Recently, probably one of the most abhored persons in the history of Preterism, Roderick Edwards, has a forum at Preterist Cosmos, ran by Dave Green. Here is his latest:
From other FP blogs, comes comments like these about Sam:
“Just one “dumb” question. Who is this infamous Sam Frost, and why should I pay any heed to him anyway?
I never heard of him until I came here and read about Sam says this and Sam says that, and to me, he seems like just another nut case.
Why is he worth refuting?”——- “Unfortunately there are still many people who are not aware of Sam’s inconsistency and since he is someone that continues to post on preterist web sites and has a show on Preterist Radio it’s necessary from time to time for him to be exposed.”
This is, of course, from the DEATHISDEAFEATED site ran by John Scargy.
Fact is, the issues I have brought up about infinity, by MOST of the e-mails and correspondences I have recieved (and that would be a lot), are either okay with what I am saying (indifferent, since they have no problem with the possibility of the world ending), or “I’ll think about it and study” (which is an attitude I always encourage). But, Roderick has been allowed to to do this on a site with my former friends, Dave, Ed, and Mike. And they tolerate it.
You see, I have followed the methodology I have in Preterism when I came into it: presuppositionalism. No one said anything then. I have always preached against “paradox”. No one said anything then. When I start raising questions in Preterism, some (and I a mean a small some) get threatened. Even my former enemies have seen the treatment I have received. It’s not the fact of disagreement. It was how swift it was. Ed, Mike, and Dave IMMEDIATELY came against this issue I raised, and now they are misquoting Aquinas, calling my god “mega hercules”, shaming my credibility (which they didn’t mind when they agreed to have me write with them in the book, which I now regret)…..
Folks, when Roderick Edwards aligns himself with FULL PRETERISTS in AGREEMENT, then you have to know at that point that something is SCREWED UP! Roderick has been the most vicious critic of full preterism to date. And, here, on a once credible FULL PRETERIST SITE, he has STANK UP the pool once again….but that’s not what is shocking. What is shocking is that THEY LET HIM!!!
Dave Green has always chided me for getting on to Dee Dee Warren. He wanted to “keep the peace” and practiced “loving the enemy”. Dave has always garnered some sort of respect over there at Preterist Blog. But now?
This is a blog written from complete frustration and almost complete rejection of the whole damn thing…..
Samuel Frost
With a B.Th., Sam completed a M.A. in Christian Studies; M.A. in Religion, and Th.M. from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida (with combined credits in Hebrew exegesis from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida - and in Greek exegesis from Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee). Author of Full Preterist works, Misplaced Hope, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead and House Divided with Mike Sullivan, Dave Green and Ed Hassertt. Also edited A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary. Samuel M. Frost co-founded Reign of Christ Ministries, and has lectured extensively for over 8 years at Full Preterist conferences, including the Evangelical Theological Society conference, of which he is currently a member. Samuel is ordained, and has functioned as Teaching Pastor at Christ Covenant Church in St. Petersburg, Florida (2002-2005). He helped host the popular debates between Don Preston and Thomas Ice (with Mark Hitchcock) and Don Preston and James B. Jordan. Samuel is widely regarded by many of his peers as being one of the foremost experts on prophecy, apocalypticism, and Preterist theology. He was highly influential in the Full Preterist movement, having been published by Don Preston (Exegetical Essays), footnoted in several Full Preterist works, and authored one Forward, Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes, by Alan Bondar. He has come to denounce his Full Preterist views in 2010 and affirms the historic Christian Faith and orthodoxy. Samuel Frost owns and operates his own business and resides in Florida with his wife Ann Marie, and his children, Janet, Jacob, Hunter, and Olivia. Check out more from Sam.
Sam
Tami Jelinek wrote, “”He who believes in me will never die.” What does that even mean in the mind of the one who teaches that there is no such thing as forever because forever is beyond the mind of his god?”
