Opinions on Billy Graham

[Adrift]

Yes - I agree with the groupie phenomenon. To me, that would be "just cause." I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it, because I don't think I'll ever have BG's crowds. But I DID catch CP winking at me in another post...so we'll be using a chaperone from now on!

Wait, what do you think we're discussing if not the groupie phenomenon? That's precisely the reason the rule is in place. Also, this rule isn't typically in place for staff who work together. My mother, a church counselor, spends many hours alone with her male colleagues (Pastors, and others working at the church) and no one thinks a thing about it. That's not typically when the rule is engaged, at least, not at her church. Nor is the rule engaged in because of this bizarro notion you made up about Christians thinking that everyone is debased. Where in the world did that come from? That's clearly a perverse and twisted understanding of the Christian conception of sin nature. In the Christian worldview, acknowledging that people have sin nature isn't to see everyone debased, wicked, corrupt, and evil. Rather, it's simply to acknowledge that no one is perfect. That even though people are generally wonderful, even the best of us sometimes don't live up to the standards we ought to, and that even the mightiest of us sometimes have weak moments, and that all of us are in need of a savior. Nor is the rule based in fear. People in ministry are not running around wrenching their hands, sweat on their brow fearing that they're going to give in to some great lust, or that people will point at women walking into the Pastor's office and think "slut". Again, you've totally misconceived the entire notion of the concept and how people in ministry perceive it. It's simply a guideline that's followed for accountability purposes. The pastors and ministers and counselors I've seen use this rule don't jump up in fear when a man or woman comes into their office, they just ask them to keep the door open, or if it's a private issue, they'll have another pastor or counselor in the room to help take notes, or will have males counsel males, females counsel females. That sort of thing. It's all done very matter of factly. Very routine. It makes a very practical sense, especially in the churches I go to, which tend to be large-ish, with lots of new people in weekly, lots of people from inner city neighborhoods, to have accountability in one-on-one situations.

You know, you say that you're familiar with this rule from past experiences, but nothing you're saying this thread seems to make that clear at all. As a matter of fact, some of the views you have about Christians and the Christian worldview are so at odds with anything I've ever encountered in a Christian before that it's not at all surprising that you eventually left the church. I'm reading a lot of what you seem to think about these things and thinking to myself "what in the world is he talking about?"

[carpedm9587]

Wait, what do you think we're discussing if not the groupie phenomenon? That's precisely the reason the rule is in place. Also, this rule isn't typically in place for staff who work together. My mother, a church counselor, spends many hours alone with her male colleagues (Pastors, and others working at the church) and no one thinks a thing about it. That's not typically when the rule is engaged, at least, not at her church. Nor is the rule engaged in because of this bizarro notion you made up about Christians thinking that everyone is debased. Where in the world did that come from? That's clearly a perverse and twisted understanding of the Christian conception of sin nature. In the Christian worldview, acknowledging that people have sin nature isn't to see everyone debased, wicked, corrupt, and evil. Rather, it's simply to acknowledge that no one is perfect. That even though people are generally wonderful, even the best of us sometimes don't live up to the standards we ought to, and that even the mightiest of us sometimes have weak moments, and that all of us are in need of a savior. Nor is the rule based in fear. People in ministry are not running around wrenching their hands, sweat on their brow fearing that they're going to give in to some great lust, or that people will point at women walking into the Pastor's office and think "slut". Again, you've totally misconceived the entire notion of the concept and how people in ministry perceive it. It's simply a guideline that's followed for accountability purposes. The pastors and ministers and counselors I've seen use this rule don't jump up in fear when a man or woman comes into their office, they just ask them to keep the door open, or if it's a private issue, they'll have another pastor or counselor in the room to help take notes, or will have males counsel males, females counsel females. That sort of thing. It's all done very matter of factly. Very routine. It makes a very practical sense, especially in the churches I go to, which tend to be large-ish, with lots of new people in weekly, lots of people from inner city neighborhoods, to have accountability in one-on-one situations.

You know, you say that you're familiar with this rule from past experiences, but nothing you're saying this thread seems to make that clear at all. As a matter of fact, some of the views you have about Christians and the Christian worldview are so at odds with anything I've ever encountered in a Christian before that it's not at all surprising that you eventually left the church. I'm reading a lot of what you seem to think about these things and thinking to myself "what in the world is he talking about?"

