Opinions on Billy Graham

[Cerebrum123]

Then I'm glad for you that you're a Christian. I would hate for anyone to go through life with such a negative view of everything. Most of the people I meet and engage with every day are awesome. Sometimes quirky (like CP), sometimes acerbic (like Adrift), sometimes borderline certifiable (like MM), but each one has something unique to offer, and each one brings something to the table. The truly evil people of the world are comparatively rare. But we do have a tendency, these days, to paint those who do not agree with us in the colors of "the enemy" or "evil" or "bad." That much is a bit disappointing.

at the underlined.

You don't get out much do you? Adrift is probably one of the least "acerbic" people on TWeb.

[carpedm9587]

What is being "deep right" have to do with something that is generally a theological concept? As I've explained to you a number of times now, one's political views does not inform one's theological views. I don't know why you constantly get this mixed up.

What made you think my "deep right" was a political statement? There are progressive, liberals, conservatives in politics, religion, economics, etc. My statement was about conservative (i.e., right) religious views. Perhaps it is not my confusion - but your interpretation?

But more the point, it doesn't matter whether or not you've specifically discussed the term "sinful nature". If people here really thought we were all "morally debased, corrupt, hopeless beings completely dependent on god for any smidgen of goodness", something would have alerted you about that way before now. But people don't generally talk like that on this forum. They never have as far as I'm aware. I have to believe you know that, and were just making that accusation up to screw in a point or something.

No - and I've explained why I brought it up. But you are apparently predisposed to believe I'm not being honest, so ...

It's difficult to have a conversation, Adrift, with someone who doesn't believe what you say.

I'm discussing how most churches in most places that I'm aware of have used this rule. Even Billy Graham himself was occasionally alone with women that weren't his wife under certain circumstances. It's a general guideline, not a set in stone commandment. You've exaggerated the whole concept and function of the guideline into something radically bizarre and impractical, and not at all how it's used in real life as far as I know. Your local preacher isn't wringing his hands every time a female steps into an elevator with him.

Adrift, before I entered into the discussion, I looked up the rule. There is a description of it here. When I looked it up, I found the following definition:

The Billy Graham rule or Pence rule is a practice among male Protestant Christian leaders, in which they avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. It is named after Billy Graham, the most notable proponent of the practice.

There is no indication of exceptions here. The rule is stated absolutely. I have not exaggerated anything. THAT was the rule I was responding to. I have also said, several times now, it appears we are discussing different things. My objection is to this rule as stated, for the reasons I stated. I have, several times, indicated where I think people are justified to take reasonable precautions. If you are not using the rule that way, then what I am saying doesn't apply to you. It seems, increasingly, that we are probably actually agreeing violently. But I'm sure, somewhere along the line, I'll be told I'm "walking something back" or "being disengenuous." It does get a bit tedious.

Yes... I know... I can go post elsewhere...

I didn't say you know it. I said that you are smart enough to know it.

I appreciate your clarification. When someone's reasoning has jumped the rails, if they are a rational person generally, they are typically not aware of the flaw. I am sure I hold positions based on flawed reasoning. We all do.

Oh, would you stop with this constant whine? If this forum drives you so nutty with constant accusations of walking things back and being dishonest/disingenuous, then stop walking things back, being dishonest/disingenuous. Or, you know, stop posting here. I mean, it's not like anyone is holding a knife to your neck. Maybe, just maybe, if so many people see something about your posting style...there's something to it. Maybe it really is you, and not the rest of the forum.

As you said in a previous post, I think I can make my own decisions about when/where I'm inclined to post. Your suggestion is noted. Meanwhile, if I find an approach people are taking to our discussion to be inane, I'm going to point it out. If that strikes you as "whining," so be it. I know when I'm whining - and I'm not. I AM challenging people to take their discussion to a less inane level. It doesn't happen with everyone and in every discussion. It happens frequently enough to be a trend - more with some than others.

This was a lot of keystrokes spilled to tell me things I'm already aware of because you've repeated it on the forum a number of times. Sometimes you want to sway people to your way of seeing things, and that's all I meant when I said, "I don't think you want to evangelize necessarily (though you do seem to want to do a little of that)".

I do tend to spill a lot of ink...

I'm not a minister or counselor.

That surprises me. Sorry for the incorrect assumption.

It is not nearly at the level it once was when you were last posting here. If you find the debate here still too contentious, see my above advice.

See my response...