Man, uncanny. That's right…..I believe God, eternity and people will all end. Wow. Total misunderstanding………..
hal1
This type of “non-response response” straw man argument, seems to be part and parcel with the CC people. JL on PD consistently would reply to something other that what I wrote, to the point to where one time he responded to a sentence I wrote, in which he only got ONE word of the entire sentence correct!!! JS did a similar thing on this website earlier, completely pulling out of context one of my comments. I corrected him, and he was predictably silent! :) Very sad Sam, very sad. Sadder still , is that fact that this is a pattern.
Of course, TJ is the same person who accused us and millions of believers from the time of Moses, the Jews, the first century Christians, and the Fathers, and almost all those up unitl the biblioskeptics of the 1800's, (all those who believed in the Hebrew account of the literal 6-day creation of space, time, and matter) of “denying the cross”….remember that? It's on here in the archives! So it's not suprising that such a person would continue to twist what you write. The inability of these “brothers and sisters” to read what is written is nothing short of pathological.
Let's be charitable and give them the benefit of the doubt, for the umpteenth time, shall we? Perhaps they are suffering from a form of “mass dyslexia”?? LOL!
Sam
Hal,
Lol. Yes. I belive, now, in an end to God, and a “treadmill” view of eternity (which is false, because “treadmill” implies an attribute of quality determined by temporality to eternity, which is logicall false). This has all been a real eye opener. The CC people, who do believe that science gives truth, do posit an end to the universe. Which, would then end the problem. They want to have their cake and eat it, too! The same faction within FP is threatened by what I have presented, and they should be. It undermines their entire ILLOGICAL (oops, I mean, paradoxical) theology. I mean, let's think about it. The Covenant Creationists crowd (and I am not allowed to post on John Scargy's website) have sided up with the Reformed Dave Green crowd, which has reviled Ward Feneley, but yet have joined up with Roderick Edwards…………..they are all sided in the fact that classic theism is wrong. All of them. Strange bedfellows.
A true full preterists sees no threat at all in what I have presented. But, see, this moves the question beyond eschatology. The embracing of “paradox” (a “seeming contradiction to MAN, but not to God”) undermines FP. For, here, “near” may be a “seeming contradiction” to the account of man's estimate of time and God's. And, why not? Is there any real scriptural reason, once we have stated that scripture can reveal what to MAN is a “seeming contradiction”? Once one allows this, FP as a system becomes done and finished on it's insistence of “CONSISTENT (logical) eschatology”.
Sam
I read the “comments” on Preterist Cosmos this morning, which more or less confirmed my suspicions. I think I will support, thank, and stick with the FP who have expressed more Christian kindness. As far as Mike, Dave, and Ed (and Roderick, who now claims I blame him for the whole thing – what an ego), my prayers are with them, but we are clearly no longer on the same page.
Sam
Oh, for those not knowing what I am talking about, please, see for yourself and read the comments here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pretcosmos/
Don't say I didn't warn you.
Jason
Sam, just for the record – I have banned them from responding here. I was actually going to delete Mikes comment, but you beat me to it and left it up. I mean for crying out loud, Mike admitted that he hadn't read the initial article; yet he goes right to responding.
None of this surprises me. This is the same ole pretcosmos that allowed Rod to bash you and Virgil for a long time, even participating in it off and on; which is why I left the list a long time ago.
Nothing has changed.
Same with DID. Scargy boasted in having a ning site that was more open and mature; yet they have continually hurled insults at us since day one; including the latest from a Doug who says he doesn't know you yet calls you a “nutcase”. Real “mature” moderation there by Tami and John, don't you think?
I'm wondering where the “JL is not consistent; JL is not a real preterist” thread is considering he believes in an end as well? Oh, that's right, I forgot; he's in with the Cov. Creation crowd. He gets a pass.
It's just the same ole same ole Sam.
Ed lies about me not apologizing, though I personally called him and apologized last time. Ed goes around on email and lies about me quoting “private emails” in my podcast. And just look at the way they talk about Dr Talbot; a man who basically ignores them. They bash him daily…and Sharon too.
It's disgusting. So again, is it any wonder that Rod hangs out there?
Sam, can I say I told you so? :) They are no different; you just have to be on the receiving end a brief moment to see it, I guess.
Leave em be. They are not worth the time.