I've actually written a response to this several times.

First of all, I did not introduce the "sinful nature" into the discussion. I, like you, accept that people aren't perfect. I do not use the term "sinful nature" because I don't use the term "sin," for obvious reasons. I have seen the term "sinful nature" to be used for everything from "we're not perfect" to "we're morally debased, corrupt, hopeless beings completely dependent on god for any smidgen of goodness." I had no idea which way it was being used, and the Graham rule, IMO, doesn't make sense unless your view is closer to the latter than the former. So I made the assumption that, on a conservative christian forum, there was a good possibility the latter was implied. If not, and the former was meant, then I return to my position that the Graham rule makes no sense.

Second of all, what you are responding to and what I am responding to do not appear to me to be the same thing. My response was to the absolute position "I will not be with alone with a woman who is not my wife." You have narrowly constrained it to "in counseling situations, in ministry." So your version of it does not appear to be so absolute/universal. But even then, I have to wonder why this rule is necessary. As I said, I do not know a single priest/minister (granted that was 30 years ago), who accepted/endorsed/lived that rule, or thought it was a good one. Psychiatrist and professional counselors do not use that rule. Most doctor's will not use that rule (unless they are giving a physical examination).

You say the rule is not based in fear - but what else COULD it be? I don't have images of people tearing their hair out - but there is fear of either a) what the other person will do/say, b) what I might do/say, or 3) what others might do/say. Leaving a door open for a casual discussion is a non-issue. Insisting that someone else be in the room when I have no cause to question the integrity of the other person? That's fear. And when it is explicitly about a specific type of person (a woman, a man, etc.), that is objectification.

I'll forego the rest of my points, because I have made them already too frequently, and so far have not heard anything that makes me think they should change.

I have no idea why you are in a regular state of "what is he talking about?" You made reference earlier to the fact that I do not appear to be the same as I was 10 years ago. Indeed, I am not. 10 years ago I was much more ready to get down into the muck, and did so frequently with Pixie, MM, DE, and JP (to name a few). I cannot say, 10 years later, that I am no longer going "down into the muck," because I clearly have with MM a couple of times. But not so deeply and for only brief times - so I'm getting better

But you also seem to have changed. I frankly don't remember you being so personally confrontational, and so quick to accuse of dishonesty, verbal trickery, and unreasonableness. I have the distinct impression that my presence here is some kind of affront - more often than not. I have no idea why. Nor do I have any reason to believe there is much I can say to change that perspective. I do know I came to escape what I perceived as a bubble (mission accomplished). I enjoy a brisk discussion/debate. I believe in treating people respectfully (though have not always been perfect on that one), and simply disengaging when nothing I can say seems to alter the disrespect coming in the opposite direction (haven't been perfect on that one either).

You're not disrespectful, per se. But you sure do personal attacks on a regular basis. I'd really like to know why.

[Cow Poke]

Sometimes quirky (like CP)

I am NOT sometimes quirky!

[Adrift]

First of all, I did not introduce the "sinful nature" into the discussion. I, like you, accept that people aren't perfect. I do not use the term "sinful nature" because I don't use the term "sin," for obvious reasons. I have seen the term "sinful nature" to be used for everything from "we're not perfect" to "we're morally debased, corrupt, hopeless beings completely dependent on god for any smidgen of goodness." I had no idea which way it was being used, and the Graham rule, IMO, doesn't make sense unless your view is closer to the latter than the former. So I made the assumption that, on a conservative christian forum, there was a good possibility the latter was implied.

The vast majority of Christians that I've encountered within my life (and certainly on this forum) would completely reject your second definition of "sinful nature". In fact, as far as I know, probably only the most extreme Calvinists, and perhaps a few way out there cultists like the Westboro church hold something like what you're suggesting. How you could interact with this forum for as many years as you have, and come away thinking that anyone here held that view (never mind the majority present) is beyond me. It's a ridiculous caricaturization, and I have to believe you know that.

If not, and the former was meant, then I return to my position that the Graham rule makes no sense.

What do you mean it still makes no sense? You just accepted a reason for why it made sense, because of the groupie phenomenon.