Nah, I think I've gotten to the "why" pretty well using the methods I employ.

Then we are at an impasse. Your "why," with regards to me, is way off the mark. Unfortunately, since you have apparently decided I am dishonest/disengenuous, you are not likely to accept that, locking you into an incorrect perception you cannot escape. That is regrettable.

Give me something different to go on, and I'll reassess your character. I can only work with what you've offered.

I have offered my thoughts, my insights, my humor (now and again), an occasional flare of temper (ask CP). I have pretty much presented myself here as I am. If that is not satisfactory to you...

What I will NOT do is paint a false persona to satisfy someone else's wants/needs. So, I am who I am. I leave it to you to decide how/if you want to engage.

[Cow Poke]

I appreciate the quote, 37, and it has been posted by others. My approach is to abstain from all reasonable appearances of evil. ...

Again, with the redefinitions. "Reasonable", of course, being whatever you, a pinko commie leftist* pretending to be a centrist, want it to mean.




*yeah, a tad facetiousicalistic

[guacamole]

A variation of the Graham rule is common practice in any kind of social service work, be it education, foster care, etc. For teachers it's, "Don't be alone with a single student in a closed room. Don't drive them anywhere alone in your car. Don't meet them outside of school." Etc. People have been fired for less in my district. It protects teachers, students, and the district from false claims and legitimate ones.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Cow Poke]

A variation of the Graham rule is common practice in any kind of social service work, be it education, foster care, etc. For teachers it's, "Don't be alone with a single student in a closed room. Don't drive them anywhere alone in your car. Don't meet them outside of school." Etc. People have been fired for less in my district. It protects teachers, students, and the district from false claims and legitimate ones.

fwiw,
guacamole

If the Catholic Church had used that principle over the past several decades....

[Adrift]

What made you think my "deep right" was a political statement? There are progressive, liberals, conservatives in politics, religion, economics, etc. My statement was about conservative (i.e., right) religious views. Perhaps it is not my confusion - but your interpretation?

Huh? People are definitely not deep right theologically here. In the 10+ years I've been here I can only think of a handful of Christians who could ever be described that way. A couple JKV-Onlyists, maybe Jorge, and a few others. I mean, this place isn't any sort of theologically far left haven either, but it definitely has more posters who likely lean towards the middle, or middle-right of the spectrum than anything. It's probably an even split as far as posters who hold views like TE. The average Christian here probably also leans less right than most mainstream Evangelicals on issues like soteriology, hell, inerrancy, ecumenism and the like.

No - and I've explained why I brought it up. But you are apparently predisposed to believe I'm not being honest, so ...

Yeah

It's difficult to have a conversation, Adrift, with someone who doesn't believe what you say.

That's not my problem.

Adrift, before I entered into the discussion, I looked up the rule. There is a description of it here. When I looked it up, I found the following definition:

The Billy Graham rule or Pence rule is a practice among male Protestant Christian leaders, in which they avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. It is named after Billy Graham, the most notable proponent of the practice.

There is no indication of exceptions here. The rule is stated absolutely. I have not exaggerated anything. THAT was the rule I was responding to. I have also said, several times now, it appears we are discussing different things. My objection is to this rule as stated, for the reasons I stated. I have, several times, indicated where I think people are justified to take reasonable precautions. If you are not using the rule that way, then what I am saying doesn't apply to you. It seems, increasingly, that we are probably actually agreeing violently. But I'm sure, somewhere along the line, I'll be told I'm "walking something back" or "being disengenuous." It does get a bit tedious.

All this tells me is that you didn't really know how the rule was used in real life before revealing your absolute revulsion for it. Or you had heard some political grumblings about how Vice President Pence was said to have used it (what he has to do with any of this, I have no idea). But the same link tells you that even Billy Graham made exceptions. In the future, you may want to think twice about using Wikipedia as a source on theology...or history...or politics...or anything that might be even a little controversial. Wikipedia has long been known for its bias, and it tends to taint articles that aren't just mundane, uncontroversial subjects. Even Wikipedia's co-creator, Larry Sanger, has discussed Wikipedia's biased nature.

As you said in a previous post, I think I can make my own decisions about when/where I'm inclined to post. Your suggestion is noted. Meanwhile, if I find an approach people are taking to our discussion to be inane, I'm going to point it out. If that strikes you as "whining," so be it. I know when I'm whining - and I'm not. I AM challenging people to take their discussion to a less inane level. It doesn't happen with everyone and in every discussion. It happens frequently enough to be a trend - more with some than others.