Virgil
Okay, I know I am just now rubbing my eyes and waking up to this, but what the heck is going on? Isn't there something more constructive for us to do?
Jean-Pierre Côté
-Mat 5:5 KJV- Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
cwcoty
Amen, JP! Great passage. Easier said that done but clearly our directive. Bless you brother.
Martin
Sam,
I'm sorry to hear that your friendships have been damaged over this.
For what it's worth, I think you present a compelling case for an end to procreation. What opened my eyes to preterism in the first place was the rejection of various contradictions that one must accept (e.g. it's near in God's time not man's) to hold to a future Second Coming. Now some that reject the above time statement contradictions argue that we should accept another contradiction in order to maintain a belief in infinite procreation? If I accept this new contradiction, why not the old one? It all starts to unravel at that point, doesn't it?
I'm looking forward to see how you unfold the implications of an “end” that is distinct from the “end” of the OC in the 1st century.
martin
Jason
Martin, be prepared. You will be called a Talbotite and/or a Frostite. You will be mocked as one who doesn't “think for himself”. Just warning you. ( :
As for “friendship”, I really wonder if it was there to begin with. I mean, I know Sam has spoke very highly of Dave to me on the phone – which is the main reason I have refrained from voicing many things about pretcosmos- but I've always questioned that. I just don't understand how a “friend” does the things he, Ed, and Mike do. When I think of people I love, like Sam, Brandon Littlejohn, James Wolfe, and my long time buddy Cohen, it is exactly because they are my friends that I can not concieve of ever treating them the way Dave, Ed, and Mike do with their “friends”. It just blows my mind.
Just take Sam's statement about the goal of theology being to avoid paradox…it is exactly because I know Sam well, that I know what he meant and what he doesn't mean. And the last thing he meant is what Ed and Tami claim he means. And even if I thought he were saying what they claim he says, I would pick up a phone and ask Sam before blasting him all over the net. I don't consider what they do as “friendship”. I would never do that to a “friend”. Nor would I go around lying about my “friend” supposedly manipulating audios or quoting private emails on a podcast or highjacking my site just because it wouldn't load…all of which I've been accused of by “friends”.
Listen, if that is what friends do, then please, don't be my friend. lol. It
just boggles my mind.
I think the word “friend” is being thrown around too loosely here.
Sam
Thanks to all of you guys. I am not retaliating anymore unless absolutely called for, or unless a position paper is written in an academic sense. Then I will respond in kind. Thanks for the many e-mails and support from Prets and non Prets alike! You all keep teaching me what it means to be gracious and humble – and sorry if I fail at that from time to time.
dustincurlee
Sam,
I'm 11 pages into your thesis/posit. You are stating things that I've been arguing for for about 2 years. And unless you suddenly switch directions in the next 26 pages (I printed it and it was 37 pages) then I'm in total agreement with you.
The reason for the knee-jerk reaction from so many people is because, in my opinion, it shakes the foundation they are standing in. Far too many people, again, in my opinion, have set their feet in concrete, have let it dry, and now defend the ground they are set in; even if it means compromising sound hermeneutical principles and the Scriptures. They are now defending their position and pride rather than saying “Oh, I was wrong.”
Preterism, its hermeneutic, and its conclusions are going to evolve over time. So many great minds are coming along and seeing things. It is a modern day reformation. Praise the Lord!
Be encouraged, brother.
Dustin…
Vinnie Sirois
Hey Dustrin, where can I find this 37 page thesis that gives Sam's view?
dustincurlee
Vinnie,
I went to the original post, copied it, and then pasted it into a Word document. :)
Dustin…
Yeshua23
Hi Dustin, what is the title of the original post?? Thanks for your time. Vinnie
dustincurlee
Vinnie,
http://thereignofchrist.com/full-preterism-and-…
It's incredibly honest, balanced, analytical, and exegetical. It is a force to be reckoned with.
Dustin…
Yeshua23
Thank you for your time and concern, vinnie
Yeshua23
Hey Sam, Just a bit off the subject – was wondering if you still sold or had your 5-CD series on Romans that I could buy from you?? Wanted to buy a few copies of the series. Vinnie
Sam
Vinnie,
Ask Jason. He handles all that.