Second of all, what you are responding to and what I am responding to do not appear to me to be the same thing. My response was to the absolute position "I will not be with alone with a woman who is not my wife." You have narrowly constrained it to "in counseling situations, in ministry." So your version of it does not appear to be so absolute/universal. But even then, I have to wonder why this rule is necessary. As I said, I do not know a single priest/minister (granted that was 30 years ago), who accepted/endorsed/lived that rule, or thought it was a good one. Psychiatrist and professional counselors do not use that rule. Most doctor's will not use that rule (unless they are giving a physical examination).

You say the rule is not based in fear - but what else COULD it be? I don't have images of people tearing their hair out - but there is fear of either a) what the other person will do/say, b) what I might do/say, or 3) what others might do/say. Leaving a door open for a casual discussion is a non-issue. Insisting that someone else be in the room when I have no cause to question the integrity of the other person? That's fear. And when it is explicitly about a specific type of person (a woman, a man, etc.), that is objectification.

I already explained why the rule was different in kind for pastors in post #47. I know you read it because you replied to it! "Pastors are not in that sort of relationship with their congregation. They deal with very personal, very intimate details of people's lives, but are also seen as someone with charisma, influence, wisdom and power. It's a unique relationship you won't find in a workplace environment or with a psychiatrist."

When you're dealing with broken people, people who have found comfort and love, perhaps for the first time in their lives; And when you have a charismatic, powerful man or woman of God who is in a leadership position, who can be both authoritative in their preaching, and then tender in their counseling, it's incredibly easy for people to find themselves drawn to those sorts of people on a very deep and emotional level. And sometimes people mistake what is a Godly or brotherly love for something more, because they've never experienced anything like that. It happens all the time. I've seen it with my own eyes. I know of plenty of first hand accounts. And then, on the safety side, you have ministers who counsel people who have very deep issues. My mother, 64 year old, 5 foot-something woman has counseled people who they later found out were certifiably insane, people who have severe anger issues, actual rapists, etc. (relatively recently she was the one who, through counseling, revealed a tragic case of man who was raping his pre-teen stepdaughter, and the wife, who was also in the counseling sessions, did not want to believe it. My mother was able to help the woman see the issue for what is really was, alert the police, and save the child from that situation. The father finally admitted to the crime, and is currently in prison, where my mother has continued her counseling of him). Pastors and ministers are dealing with real people with real issues, and these are not the types of issues they always ought to be alone in a room for, not because they're afraid, but out of practical wisdom, and respect for the person/s involved. The same sort of wisdom that prevents you from giving me your real name, social security number, and credit card numbers (including the 3-digits on the back) in reply to this post. A wise man would not do that...not out of fear, but out of a sensible realization that the world doesn't always operate how we wish it would.

I have no idea why you are in a regular state of "what is he talking about?" You made reference earlier to the fact that I do not appear to be the same as I was 10 years ago. Indeed, I am not. 10 years ago I was much more ready to get down into the muck, and did so frequently with Pixie, MM, DE, and JP (to name a few). I cannot say, 10 years later, that I am no longer going "down into the muck," because I clearly have with MM a couple of times. But not so deeply and for only brief times - so I'm getting better

Ten years ago I thought of you as a very intelligent, amiable, and rational individual. Your arguments, while not convincing, were at least reasonable. I still think you're intelligent and amiable, but your arguments on this forum since your re-arrival have often been uncharacteristically unreasonable, and I find that frustrating because you're smart enough to know it.

But you also seem to have changed. I frankly don't remember you being so personally confrontational, and so quick to accuse of dishonesty, verbal trickery, and unreasonableness.

Guilty as charged. Years on this forum have taught me that most of the skeptics (and even a few believers) are simply here because they love arguing. I didn't know that when I first started on this forum. I sincerely thought that most people came to places like these because they wanted to come to reason together. To sort of bounce ideas off of one another in order to see where common ground could be found, and even if you didn't go away convinced by the other person's argument, you at least went away learning something about what others thought on x, y, z subject. I don't generally post on atheist forums, or other religion's forums....unless I want to know something about what and why people of that religion believe something they do. I never spend time debating them on the subject unless it's simply to root out some sort of nuance or something. But that's rare, and I can count the times I've posted on those other forums probably on one hand. Most skeptics who come to this Christian forum want to get into a fight, or they want to evangelize their views to the Christians here (and that's usually done through shaming and ridiculing). I don't think you want to evangelize necessarily (though you do seem to want to do a little of that), but I do think you like to argue. I also think you engage in subjects with people that you've already resolutely made your mind made up about. Which is fine as long as you're honest about it.

