[Due to some engaging comments from the author of the post I link in this entry, I thought I'd move it up to the top of the stack.]
____________________________________________________
Going from link to link, I came across a blog by a Southern Baptist youth pastor named Jared. This post is about a recent experience he had with his youth group at a camp. Basically, the camp ran the kids through a "prayer excercise" as found in Tony Jones' book Soul Shaper, wherein you meditate upon a word that communicates God love for you and shows your desire to surrender to him. Jared thought this was a bit of new-age/pagan wickedness and fired off a few emails to various authorities within the SBC. He posted the email exchange in his post, which has generated over 100 comments so far. One commenter asked if Jared had gotten permission from the authors of those emails to post them on his blog, suggesting it was wrong to post them if he had not at least notified the authors. Jared's response? And I quote: [WARNING: Swallow your coffee and put down the mug prior to continuing]
"Can you give me any reason biblically why I should have?"
So, ladies and gentlemen, I proffer a new definition of Christian fundamentalism for your review & comment: The Bible speaks definitively on web & email etiquette such that we should not use any html tags, publishing software or internet connections not explicitly enumerated in Scripture. Further, we should not succumb to the spirit of this age by following worldly ideas on web usage. To argue that the Bible is silent on such issues is pagan tomfoolery and endangers your very soul. REPENT!
Tomorrow we'll explore what the Bible has to say about proper blog formatting: Links on the left? Only if you want to rot in hell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments:
That's hilarious!
-Doug
Man, I just read through that post and the comments that followed. Cheers to Don and ECW and those with the patience to enter into the lists.
-Doug
Given the amount of cheering this guy was receiving from other like-minded posters, I was surprised anyone would enter the fray, but Don and ECW did an admirable job. It'll be interesting to see if he undertakes any form of debate with Tony or anyone else from the comments.
ECW is obviously Orthodox and I was hoping his blog would be good but it looks like he updates it once every 6 months or so.
You crack me up!
Nathan,
Concerning email etiquette... it varies from individual to individual... I know many people who think it's fine to post emails if the person has not specifically said that they're confidential... and others, obviously believe the other way... So, my question is:
1. Which one should I follow? Which one is right? It's amazing how, out of the entire post, you’re concerned with email etiquette... Anyways, so, I should have notified the individuals mentioned because you think so... My point was... am I bound by man's opinion? The answer is no. Individuals were trying to say I had sinned... and that's when I asked them if the Bible backed them up... and, of course they didn't think it had to, as you obviously don't think so either... So, do I sin if I don't do what you think I should do? I am not held to your opinion, nor anyone else's... if someone makes a biblical case for it... then I'll do it... if not, why should I bow down to your opinion whenever your opinion is different from other people’s opinions... Whose opinion do I submit to... the ones who think I should have notified the individuals or the ones who don't? That was my point, and I believe you have taken me out of context... the Bible tells us what sin is... not man's opinions...
Jared -
":1. Which one should I follow? Which one is right?"
You are correct that there is a wide range of opinion on email etiquette. I tend to side, obviously, with those who think you should get permission, or at least notify the other party up front that their email will be made public. My question to you is; did you intend to write up that blog post prior to sending the emails? If you did, then I think notification was in order. It is common sense that people may not expect that every conversation they have, either in person or via email, will be made public in this fashion.
"It's amazing how, out of the entire post, you’re concerned with email etiquette..."
No, I'm concerned with the rest of the post as well. I'm concerned that you have immediately labeled this prayer practice as "Buddhist" and "new-age" when you clearly haven't done much investigation. I'm concerned that people were so rude to you. I'm concerned that you may be straying into bibliolatry. I'm concerned about the judment bandied about by you and quite a few posters. And having been a youth pastor, I share your concern about the spiritual welfare of the kids in your group. So I've got a mixed bag of concerns. And they way you responded to the etiquette question was so funny that I just had to post it - it seemed like you were asking for chapter & verse on web etiquette.
"Individuals were trying to say I had sinned..."
I don't recollect anyone calling such practices sinful, only that it was a violation of email etiquette. There is a difference. But let me ask you: even if the other party had not communicated their expectation of privacy, don't you think its possible that you were sinning against your brother in Christ by making them public, even if only inadvertently?