Again, most who have read my arguement agrees with it, more or less, or have a neutral position. The reaction from the Pret Cosmos gang is extraordinary. Don't think it is the norm.
cwcoty
Vinnie, Sam and Jason, I don't want to overstep my bounds but I have all 5 lectures on my website. You can right click and do a “save as” and DL each. I purchased them a few years ago, so I'll only charge you half of what I paid. :) I passed these on to a bunch of folks. To me they were extraordinarily helpful. Under the traditional understanding much of Romans made little sense. These are worth their weight in cyber-currency. Blessings! Http://www.charlescoty.com/audio2.html. Scroll down and they're on the right side of the matrix.
cwcoty
Martin, where the heck have you been hiding? You're presence here and at SGP has been sorely missed.
hal1
Sam,
Wait a minute. Just to clarify, are you saying that RE now has supposedly decided that Preterism is true, and has already been given a forum on a respected Preterist Website with which to voice his views and to criticize the theology of others? Is that what you are telling me? If so, I have some opinions to share regarding those who leave FP, do what he did and say what he did, and then return.
Thanks,
Hal
Martin
Hi Chuck,
I guess I've been hiding on the other side of the computer screen :). The blog wars (i.e. personal attacks, etc…) tire me out and I tend to lose interest in what is going on. When I saw this new topic on infinity, however, my ears perked up and I tuned in. I was saddened to see that such an interesting topic is the subject of yet another round of blog wars :(.
Hope all is well with you!
martin
hal1
A couple of my Christian friends who practically “live” on the internet, e-mailed me and told me that they see no evidence that RE is claiming to be a Preterist again. He still apparently believes preterists are lost, hell-bound sinners under the wrath of God d/their eschatological beliefs. If they want to let him post on their site as a partial pret or full futurist, as long as the ad-homs aren't continual and the fallacies perpetual, why not?
Now, if he ever claims to become FP again and wants a “forum,” I think some wisdom would dictate some steps be taken, out of love for both RE and the church. But, that apparently isn't the case here, so it's a moot point.
If RE does ever return to FP, I personally would hope that public confession, apologies, and repentance producing fruitful godliness would be required, and a clear understanding of the gospel (which RE does not have at the moment, believing eschatological bent is involved with regeneration) are required.
Anyone can post a “repentant” comment on a website or two, but if the supposedly “repentant” individual then continues ad homs on other sites or postings rather than bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance, it shows a lie, a false repentance. The individual, rather than a godly sorrow that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, had a worldly sorrow that leads to death. And there are some preterists that are “dying” out there. We need to keep praying for and loving our brothers and sisters who are living in the darkness and death of bitterness, wounded pride, anger, resentment, and melancholy hearts.
“'There is melancholy in the wind and sorrow in the grass' (Charles Kuralt)” It saddens me that there is so much melancholy in the church, seen in the evil words which are typed onto website pages. . . . words which show the evil, turmoil, and pain in the heart.
May God especially touch and comfort those members of the body of Christ who are walking in the darkness of anger, resentment, and hatred, and may He break their hard hearts by producing in them a godly sorrow that leads to repentance.
-Hal
Jason
Hal, I don't think that is the case with Rod; he still takes issue with full preterism. But regardless, giving that moron a platform just shows what kind of people the pretcosmos admins are. Apart from the “widow” status, Rod fits 1 Tim 5:13 to a tee.
Ed claims they are cool with folks like Rod posting, as long as they don't personally insult. Ha! Besides the fact that Ed himself blatantly lies about me doing things like obtaining private emails and reading them on Route 66, most of what Rod does is nothing but speculation and soap opera gossip.
But like I said, this “come back” does not suprise me in the least. PC gave Rod a platform for years to continually bash, namely Sam and Virgil. Of which they excuse as “open rebuke” instead of calling it what it really is.
Apparently, PC thinks slander and lies fall under the category of “open rebuke”. Dave Green, once again, puts words in my mouth and claims I am against open rebuke. Not even close to what I said. I'm against people slandering and lying about others; I said nothing about honest correction.