I have the distinct impression that my presence here is some kind of affront - more often than not. I have no idea why.

I don't care for games, and a lot of discussion on these forums devolve into just that. Games. It's like chess. People often talk around what they really mean because they're hoping that a certain sort of rhetorical method will move people in a certain direction, or to get a certain reaction, or to cause rifts, or to sew doubt, or whatever. Over a decade of watching people post, you can practically see it coming from the first post in a thread.

Nor do I have any reason to believe there is much I can say to change that perspective.

Probably not, no.

I do know I came to escape what I perceived as a bubble (mission accomplished). I enjoy a brisk discussion/debate. I believe in treating people respectfully (though have not always been perfect on that one), and simply disengaging when nothing I can say seems to alter the disrespect coming in the opposite direction (haven't been perfect on that one either).

I believe in respectful debate as well. I'm still vehemently against the type of rancid, and just mean-spirited debate that people routinely engaged in years ago, but that has since mellowed considerably since the crash.

You're not disrespectful, per se. But you sure do personal attacks on a regular basis. I'd really like to know why.

Because why someone asks certain questions/engages in certain arguments, is often far more interesting, and far more revealing, than the actual question/argument. I'm not interested in attacking people personally, but I am interested in cutting through the crap and getting at root causes. If that inevitably leads to feeling "attacked" then oh well. But you yourself get personal at times. You did in this post. You did in reply to CP's point about his wife, you've done so here and there at other occasions. You can't engage in people like this for long without getting personal sometimes. It's just, its never comfortable when it's directed at yourself.

[Darth Executor]

Then you have not been listening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...men/312576002/

http://www.konbini.com/us/lifestyle/...oure-an-idiot/

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/ji...men-from-power

I'll also be happy to put you in touch with my wife, every single one of her friends, every woman friend I have, and every woman in my family. The tally, thus far, is 100% AGAINST the Graham/Pence rule.

Women are equal.
Women need access to men to get anything even remotely close to what a man does done.

And liberals actively persecute people like James Damore who refuse to swallow this obvious contradiction.

[Darth Executor]

I've actually written a response to this several times.

First of all, I did not introduce the "sinful nature" into the discussion. I, like you, accept that people aren't perfect. I do not use the term "sinful nature" because I don't use the term "sin," for obvious reasons. I have seen the term "sinful nature" to be used for everything from "we're not perfect" to "we're morally debased, corrupt, hopeless beings completely dependent on god for any smidgen of goodness." I had no idea which way it was being used, and the Graham rule, IMO, doesn't make sense unless your view is closer to the latter than the former. So I made the assumption that, on a conservative christian forum, there was a good possibility the latter was implied. If not, and the former was meant, then I return to my position that the Graham rule makes no sense.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that it's wise to avoid temptation.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm to the point where, if I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably be a straight-up nihilist and a misanthrope. (I might be those things anyway)

People suck. The varieties of our screwed-up-ness are never-ending.

This needs something stronger than "Amen."

[carpedm9587]

The vast majority of Christians that I've encountered within my life (and certainly on this forum) would completely reject your second definition of "sinful nature". In fact, as far as I know, probably only the most extreme Calvinists, and perhaps a few way out there cultists like the Westboro church hold something like what you're suggesting. How you could interact with this forum for as many years as you have, and come away thinking that anyone here held that view (never mind the majority present) is beyond me. It's a ridiculous caricaturization, and I have to believe you know that.

I have not been in a discussion of the term "sinful nature" on this forum, at least not since my return. There is a fairly strong, deep right, flavor to this site (though there are clearly exceptions). So I made an assumption. If it was incorrect, then I apologize. However, as I said, if it's not that interpretation of "sinful nature," and it is merely "we're not perfect," the Graham rule appears to apply.

What do you mean it still makes no sense? You just accepted a reason for why it made sense, because of the groupie phenomenon.

See below

I already explained why the rule was different in kind for pastors in post #47. I know you read it because you replied to it! "Pastors are not in that sort of relationship with their congregation. They deal with very personal, very intimate details of people's lives, but are also seen as someone with charisma, influence, wisdom and power. It's a unique relationship you won't find in a workplace environment or with a psychiatrist."