What I notice most in your comment here is an overwhelming concern with YOUR rights, YOUR opinion, what YOUR responsibility is. You want a biblical case for it? Fine, "love each other as I have loved you." Love dictates that we are not so concerned with our individual rights, but also take the needs, desires and failings of our fellow Christians into consideration. I would argue that what you did is not a violation of any technical prohibition in the Scriptures about maintaining confidentiality - I would say it is a violation of love. You did not love your brother enough to offer the simple courtesy of a notification. You did not love your brother enough to ask their permission. You put your rights first, your desires, your needs, first and posted those emails in a clear lack of love. And now you fight, fight, fight any possibility that what you did was wrong.
Tell you what - why don't you email those men again and tell them you used their emails in a public forum without their permission and see if they care. If they don't, then fine - you didn't do anything wrong. If they did, I think you should apologize.
Nathan,
I sent the emails a few months before I even wrote the article... it was not premeditated... I'm not psychic... I didn't know they'd defend it.
How exactly is it a violation of love? I did not attack individuals... I attacked wrong teaching... did Paul not love those whose teaching he attacked? Was His attack a lack of love? Whenever Paul named names of those who he exercised biblical discipline with, was it a lack of love? Did Jesus not love those individuals whose teaching he attacked? Was His a lack of love? I love the church, and therefore, I must shine light on false teaching that is within it...
Does whether or not they get offended determine if it's wrong or not? What about preaching against homosexuality, and a homosexual is in the congregation? Am I wrong to preach truth because the homosexual might get offended?
You said, "Tell you what - why don't you email those men again and tell them you used their emails in a public forum without their permission and see if they care. If they don't, then fine - you didn't do anything wrong. If they did, I think you should apologize."
You believe that I was talking about my rights, etc... but, here YOU clearly think that I should apologize... Once again, what you think is irrelevant... it's just an opinion, and to think I did wrong whenever you have clear examples of Paul doing the same thing is ridiculous.
James Jackson, the gentleman whose email is on there... taught "centering prayer" to hundreds of teenagers publicly. The letter lifeway sent was a public letter... it's not like I'm revealing secrets. These men did these things publicly.
Please show me anywhere in my post, on my webisite, where I have attacked individuals... blowing the whistle on false teaching is not wrong... even if you think it is. For, if you don't blow the whistle, you don't love the church... because, they may embrace this teaching unaware... Paul blew the whistle on false teaching... Also...
if email etiquette is to each/his own... am I really wrong, simply because you say so... am I really not loving, simply because you say so? Are you saying that Jesus wouldn't have warned the rest of the church about this false teaching? Do you not think that He would have used names? Etc...
Anyways, I doubt either one of us will agree... be good.
Jared -
"How exactly is it a violation of love? I did not attack individuals... I attacked wrong teaching..."
I never said you attacked anyone, nor do I find fault with you for speaking out on an issue you are obviously passionate about. I don't think naming Tony Jones or his book was wrong. I don't necessarily think naming the people from the camp was wrong, though if they saw the error of their ways and repented of it, to you or publicly (which it sounds like they did) then naming them may have been wrong. If they were confronted and repented, I'm not sure what purpose it serves to name them. Speak against the practice or the trend (as you see it) that permits such things, but not the repentant individual.
Let me put it this way - nothing requires us to say "please" and "thank you." Nothing legally, nothing in the Bible. But we do it, in part, because of love. By giving you my gratitude, however minor, you know your action was appreciated. By my saying "please", I show that I know my request may be inconvenient or that it puts you out in some way. These simple acts of love & appreciation are the lubricant of our society and should be the marks of the Christian community. Courtesy, politeness - they are not required by law, but are required by love. There does not need to be at attack - on an individual or a teaching - for a lack of courtesy to be a violation of love. Not paying the elders in your denomination or in charge of the camp the simple courtesy of asking to make their correspondence public is, quite possibly, an act against love.
I think we're talking about 2 different things. I'm not really speaking to the content of your post, though there are areas where we could have some lively debate I'm sure. I'm defending my position, biblically, that you should have asked permission before publishing those emails, and that is it.
"You believe that I was talking about my rights, etc... but, here YOU clearly think that I should apologize... Once again, what you think is irrelevant..."