And of course, when you seek to correct these “open to rebuke” men for their mishandlings and lies, do they receive your rebuke!? Nope. Ed just puts his foot down and insists that I did something I didn't do. Dave puts his foot down and insists on putting words in my mouth.
Stay away from them Hal. They are nothing but trouble makers. Life is too short to be dealing with that crap all the time.
Samuelmfrost
Ladies and Gentlemen,
(Martin, Vinnie, great to hear from your guys); I would like to have a definition of what a “personal attack” is. Is critically (and forcefully) disagreeing with a position a “personal attack”? Is quoting someone and then pointing out their error a “personal attack”? Just what is it? Now, if I wrote, “Mr. X is a rude, arrogant S.O.B. who is shooting up heroin” – would that be a “personal attack”? (That has been sent to me in a personal e-mail by a person who I care not to name). I have been accused of motivations, influences, and have had it said that my “god” is a “mega hercules”. Yes, I said “if it smells like and idiot and looks like an idiot is probably is” but I named no specific person(s). Now, I am being told that I did, in fact, refer to particular people as “idiots”. There is a difference between a view being idiotic (non-sequitor) and a person being such. I made that distinction.
And, yes, I said I “regret” writing a book with certain people because I am shocked at the swift misunderstanding of the position I have taken on this. It's only from a handful of people (John Scargy's site, which has me banned anyway because of my anti-gospel young earth creationist view). I opted to leave Pret Cosmos because I do not want to participate in a royal court room setting that demands answers to questions I have answered (whether they think that or not). I did not want to be dropped from the book House Divided, but that is their decision. Do I regret it? Yep.
As I have stated, I have heard from several more that are still friends, and still supportive of what we are doing. Many more have even agreed, and most have simply expressed indifference, not really caring if the earth comes to an end or not. This last aspect actually underscores the point I have been making all along: is it Full Preterist DOGMA to insist on infinite procreation? If not, then it would be perfectly within bounds in the Full Preterist theology to express an eventual “end”. I believe that I have demonstrated that, if one wants to insist on a LOGICAL preterism (not one that advocates paradox). But, see, even here I have been accused of elevating logic above God (even accused of worshipping logic). See, this proves the point that if we were to maintain infinite procreation, we must change our methodological issues (epistemoligical stance) in order to maintain this version of FP. In other words, I would be forced to believe in several things now in order to maintain infinite procreation – things I have NEVER believed in and have NEVER taught while being a FP (and still am). It was at this crossroads that I chose the path I did.
Some have said I have not offered any biblical proof, but I have offered plenty (none of which has been dealt with).
Sure, I would like nothing more than to be reconciled with the party involved. If the present attitudes though do not change, then we simply have to chalk it up to the other millions of splits in Church History. No big deal there. I believe FP is strengthened by what I have argued, and it has invigorated my studies greatly. I just don't jettison off the good creation of God into something he really has no intention of bettering as if the “spiritual” has nothing to do with the good creation. I saw this trend in Covenant Creationism, and am seeing it here among some who call themselves “Reformed” – though, in my opinion, they have moved further from that theology (as I have demonstrated). I new a firestorm would happen. But, in the main, I have maintained and have kept all the wonderful people I have gotten to know over the years. Just a few decided that this particular argument I have made isn't worthy of any discussion or consideration – and I will have to live with those consequences. But, I don't preach and teach to make friends.
Jason
See Hal, I wasn't going to mention anything, but Sam mentioned one: he's been accused of doing heroin. It wasn't sarcasm; it wasn't a joke. It was a serious accusation by an individual who has been defended by “mediators” that haven't the foggiest idea who or what they are defending.
But what can you do? You're in a pickle. You receive crap like this “privately” and your frustrations come out publically. And then people sense your frustration and blow an “idiot” comment way out of proportion, and then travel around the various sites putting you down, having not the foggiest idea what all you have had to put up with “privately”.
I know that certain people mean well in acting as a go-between, but they really have no idea what they're getting into. If Sam made public all the crap that has been said about him, I can just about guarentee people would not be so quick to run over to sites like DID and put Sam down. Heck, you might even gain some respect for the guy knowing that he *could* really expose the fakeness of some people but keeps it to himself.