I don't care one bit when and where you post, but if you want people to stop pointing out when you are walking things back or are being dishonest/disingenuous, then reexamine how you're posting. The accusations are not coming out of the blue. There is something about how you interact with people on this forum that is triggering that sort of response. Stop it if you don't want to hear it anymore, or complain about it forever, but don't expect everyone else to accommodate your distinct posting habits. Why should they do that?

Then we are at an impasse. Your "why," with regards to me, is way off the mark. Unfortunately, since you have apparently decided I am dishonest/disengenuous, you are not likely to accept that, locking you into an incorrect perception you cannot escape. That is regrettable.

I can escape it if you offer me something different to work with. You haven't, so I won't.

I have offered my thoughts, my insights, my humor (now and again), an occasional flare of temper (ask CP). I have pretty much presented myself here as I am. If that is not satisfactory to you...

What I will NOT do is paint a false persona to satisfy someone else's wants/needs. So, I am who I am. I leave it to you to decide how/if you want to engage.

Huh? Dude, you literally asked me why I "do personal attacks on a regular basis", I answered that accusation, and now you're telling me that you won't paint a false persona? What are you on about? I don't care what persona you're wearing. Wear whatever persona you want, but if you want to know why I reply to you in the way that I do, then I've given my reason.

[Cow Poke]

The Billy Graham rule or Pence rule is a practice among male Protestant Christian leaders, in which they avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. It is named after Billy Graham, the most notable proponent of the practice.

There is no indication of exceptions here. The rule is stated absolutely. ...

So, quite honestly, what we have here is you going on about something you know nothing absolutely nothging about in actual practice, just by "googling something". You take the most literal extreme view....

Wow.

[carpedm9587]

Again, with the redefinitions. "Reasonable", of course, being whatever you, a pinko commie leftist* pretending to be a centrist, want it to mean.

*yeah, a tad facetiousicalistic

I'm pretty sure I noted that this was

a) my version of the statement (I don't guide my life by biblical quotes because they are biblical quotes. As with all things, these quotes get incorporated into my apporach to life to the degree that they seem prudent/wise)
b) that "reasonable" would have wide variation from person to person.

So what exactly is your objection?

[carpedm9587]

Huh? People are definitely not deep right theologically here. In the 10+ years I've been here I can only think of a handful of Christians who could ever be described that way. A couple JKV-Onlyists, maybe Jorge, and a few others. I mean, this place isn't any sort of theologically far left haven either, but it definitely has more posters who likely lean towards the middle, or middle-right of the spectrum than anything. It's probably an even split as far as posters who hold views like TE. The average Christian here probably also leans less right than most mainstream Evangelicals on issues like soteriology, hell, inerrancy, ecumenism and the like.

Yeah

That's not my problem.

Then apparently it's a non-problem. What you are thinking about me is certainly not something I can control, nor does it change me in any way.

All this tells me is that you didn't really know how the rule was used in real life before revealing your absolute revulsion for it. Or you had heard some political grumblings about how Vice President Pence was said to have used it (what he has to do with any of this, I have no idea). But the same link tells you that even Billy Graham made exceptions. In the future, you may want to think twice about using Wikipedia as a source on theology...or history...or politics...or anything that might be even a little controversial. Wikipedia has long been known for its bias, and it tends to taint articles that aren't just mundane, uncontroversial subjects. Even Wikipedia's co-creator, Larry Sanger, has discussed Wikipedia's biased nature.

I posted two items - not everything I read, Adrift.

I don't care one bit when and where you post, but if you want people to stop pointing out when you are walking things back or are being dishonest/disingenuous, then reexamine how you're posting. The accusations are not coming out of the blue. There is something about how you interact with people on this forum that is triggering that sort of response. Stop it if you don't want to hear it anymore, or complain about it forever, but don't expect everyone else to accommodate your distinct posting habits. Why should they do that?

As I have noted before, I don't interact differently here than I do anywhere else, and I don't get this kind of reaction anywhere else. So...again...

I can escape it if you offer me something different to work with. You haven't, so I won't.

As you wish.

Huh? Dude, you literally asked me why I "do personal attacks on a regular basis", I answered that accusation, and now you're telling me that you won't paint a false persona? What are you on about? I don't care what persona you're wearing. Wear whatever persona you want, but if you want to know why I reply to you in the way that I do, then I've given my reason.

