Rob Bowman Posted July 28, 2010 Author Posted July 28, 2010 Zerinus,Too bad. I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to make it to exaltation and godhood with an attitude like that. I'm pretty sure that LDS teaching views a proud unwillingness to acknowledge when you have wrongly spoken ill of someone as a serious character flaw.If you point to a specific post that you think I ignored because I didn't have a valid answer to it, I will consider answering it. But I'm not going to take such general and unsubstantiated accusations seriously.LOL! I have nothing to apologize for. What I said was true. You do tend to "flee when the going gets tough," and your posts are often a "hit and run affair". I have observed that in your interactions ever since you came here. When you find that you have no valid answer to a post, you just ignore it and move on to something else. And your threat not to "continue to discuss anything with me" is not a real threat either; because that is what you have been doing anyway when you have no answer to my posts. That was just your clever sleight of hand to continue what you have been doing before. But have no fear. I will continue to reply to your posts, and expose the fallacies of your arguments, even if you choose not to discuss them with me. That will only expose to others that you have no answers to give to them.And by the way, I do find your "Rob and Jo's" Laurel and Hardy act on IRR quite entertaining and amusing. I look forward to the next episode.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 LOL! I have nothing to apologize for. What I said was true. You do tend to "flee when the going gets tough," and your posts are often a "hit and run affair". I have observed that in your interactions ever since you came here. By all means please show us were Rob "hit and runs". This is an offical CFR. You must answer this CFR or retract the statement. If you think Rob has just not responded to something you posted you might try to direct him to the post you feel was over looked. In past exerpianec with Rob, he has always gone back and responded. You can see the 2 or 3 times that Lightbearer or nackhadlow has done this, to which Rob then responds.I have seen some poster do a hit and run, I have not seen Rob do this. I don't often agree with Rob, but I can't stand to see a false accusations being leveled at a guy.
David T Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 May I also respectfully suggest that we let Rob speak for evangelicals, and he let us speak for ourselves?Thanks, -Wade Englund-This is the best post in the entire thread. I think professed Mormons in this thread are doing far more to undermine our collective credibility than Rob ever has.In past exerpianec with Rob, he has always gone back and responded. You can see the 2 or 3 times that Lightbearer or nackhadlow has done this, to which Rob then responds. I have seen some poster do a hit and run, I have not seen Rob do this. I don't often agree with Rob, but I can't stand to see a false accusations being leveled at a guy. Agreed.
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 This is an offical CFR. You must answer this CFR or retract the statement.Well, Rob did flee this thread because he couldn't respond (honestly).
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 May I also respectfully suggest that we let Rob speak for evangelicals, and he let us speak for ourselves?Thanks, -Wade Englund-Well, I guess we need to spread the word.Rob speaks for evangelicals.http://www.outofur.com/archives/2010/07/who_speaks_for.htmlWho knew!
David T Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Well, I guess we need to spread the word.Rob speaks for evangelicals.http://www.outofur.c...speaks_for.htmlWho knew!I'd say a believing, professing, believing evangelical certainly serves as a good representative here on an LDS board, far more than non-evangelical Mormons who may quote-mine and dredge up controversial figures to represent evangelical thought.I'm a fan of Krister Stendahl's rules for religious dialogue, find that they lead to greater mutual understanding, and I hope it's clear that I truly try to apply them in my own discussions: (1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)The first two, I think, are most applicable here.
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Anyone who professes to be an evangelical but rejects the historic evangelical view in favor of some "easy-believism" is not an evangelical.So, by definition then, these guys aren't Evangelicals.Somebody is teaching what Rob denies is being taught."O you teachers, you are responsible for what you have been teaching for years. Explore your heart during your quiet time and see what you have done to the scriptures. Look for your motivation and if it is not Godly then look for your destiny in the bible. It will not be difficult for you to find your destiny in the scriptures. One of them is here: Revelation 22:18-19You teach people that
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I'd say a believing, professing, believing evangelical certainly serves as a good representative here on an LDS board, far more than non-evangelical Mormons who may quote-mine and dredge up controversial figures to represent evangelical thought.Who gets to decide that they are "controversial figures"? I'm a fan of Krister Stendahl's rules for religious dialogue, find that they lead to greater mutual understanding, and I hope it's clear that I truly try to apply them in my own discussions: (1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)I believe you, that you are a fan.But, I think it is rather OBVIOUS that Rob isn't a fan. The first two, I think, are most applicable here.I agree.However, there are times when those who reject the first two, receive what they give. It is an aspect of the law of the harvest, after all.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Well, Rob did flee this thread because he couldn't respond (honestly).One might be able to argue this, however what you 2 were discussing was not a theological debate at this point, but one of a personal nature. And you 2 just disagree and you are much more vocal about it than myself. Not that that is a bad thing. And even you acknowledge that he did respond to you, you qualified it with "not honestly". I was resoponding that Rob has not fled the scene when it comes to anything theological. I have seen him engage on almost every post. And when a person has felt that Rob has missed what they said, he always (to the best of my memory)has gone back and posted comments about it.
Zakuska Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I'd say a believing, professing, believing evangelical certainly serves as a good representative here on an LDS board, far more than non-evangelical Mormons who may quote-mine and dredge up controversial figures to represent evangelical thought.Billy Graham is a "controversial" evangelical figure?Billy Graham is an evangelical worst? WHO KNEW?!