People have no idea.
Jason
Sam, funny you say that you don't teach to make friends. You've been accused of that at PC; but they never stop to think about the fact that you've held your ground on this issue, knowing some prets wouldn't like it.
So which is it?
It's similar to their charge of me not thinking for myself. Apparently when you agree with them, you think for yourself. But when you disagree with them, you're not thinking for yourself.
lol. Whatever…
Martin
Sam,
I think that anytime someone seeks to undermine the arguer rather than the argument, it is a form of personal attack. It may be subtle or blatant, but it immediately signals to me that the one on the attack is unable to either counter the argument or persuade their opponent.
It seems to me that in the arena of debate, there is rarely an admission of defeat by anyone. For example, how many times has an opponent of Don Preston admitted that Don's logic was overwhelming? It may have happenned, but I haven't seen any such thing posted on Don's website. Instead, many of Don's opponents get quite frustrated by the strength of his arguments and resort to getting ugly instead.
If you can't defeat the logic of an argument, you can get ugly or you can stay beautiful and either walk away or be persuaded. I want to hang out with the beautiful people, lol!
martin
Sharon Nichols
Jason wrote:
You got that right Jason. Actually, you've described the situation perfectly. I know that from personal experience – unfortunately.
Samuelmfrost
Martin,
Yes, we have a way of smuggling in meanings. “Be open minded” means “agree with me, or at least acknowledge my argument is legitimate. “Think outside the box”. “Think for yourself.” All of these expressions are, to me, meaningless. The thing postmodernism has, correctly, noticed is that we do argue with hidden presuppositions. But, Clark was pointing that out four decades ago. As long as we KNOW what we are doing, then that is one thing. To say that we are NOT doing it is another. I know what my suppositions are. I realize and am fully aware of them going into the matter, argument, or text. I spell them out. To me, that is the way to go about it. To begin to question my motives, or that I am under the influence of some chemical or something, or that I have anything else going on other than what I have spelled out, goes beyond the argument presented on paper. Deal with what has been written! Great to see you again, brother.
Sharon Nichols
Here are some of the things I believe can be construed as personal attacks:
I was accused of sacrificing honesty, integrity and logic to win an argument. That I am abusive and dishonest, revering Mother Church over the Word of God, left behind Scripture, a whiner, that my house was once clean but now seven more have come and my state is worse than it was before. That I hid behind semantics and attack former friends to support my new masters. That when I was a FP, I was honorable and caring, but now that I'm not I am dishonest and lack integrity. I am self-righteous and stab friends in the back. I'm guilty of pettiness and have to prove my loyalty to my new handlers. That I am full of pride, a man-pleaser, deceptive and acted reprehensibly by writing a critique of one portion of one chapter in House Divided and that I have betrayed by friends by doing so, which is shameful and disgusting. That I have betrayed my prinicples to fit in with my new handlers, I'm manipulative and hateful. I bash and bully them and was repeatedly told I didn't answer questions (which I already did). (I suppolse their idea of answers is only valid if they accept them!) I was accused of begging and trying to pull on heartstrings when I tried to set the record straight and this was dishonest and I was ignoring of the facts. I was also told not to be a contensious woman. And I was accused of posting lies to multiple websites (a lie) and that I have a fragile ego.
Do those things constitute personal attack?
Jason
Sharon, I'm sorry you have to put up with that. I see how they talk about you and Talbot on pretcosmos and just know that I find it despicable. And then when a person leaves because of the abuse, you're then labeled a coward who *really* left because you can't or won't answer their questions.
Just know and be encouraged that there are prets out there who don't buy it. Of course, this just proves that I've been sucked into Talbotism as well, right? Even though my total time with Talbot would amount to about 30 minutes and that around a year ago.
Whatever…aalol. Stay up, sis.
Sharon Nichols
Hey Jason…. AALOL :o))
Jason
No Sharon, those are not personal attacks. See, the problem is, you seem to be opposed to real, biblical friendship. You seem to be opposed to “open rebuke”. You're just a lovey dovey fuddy dud who is afraid of the “real facts”.