When you're dealing with broken people, people who have found comfort and love, perhaps for the first time in their lives; And when you have a charismatic, powerful man or woman of God who is in a leadership position, who can be both authoritative in their preaching, and then tender in their counseling, it's incredibly easy for people to find themselves drawn to those sorts of people on a very deep and emotional level. And sometimes people mistake what is a Godly or brotherly love for something more, because they've never experienced anything like that. It happens all the time. I've seen it with my own eyes. I know of plenty of first hand accounts. And then, on the safety side, you have ministers who counsel people who have very deep issues. My mother, 64 year old, 5 foot-something woman has counseled people who they later found out were certifiably insane, people who have severe anger issues, actual rapists, etc. (relatively recently she was the one who, through counseling, revealed a tragic case of man who was raping his pre-teen stepdaughter, and the wife, who was also in the counseling sessions, did not want to believe it. My mother was able to help the woman see the issue for what is really was, alert the police, and save the child from that situation. The father finally admitted to the crime, and is currently in prison, where my mother has continued her counseling of him). Pastors and ministers are dealing with real people with real issues, and these are not the types of issues they always ought to be alone in a room for, not because they're afraid, but out of practical wisdom, and respect for the person/s involved. The same sort of wisdom that prevents you from giving me your real name, social security number, and credit card numbers (including the 3-digits on the back) in reply to this post. A wise man would not do that...not out of fear, but out of a sensible realization that the world doesn't always operate how we wish it would.

I am going to go back to: I don't think we're talking about the same thing. My response has been to the universal rule: "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife." That is a universal principle that is not based on circumstance - but rather on the gender of the other person. You keep coming back to specific contexts, which is not the Graham Rule to which I am responding. I person who has reason to believe they are subject to the "groupie phenomenon" because of the context is justified in taking precautionary steps. A person who has experienced inappropriate gifts/touching/flirtation with another person is justified in taking precautionary steps. A person who ministers/preaches/teaches in a dangerous community is is justified in taking precautionary steps (until they get to know the other person and determine if they are a true danger). All of these are indeed based in fear, but it is an informed fear based on experience and reasonable precaution, IMO.

The universal statement "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife," devoid of any context, is objectifying, and discriminatory. It demeans the other person, and it sows a constant spirit of distrust. You keep objecting, and coming back to context-driven applications of the Graham Rule. I have been clear (I think), that there are times and places where "I will not be with person X without another person present" is justified, when it is about something specific (or potentially specific) about person X. It is even justified if I have strong feelings for person X - and do not trust myself to be controlled. It is NOT justified as a sweeping rule across all contexts, IMO.

Ten years ago I thought of you as a very intelligent, amiable, and rational individual. Your arguments, while not convincing, were at least reasonable. I still think you're intelligent and amiable, but your arguments on this forum since your re-arrival have often been uncharacteristically unreasonable, and I find that frustrating because you're smart enough to know it.

Your observation is heard - and you are wrong. I don't "know it." I put forward arguments that are based on my 59 years of life and experience. I work hard to try to make sure my language and terms are understood. I do not knowing hold irrational positions, but I cannot claim to be the bastion of reason with no flaws. My experience, here, has been that a significant amount of time is spent telling the poster what they meant and what they thought, and then constantly accusing them of "walking back" or "being dishonest" or "being disengenuous" when they attempt to clarify. I find it an inane way to engage in a discussion. My goal, when I engage, is to try to understand what the other person is saying. If I agree - so be it. If I disagree - I'll explain why. If I have misunderstood what they have said, then I want to know how/why that happened. It is pointless to counter/refute a position the other person is not actually taken.

Guilty as charged. Years on this forum have taught me that most of the skeptics (and even a few believers) are simply here because they love arguing. I didn't know that when I first started on this forum. I sincerely thought that most people came to places like these because they wanted to come to reason together. To sort of bounce ideas off of one another in order to see where common ground could be found, and even if you didn't go away convinced by the other person's argument, you at least went away learning something about what others thought on x, y, z subject. I don't generally post on atheist forums, or other religion's forums....unless I want to know something about what and why people of that religion believe something they do. I never spend time debating them on the subject unless it's simply to root out some sort of nuance or something. But that's rare, and I can count the times I've posted on those other forums probably on one hand. Most skeptics who come to this Christian forum want to get into a fight, or they want to evangelize their views to the Christians here (and that's usually done through shaming and ridiculing). I don't think you want to evangelize necessarily (though you do seem to want to do a little of that), but I do think you like to argue. I also think you engage in subjects with people that you've already resolutely made your mind made up about. Which is fine as long as you're honest about it.