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I was resoponding that Rob has not fled the scene when it comes to anything theological. I have seen him engage on almost every post. And when a person has felt that Rob has missed what they said, he always (to the best of my memory)has gone back and posted comments about it.Well, does this one count?And here is one where his trip to Uganda conveniently "kept" him from responding.Does this one count?http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/48404-romans-43-a-common-grace-proof-text/page__p__1208817819__fromsearch__1#entry1208817819
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Well, does this one count?And here is one where his trip to Uganda conveniently "kept" him from responding.Yes, this is one were he did not respond more than once. And I can't take your comment serious that a trip to Uganda conveniently kept him from responding. I take that as a tounge in cheek comment? I would be very interested if Rob would finish that thread up.
JDave Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 This really is a bit sad. Rob creates a paragraph to describe LDS thought using various quotes from LDS sources. I argue that he selectively used the words of LDS authors to paint a different picture (at least a skewed angle) than what LDS truly believe.Now in a tangential discussion on this same thread, LDS are selectively using quotes from Evangelical sources to paint a picture of evangelicalism that is different from what Rob is describing.Apart from being tangential to the thread, It is hard to argue to Rob that he should be more all inclusive and understanding of the whole picture when various LDS posters are doing the same thing to him.
stemelbow Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I don't see why not responding on occasion equates to hit and run. We all get busy sometimes and are unable to respond let alone log on. And frankly when we take breaks it seems like the conversations die on particular topics so when we return its buried and there does not seem to be much point in responding if we even remember. Such a charge is silly if ya ask me.love,stem
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I don't see why not responding on occasion equates to hit and run. love,stemI agree, and I think that is my point. I am sure that people can find posts were I did not offer a response. Does that mean I am a hit and run poster?
Zakuska Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 This really is a bit sad. Rob creates a paragraph to describe LDS thought using various quotes from LDS sources. I argue that he selectively used the words of LDS authors to paint a different picture (at least a skewed angle) than what LDS truly believe.Now in a tangential discussion on this same thread, LDS are selectively using quotes from Evangelical sources to paint a picture of evangelicalism that is different from what Rob is describing.Apart from being tangential to the thread, It is hard to argue to Rob that he should be more all inclusive and understanding of the whole picture when various LDS posters are doing the same thing to him.What ever happend to... "Whats good for the goose is good for the Gander"?
JDave Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 What ever happend to... "Whats good for the goose is good for the Gander"?What did I describe that was good for anyone?
David T Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 "But he did it first!" - Awesome justification, guys. Way to take the high road.
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 One might be able to argue this, however what you 2 were discussing was not a theological debate at this point, but one of a personal nature. And you 2 just disagree and you are much more vocal about it than myself. Not that that is a bad thing. And even you acknowledge that he did respond to you, you qualified it with "not honestly". I was resoponding that Rob has not fled the scene when it comes to anything theological. I have seen him engage on almost every post. And when a person has felt that Rob has missed what they said, he always (to the best of my memory)has gone back and posted comments about it.Mola,I would also point out that Rob played the "victim" card in that thread, because he, apparently, had no response for post #87. At least he didn't respond to the substance of that post, but jump to claim, and falsely I will add, to be a victim of a "personal attack".
Zakuska Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 "But he did it first!" - Awesome justification, guys. Way to take the high road.Not in the least.You can learn a lot about yourself looking in a mirror. We are just showning Rob the Mirror.
David T Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Not in the least.You can learn a lot about yourself looking in a mirror. We are just showning Rob the Mirror.Because that's proved productive in the past.
Zakuska Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Because that's proved productive in the past.I't not our fault when some people look in a mirror it shatters?!
JDave Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Not in the least.You can learn a lot about yourself looking in a mirror. We are just showning Rob the Mirror.Are you saying that you were intentionally misrepresenting Evangelicalism to either get back at Rob or to show him what it looks and/or feels like?Or are you saing that you didn't realize that you were guilty of the same thing you don't like Rob doing, but that it is a somewhat natural part of these discussions and you were inadvertantly showing the mirror image of Rob's behavior?
Vance Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 This really is a bit sad. Rob creates a paragraph to describe LDS thought using various quotes from LDS sources. I argue that he selectively used the words of LDS authors to paint a different picture (at least a skewed angle) than what LDS truly believe.Yes, that is sad, really sad. Now in a tangential discussion on this same thread, LDS are selectively using quotes from Evangelical sources to paint a picture of evangelicalism that is different from what Rob is describing. I get it now.Rob speaks for Evangelicals and those that disagree with him are controversial and not "real" Evangelicals, because he has defined them out.I don't have a problem with this, now that it has been clarified.PS, Those quotes were not "from Evangelical sources"!Rob has defined them out, so don't you try to put them back in. OK?
Zakuska Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I fail to see how quoting evangelical preacher Billy Graham and other Evangelical preachers interpretations of his preaching = Misrepresenting Evangelicals?Besides... Rob claimed that he doubted very much that anyone was preaching what we claimed they were preaching. So we showed our references and Evangelicals themselves were saying that Billy Graham was preaching exactly what Rob claimed wasn't being preached. And then some how Billy Graham magically gets booted out of the Evangelical camp as a black sheep on a whim, and we are labeled as misrepresenting Evangelicals?! Sheeeeeesh!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.