on this thread:









The above are examples of comments that are only intended to insult and not to contribute to a healthy discussion or debate, e.g., "flaming." Comments that show zero respect for the opponent's views, and an air of superiority about the infallibility of one's own views.



UnTraditional, we could say that about anyone whose interpretation differs from ours. It isn't your place to bring another Christian "to account"; only to persuade them to a more excellent way, assuming you believe your understanding constitutes a more excellent understanding. Bro. McKee certainly didn't do ANYTHING wrong or sinful by posting his understanding or application of a parable, and it's a ludicrous suggestion to make.

Well, thank you, Your Honor, for at least including RM in the evidence.

(I jest)

Context is needed on most of those remarks you cited, and not all of those were directly said to RM. This was a spirited discussion about the way people play "willy nilly" with the Text.

And calling the opening "FACTS" from RM "bologna" isn't flaming -- at least as far as I'm concerned. Those scriptures were "flaming." They were irrelevant, except he was trying to say we "believed a lie and were damned." They served no other purpose. So let's not play "poor Rob." We are all grown men and women.

This was not the worst example of AFF threads. Far from it. Some words got exchanged. I mean what I say about "raping the Word of God" and won't say it any other way. If the Text mirrors our creative thought and not the original intent, that's just what it is.

He isn't just "sharing his interpretation" and by saying it like that, you are giving him too much credit for his posting.

Like Rob always says, outside the exchange of words, I'd gladly have a late-night, post-Sunday night burger with him any day. Chances of that happening are slim, but I'd be willing. We all will get along better in person (well most of us), and that's the impersonal nature of computers. I am truly sorry he was directly dragged into this. His FB page turns into good fodder for discussion -- I'll come up with creative ways in the future to bring that over here, but I don't feel any reason to stop.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I did happen to actually catch the name, but even without it, I knew who you were speaking of. So, really, I think the personal onus is on you. Guess you better man up, huh? LOL! Although can a "Socialite" be a man? Are you a man? I hate to slap a woman. I'd have to revert to hair pulling. Now, that really hurts ya know. Just want to get that straightened out.

And I think that Rob has exhibited himself as a fine gentleman the whole way. Kudos to Rob!

Usually, he is... or at least I think so. Don't know him... but not on this thread.

There's not a full-proof way to talk about a sermon, remarks, someone's post or blog without someone knowing who they are. If they hate criticism that bad, go private. There's no work-around. The point was, though, that the post sans a name would may be more about the idea of interpretation, the story of the Lost Son and Apo's habits of shedding exegetical preaching for creative oration, would have somehow been a discussion on its own. This served as an illustration.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Flaming:

"Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users."

In other words: Comments that only serve to insult the opponent rather than contribute to the conversation.

Examples of flaming on this thread:




















The above are examples of comments that are only intended to insult and not to contribute to a healthy discussion or debate, e.g., "flaming." Comments that show zero respect for the opponent's views, and an air of superiority about the infallibility of one's own views.



UnTraditional, we could say that about anyone whose interpretation differs from ours. It isn't your place to bring another Christian "to account"; only to persuade them to a more excellent way, assuming you believe your understanding constitutes a more excellent understanding. Bro. McKee certainly didn't do ANYTHING wrong or sinful by posting his understanding or application of a parable, and it's a ludicrous suggestion to make.

Good thing we have the thought police to tell us what is relevant.

Perhaps a pin prick will allow you to fit in your hats again.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well, thank you, Your Honor, for at least including RM in the evidence.

(I jest)

Context is needed on most of those remarks you cited, and not all of those were directly said to RM. This was a spirited discussion about the way people play "willy nilly" with the Text.

And calling the opening "FACTS" from RM "bologna" isn't flaming -- at least as far as I'm concerned. Those scriptures were "flaming." They were irrelevant, except he was trying to say we "believed a lie and were damned." They served no other purpose. So let's not play "poor Rob." We are all grown men and women.

This was not the worst example of AFF threads. Far from it. Some words got exchanged. I mean what I say about "raping the Word of God" and won't say it any other way. If the Text mirrors our creative thought and not the original intent, that's just what it is.

He isn't just "sharing his interpretation" and by saying it like that, you are giving him too much credit for his posting.

Like Rob always says, outside the exchange of words, I'd gladly have a late-night, post-Sunday night burger with him any day. Chances of that happening are slim, but I'd be willing. We all will get along better in person (well most of us), and that's the impersonal nature of computers. I am truly sorry he was directly dragged into this. His FB page turns into good fodder for discussion -- I'll come up with creative ways in the future to bring that over here, but I don't feel any reason to stop.

Socialite, this is very subjective. It was my overall impression that once RM arrived, instead of being respected, he was dissed. You asked to prove that point, and I did (show where I got that impression). If you will read back, I ALSO defended your right to post a blurb anonymously for discussion. As PO pointed out, it wasn't anonymous at first, but you did quickly decide to make it that way, which was a wise decision.

You asked; I answered. I don't intend to argue each statement into the ground, but obviously I wasn't alone in my impression overall.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Usually, he is... or at least I think so. Don't know him... but not on this thread.

There's not a full-proof way to talk about a sermon, remarks, someone's post or blog without someone knowing who they are. If they hate criticism that bad, go private. There's no work-around. The point was, though, that the post sans a name would may be more about the idea of interpretation, the story of the Lost Son and Apo's habits of shedding exegetical preaching for creative oration, would have somehow been a discussion on its own. This served as an illustration.

Well, I suppose what you are saying, in bold, is, for the most part, probably true.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Socialite, this is very subjective. It was my overall impression that once RM arrived, instead of being respected, he was dissed. You asked to prove that point, and I did (show where I got that impression). If you will read back, I ALSO defended your right to post a blurb anonymously for discussion. As PO pointed out, it wasn't anonymous at first, but you did quickly decide to make it that way, which was a wise decision.

You asked; I answered. I don't intend to argue each statement into the ground, but obviously I wasn't alone in my impression overall.

RM set the tone, MB.

I can't think of any ad hominems. Most of the back-and-forth was passionate debate about protecting the original meaning of scripture. Secondly, it was about correcting a poor exegesis out of one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. Was it our most graceful discourse? Nah... but the way you made it sound was as if RM was the poor victim, who was smiling and graceful and got dissed. That simply wasn't the case.