Partly guilty as charged. I do enjoy a vigorous debate/discussion. I'm not looking to "argue" in the sense of "have a fight," but I do enjoy tearing an idea apart, looking at it's parts, seeing if it hangs together, in much the same way some mechanics enjoy stripping an automobile it putting it back together. I have no desire to evangelize (at least not theistically). I have no god driving me to help "save" people. I do not look at the human population in terms of who needs saving and who does not. Do I wish more people would get behind meaningful gun control? Absolutely. I cannot look at the carnage occuring in our country and not want that. Do I wish people on both sides of the abortion debate would spend more time finding common ground and actually trying to put working solutions in place, instead of entrenching and pointing to each other and screaming "evil," leaving millions of unborn children to die? Absolutely. I cannot look at the carnage occuring in our country and not want that. Do I want people to ditch their ridiculous religious beliefs and become atheists? Absolutely not. First, I do not see religious beliefs as "ridiculous." I understand their history, the role they have played in society, and the value they have brought. I think their time is passing, and we are moving towards a more secular world, but that will unfold in its own time.

I don't care for games, and a lot of discussion on these forums devolve into just that. Games. It's like chess. People often talk around what they really mean because they're hoping that a certain sort of rhetorical method will move people in a certain direction, or to get a certain reaction, or to cause rifts, or to sew doubt, or whatever. Over a decade of watching people post, you can practically see it coming from the first post in a thread.

You appear to have some of the characteristics of my wife. I love games, and we play them in my family all the time - at family gatherings. My wife does not, nor does my brother-in-law, so they find a place and chat (which gets interesting because she is a flaming liberal and he a flaming conservative - but they both have big hearts). And your analogy of chess is an excellent one. To me, a well engaged discussion/argument is like a fine game of chess, with one exception: chess is just a game - the stronger player usually wins. A discussion/argument (in the philosophical sense) is about trying to arrive at some kind of truth. It's not just about being a "good player," it's about tearing ones own beliefs apart and seeing if they can be put back together and hold together. I absolutely enjoy it, no question. That is why I tend to enjoy discussions with people like Seer and Star, both of whom I have found to be methodical in their discussions (even if I don't agree with them), more than discussions with MM and JimL, who I do not experience as engaging in methodical arguments, but as putting forth an ironclad position impervious to examination. There is a sense in which this forum (and others) are an outlet for that dynamic for me. If I try to engage in such a discussion with my wife, she just rolls her eyes up in her head and disconnects. She doesn't revel in taking a concept, a principle, and tearing it apart to see what makes it tick. (Until the topic is social-justice related - then she will drown me in verbiage ).

I do have to admit I enjoy teasing MM a bit, but I think he is likely to say the same in reverse.

Probably not, no.

Consider what that means...please. You are apparently a minister/counselor. Is that position consistent with your self-selected role?

I believe in respectful debate as well. I'm still vehemently against the type of rancid, and just mean-spirited debate that people routinely engaged in years ago, but that has since mellowed considerably since the crash.

I have noticed that it is somewhat mellowed. I have also noticed that MANY people here cannot seem to help posting tear-downs that have no content other than to tear down the other person. I hope I can claim that I do not engage that way...though I have to admit I have wandered close to that line now and again. Perhaps I've stepped over it? I hope not.

Because why someone asks certain questions/engages in certain arguments, is often far more interesting, and far more revealing, than the actual question/argument. I'm not interested in attacking people personally, but I am interested in cutting through the crap and getting at root causes. If that inevitably leads to feeling "attacked" then oh well. But you yourself get personal at times. You did in this post. You did in reply to CP's point about his wife, you've done so here and there at other occasions. You can't engage in people like this for long without getting personal sometimes. It's just, its never comfortable when it's directed at yourself.