I'm affirming that I'm not going to change who/what I am just because you have decided my posts/actions are unacceptable/dishonest/disengenuous. As for your posts - what can I say? When you're posting on the basis that I am dishonest/disengenuous - you're not really talking to me, because I'm not.

At this point, I think we've gone around on this often enough - so I'm going to practice disconnecting. Maybe I can get my average up to 62%

[Cow Poke]

I'm pretty sure I noted that this was

a) my version of the statement (I don't guide my life by biblical quotes because they are biblical quotes. As with all things, these quotes get incorporated into my apporach to life to the degree that they seem prudent/wise)
b) that "reasonable" would have wide variation from person to person.

So what exactly is your objection?

You making a big deal of a personally reasonable policy, and making it appear it's some kind of attack on women. That's just goofy.

[carpedm9587]

A variation of the Graham rule is common practice in any kind of social service work, be it education, foster care, etc. For teachers it's, "Don't be alone with a single student in a closed room. Don't drive them anywhere alone in your car. Don't meet them outside of school." Etc. People have been fired for less in my district. It protects teachers, students, and the district from false claims and legitimate ones.

fwiw,
guacamole

Acknowledged. Again - the context is what makes the difference. It's not a blanket statement about all people of Type X in all contexts.

I would be truly curious if anyone here actually disagrees with the observation that someone who adopts the position, "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife" as a life rule is objectifying and demeaning women? If not - then I think we're agreeing violently.

[carpedm9587]

You making a big deal of a personally reasonable policy, and making it appear it's some kind of attack on women. That's just goofy.

Although the discussion has been extended, CP, I'm merely responding to people who responded to my original observation. I don't feel "big deal," and I don't think "big deal." I think exactly what I said: someone who adopts and lives the rule, "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife" is objectifying and demeaning women.

The reaction to that observation has been significant - but I have not heard anything to suggest I should change that POV, for the reasons I have already cited.

Look, I wander over to this tab between development activites related to my work - when the software is publishing - or the audio I've recorded is processing. I check to see who has said what in fora I have taken an interest in, and I respond as it seems called for. I certainly don't spend more than the time I actually spend composing a post thinking about any of this. For me, it's a break. The "big deal" and "emotion" people are apparently reading into my posts is, for the most part, usually not there.

I HAVE gotten hot under the collar a couple of times (i.e., the post that made me a fixture on Demi's signature). But usually because I brought outside baggage into my posts - and I try to apologize for those. The rest, I can assure you, is not coming from me. Believe it or not...

[Cow Poke]

Although the discussion has been extended, CP, I'm merely responding to people who responded to my original observation. I don't feel "big deal," and I don't think "big deal." I think exactly what I said: someone who adopts and lives the rule, "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife" is objectifying and demeaning women.

And that's just ignorant.

The reaction to that observation has been significant - but I have not heard anything to suggest I should change that POV, for the reasons I have already cited.

You're entitled to have a dumb opinion of a sensible policy for any reasons you may cite, regardless of how goofy they may be.

[Adrift]

As I have noted before, I don't interact differently here than I do anywhere else, and I don't get this kind of reaction anywhere else. So...again...

Yes. You repeat that often. I don't know what it is about those other places that makes them different from here. I've suggested some reasons in another post, and you hand waved them away. I have no basis for knowing why other people perceive you differently in different places, and I honestly don't care. I know how you act here, and I know why people interact with you the way they do here. If you don't like how people interact with you here, then do something different, or complain forever, but don't expect people to change on your account.

I'm affirming that I'm not going to change who/what I am just because you have decided my posts/actions are unacceptable/dishonest/disengenuous. As for your posts - what can I say? When you're posting on the basis that I am dishonest/disengenuous - you're not really talking to me, because I'm not.

carpe, do whatever you want to do, but don't expect me to change my posting habits when you have no desire to change your own. You asked me why I respond to you the way that I do, and I explained that to you. If you didn't want to know you shouldn't have asked.

At this point, I think we've gone around on this often enough - so I'm going to practice disconnecting. Maybe I can get my average up to 62%

You can just stop engaging. You don't have to tell you're going to do so (and then not do so).

[carpedm9587]

And that's just ignorant.

You're entitled to have a dumb opinion of a sensible policy for any reasons you may cite, regardless of how goofy they may be.

I have to stop posting and then going back and editing!

Your opinion is noted, CP. We clearly disagree.