AALOL.
Hey, I was threatened via an email copied to a few folks with a law suit for hijacking a site, simply because the frontpage wouldn't load! Turns out, the host company changed a password for security reasons, as they did to thousands of others, including this site!
Believe me girlfriend, you ain't got to convince me that false accusations happen from that crowd. Haha.
Sharon Nichols
Well, if that is “real” Biblical friendship, then forget it. I'd rather align myself with whoever they consider their enemies! Goodness!
You know, there is such a thing as tough love – the problem starts when the “love” part goes missing in the equation.
Blessings,
Sharon
Sharon Nichols
Jason wrote:
You got that right Jason. Actually, you've described the situation perfectly. I know that from personal experience – unfortunately.
Samuelmfrost
Martin,
Yes, we have a way of smuggling in meanings. “Be open minded” means “agree with me, or at least acknowledge my argument is legitimate. “Think outside the box”. “Think for yourself.” All of these expressions are, to me, meaningless. The thing postmodernism has, correctly, noticed is that we do argue with hidden presuppositions. But, Clark was pointing that out four decades ago. As long as we KNOW what we are doing, then that is one thing. To say that we are NOT doing it is another. I know what my suppositions are. I realize and am fully aware of them going into the matter, argument, or text. I spell them out. To me, that is the way to go about it. To begin to question my motives, or that I am under the influence of some chemical or something, or that I have anything else going on other than what I have spelled out, goes beyond the argument presented on paper. Deal with what has been written! Great to see you again, brother.
Sharon Nichols
Here are some of the things I believe can be construed as personal attacks:
I was accused of sacrificing honesty, integrity and logic to win an argument. That I am abusive and dishonest, revering Mother Church over the Word of God, left behind Scripture, a whiner, that my house was once clean but now seven more have come and my state is worse than it was before. That I hid behind semantics and attack former friends to support my new masters. That when I was a FP, I was honorable and caring, but now that I'm not I am dishonest and lack integrity. I am self-righteous and stab friends in the back. I'm guilty of pettiness and have to prove my loyalty to my new handlers. That I am full of pride, a man-pleaser, deceptive and acted reprehensibly by writing a critique of one portion of one chapter in House Divided and that I have betrayed by friends by doing so, which is shameful and disgusting. That I have betrayed my prinicples to fit in with my new handlers, I'm manipulative and hateful. I bash and bully them and was repeatedly told I didn't answer questions (which I already did). (I suppolse their idea of answers is only valid if they accept them!) I was accused of begging and trying to pull on heartstrings when I tried to set the record straight and this was dishonest and I was ignoring of the facts. I was also told not to be a contensious woman. And I was accused of posting lies to multiple websites (a lie) and that I have a fragile ego.
Do those things constitute personal attack?
Jason
Sharon, I'm sorry you have to put up with that. I see how they talk about you and Talbot on pretcosmos and just know that I find it despicable. And then when a person leaves because of the abuse, you're then labeled a coward who *really* left because you can't or won't answer their questions.
Just know and be encouraged that there are prets out there who don't buy it. Of course, this just proves that I've been sucked into Talbotism as well, right? Even though my total time with Talbot would amount to about 30 minutes and that around a year ago.
Whatever…aalol. Stay up, sis.
Sharon Nichols
Hey Jason…. AALOL :o))
Jason
No Sharon, those are not personal attacks. See, the problem is, you seem to be opposed to real, biblical friendship. You seem to be opposed to “open rebuke”. You're just a lovey dovey fuddy dud who is afraid of the “real facts”.
AALOL.
Hey, I was threatened via an email copied to a few folks with a law suit for hijacking a site, simply because the frontpage wouldn't load! Turns out, the host company changed a password for security reasons, as they did to thousands of others, including this site!
Believe me girlfriend, you ain't got to convince me that false accusations happen from that crowd. Haha.
Sharon Nichols
Well, if that is “real” Biblical friendship, then forget it. I'd rather align myself with whoever they consider their enemies! Goodness!
You know, there is such a thing as tough love – the problem starts when the “love” part goes missing in the equation.
Blessings,
Sharon