Unfortunately, Adrift, while "why" is more interesting, "why" is dependent on the person engaging. But I suggest, Adrift, that you cannot get to "why" if you have already decided the other person is disengenous and dishonest. As you note, it is often uncomfortable to be challenged - as I challenged you in my previous post (and this one) and I challenged CP earlier. I am no more immune to reacting when challenged than the next person. I hope, when the reaction is past, I come back and own it. I have done so several times. Perhaps there are still places where I have left that reaction unowned. If so - please point them out.

Frankly, I find I regret the choices you've made in assessing my character. Like Seer, and Star, I find you to be articulate and capable of engaging in meaningful discussion debate. Based on some of your posts here, I suspect we have a great deal of common ground, and I suspect that you, like CP, are effective ministers in your communities. I suspect, in a world not lived on-line, we might be friends.

I will work to pay attention to the critiques you have of my approach to discussion. But I absolutely reject the notion that I am dishonest or disengenuous. Since you have made it clear your position is fixed, I have to leave you to it.

[Cow Poke]

...
Unfortunately, Adrift, while "why" is more interesting, "why" is dependent on the person engaging. As you note, it is often uncomfortable to be challenged - as I challenged you in my previous post (and this one) and I challenged CP earlier. I am no more immune to reacting when challenged than the next person. I hope, when the reaction is past, I come back and own it. I have done so several times. Perhaps there are still places where I have left that reaction unowned. If so - please point them out. But I suggest, Adrift, that you cannot get to "why" if you have already decided the other person is disengenous and dishonest.

I am neither. Frankly, I find I regret the choices you've made in assessing my character. Like Seer, and Star, I find you to be articulate and capable of engaging in meaningful discussion debate. Based on some of your posts here, I suspect we have a great deal of common ground, and I suspect that you, like CP, are effective ministers in your communities. I suspect, in a world not lived on-line, we might be friends.

I will work to pay attention to the critiques you have of my approach to discussion. But I absolutely reject the notion that I am dishonest or disengenuous. Since you have made it clear your position is fixed, I have to leave you to it.

This is about me, isn't it?

(it's "disingenuous")

[carpedm9587]

This is about me, isn't it?

Darn! What gave it away? It was the use of "CP" wasn't it!?

(it's "disingenuous")

I knew that...

[37818]

. . . my position that the Graham rule makes no sense.

There are a number of biblical teachings which can be cited. There is one I think you might understand.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." From the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonian church. (1 Thessalonians 5:22) If nothing else the rule avoids the appearance of impropriety. That rule has served that purpose well.

[Cerebrum123]

Actually - I do follow through with it - about 60% of the time, every time.

fify

[Adrift]

I have not been in a discussion of the term "sinful nature" on this forum, at least not since my return. There is a fairly strong, deep right, flavor to this site (though there are clearly exceptions). So I made an assumption. If it was incorrect, then I apologize. However, as I said, if it's not that interpretation of "sinful nature," and it is merely "we're not perfect," the Graham rule appears to apply.

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. 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.

I am going to go back to: I don't think we're talking about the same thing. My response has been to the universal rule: "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife." That is a universal principle that is not based on circumstance - but rather on the gender of the other person. You keep coming back to specific contexts, which is not the Graham Rule to which I am responding. I person who has reason to believe they are subject to the "groupie phenomenon" because of the context is justified in taking precautionary steps. A person who has experienced inappropriate gifts/touching/flirtation with another person is justified in taking precautionary steps. A person who ministers/preaches/teaches in a dangerous community is is justified in taking precautionary steps (until they get to know the other person and determine if they are a true danger). All of these are indeed based in fear, but it is an informed fear based on experience and reasonable precaution, IMO.

The universal statement "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife," devoid of any context, is objectifying, and discriminatory. It demeans the other person, and it sows a constant spirit of distrust. You keep objecting, and coming back to context-driven applications of the Graham Rule. I have been clear (I think), that there are times and places where "I will not be with person X without another person present" is justified, when it is about something specific (or potentially specific) about person X. It is even justified if I have strong feelings for person X - and do not trust myself to be controlled. It is NOT justified as a sweeping rule across all contexts, IMO.

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.

Your observation is heard - and you are wrong. I don't "know it." I put forward arguments that are based on my 59 years of life and experience. I work hard to try to make sure my language and terms are understood. I do not knowing hold irrational positions, but I cannot claim to be the bastion of reason with no flaws.

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

My experience, here, has been that a significant amount of time is spent telling the poster what they meant and what they thought, and then constantly accusing them of "walking back" or "being dishonest" or "being disengenuous" when they attempt to clarify. I find it an inane way to engage in a discussion. My goal, when I engage, is to try to understand what the other person is saying. If I agree - so be it. If I disagree - I'll explain why. If I have misunderstood what they have said, then I want to know how/why that happened. It is pointless to counter/refute a position the other person is not actually taken.

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.

Partly guilty as charged. I do enjoy a vigorous debate/discussion. I'm not looking to "argue" in the sense of "have a fight," but I do enjoy tearing an idea apart, looking at it's parts, seeing if it hangs together, in much the same way some mechanics enjoy stripping an automobile it putting it back together. I have no desire to evangelize (at least not theistically). I have no god driving me to help "save" people. I do not look at the human population in terms of who needs saving and who does not. Do I wish more people would get behind meaningful gun control? Absolutely. I cannot look at the carnage occuring in our country and not want that. Do I wish people on both sides of the abortion debate would spend more time finding common ground and actually trying to put working solutions in place, instead of entrenching and pointing to each other and screaming "evil," leaving millions of unborn children to die? Absolutely. I cannot look at the carnage occuring in our country and not want that. Do I want people to ditch their ridiculous religious beliefs and become atheists? Absolutely not. First, I do not see religious beliefs as "ridiculous." I understand their history, the role they have played in society, and the value they have brought. I think their time is passing, and we are moving towards a more secular world, but that will unfold in its own time.

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)".

Consider what that means...please. You are apparently a minister/counselor. Is that position consistent with your self-selected role?

I'm not a minister or counselor.

I have noticed that it is somewhat mellowed. I have also noticed that MANY people here cannot seem to help posting tear-downs that have no content other than to tear down the other person. I hope I can claim that I do not engage that way...though I have to admit I have wandered close to that line now and again. Perhaps I've stepped over it? I hope not.

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.

Unfortunately, Adrift, while "why" is more interesting, "why" is dependent on the person engaging. But I suggest, Adrift, that you cannot get to "why" if you have already decided the other person is disengenous and dishonest. As you note, it is often uncomfortable to be challenged - as I challenged you in my previous post (and this one) and I challenged CP earlier. I am no more immune to reacting when challenged than the next person. I hope, when the reaction is past, I come back and own it. I have done so several times. Perhaps there are still places where I have left that reaction unowned. If so - please point them out.

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

Frankly, I find I regret the choices you've made in assessing my character. Like Seer, and Star, I find you to be articulate and capable of engaging in meaningful discussion debate. Based on some of your posts here, I suspect we have a great deal of common ground, and I suspect that you, like CP, are effective ministers in your communities. I suspect, in a world not lived on-line, we might be friends.

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

I will work to pay attention to the critiques you have of my approach to discussion. But I absolutely reject the notion that I am dishonest or disengenuous. Since you have made it clear your position is fixed, I have to leave you to it.

[carpedm9587]

There are a number of biblical teachings which can be cited. There is one I think you might understand.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." From the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonian church. (1 Thessalonians 5:22) If nothing else the rule avoids the appearance of impropriety. That rule has served that purpose well.

I appreciate the quote, 37, and it has been posted by others. My approach is to abstain from all reasonable appearances of evil. Of course, there will be wide variation on the interpretation of "reasonable." I consider it reasonable not to be alone with a woman who has been inappropriately flirtatious. I do not consider it reasonable to refuse to be alone with any woman because of what others "might think." I consider it appropriate to request that someone accompany me into an open bank vault so, if money turns up missing, I am not a suspect. Frankly, the bank will probably insist on it. I do not consider it reasonable to insist someone accompany me everywhere in their home so that, if something is missing, I am not accused.

I could continue - but I'm sure you get the idea.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm guessing you don't mean THIS robrecht? Who is robrecht?


(I do agree with your observation about disconnects, however. I had not considered this issue from the perspective of "everyone's a sinner." When someone has that dismal a view of human nature, things like the Graham Rule would obviously make perfect sense. They don't when your view of human nature is less dark. Until you brought that up, I had not even considered it).

Unless it is the same as this one, then no, they aren't the same.

(I figured as much, which is why I pointed it out. I live with some very different people who communicate in very different ways. I understand both of their methods of communication, but they don't tend to understand each other. I'm basically a "translator" for them.)