Oy vey! You asked for biblical support to my contention that you should have gotten permission to use those emails. I gave it. Agree with it or not, respond to the arguments or not, but don't ask for the basis of my opinion and then say my opinion is irrelevant. You haven't even responded to the substance of my previous comment - you jumped the gun thinking I was taking you to task for naming names of "false teachers." That's not what I was doing and it wasn't the basis of my comments about violating love.
"and to think I did wrong whenever you have clear examples of Paul doing the same thing is ridiculous."
Actually, there are several places where Paul pointedly refuses to name names. He skirts around the issue and does not identify those with whom he contends. For instance, in 1 Cor 5:1 - he could name that man by name, but does he? In Galatians 2, does he name the false brethren & those of high reputation? Paul apparently realized there is a time for discretion in such matters. So now we have clear examples of Paul doing the exact opposite of what you did. Though my argument was not about attacking false teaching or its teachers, I think I've more than made my point.
Now, to the question of whether or not Jesus would have named names - in John 8:1-11, Jesus could have certainly pointed at each one of those men, who were standing there so anxious for blood - His or hers, didn't matter - and named their sins. He could have gone down the line, revealing the worst and most sordid details of their past. But He doesn't do it - He passes them over, knowing that their hearts will reveal them all on their own. His confrontation, and the result in those men, did not need to be made public.
J.A. Jance
Get expert advice and share your thoughts. Breast Cancer Yoga Nutrition & Weight Loss Depression & Anxiety View All Health Expert Blogs Report Abuse Join the discussion.
We offer free download music and song download site/blog. It pretty much covers song download related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
song download
You conveniently fail to mention Jared's comment comes in response to those who say that getting permission is the more Christian way to proceed.
Straw men are much easier to deal with, huh?
Technically, as soon as something is in fixed form (that includes typing it into your computer), it's copyrighted. And just because they've emailed it to you does not mean you have legal permission to repost it - you'll want to examine the four points of fair use (much more complicated than "I didn't make any money from it so it's okay") before you do that.
So yeah, it's more than "Can you give me any biblical reason why I should be polite?" It's "Can you give me any biblical reason why I should obey a law that doesn't conflict with Scripture?"
"You conveniently fail to mention Jared's comment comes in response to those who say that getting permission is the more Christian way to proceed."
Actually, Jeff, the 2 comments Jared was responding to at that point were:
"Jared…did you get permission from the above people that you quoted in your post? It is more than just common courtesy to request permission of a writer of a private e-mail."
And:
"Don’t you think that you should have? Don’t you think that you should have told each one of those people that you were going to post this on a public website?"
You'll note nothing about being "more Christian",and nothing accusing Jared of sin. Just simple questions about email etiquette, to which Jared responded with a request for a biblical justification.
Now, you tell me why not getting permission is the "more Christian" way to proceed on such matters. And again, I'm not talking about confronting false teaching - just about using someone else's email without their permission. Especially, as Karen points out, there may be larger legal issues to be resolved before doing so.
Nathan,
these guys didn't repent... in order to repent, you have to believe that you have something to repent from... these guys never did.
If I have broken the law, then you have a legitimate arguement... otherwise, I don't believe that you do... for, we have examples of both... and opinions are simply opinions.
If I have broken the law, and you can show me... then, I'll pull the names of the individuals... and properly address the issue.
If your usage is not covered under fair use (and the onus falls on YOU to determine - or prove in court - that it is) then yes, you have broken the law.
But you don't really care about that, do you?
If I have broken the law, then I'll admit it publicly on my blog, repent, remove the names, and move on... but, I do need some sort of proof. To say that I don't care about it just proves that you don't know me very well. My goal is 100% obedience to the King of kings and Lord of lords...
Jared -
"these guys didn't repent..."
So when they publicly acknowledged that there were problems with the prayer exercise and introduced changes, that wasn't repentance? That wasn't an acknowledgment of error or poor judgment?
"for, we have examples of both... and opinions are simply opinions."
You are confusing things again. The "examples" you speak are of Paul confronting false teachers of a different gospel - I was talking about the demands of brotherly love among the body of Christ. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way to my argument that failing to get permission was a violation of that demand. You've replied to your misunderstanding of my argument, but not to my actual argument. I would like to hear what you have to say about what I actually said. Nothing about confronting false teachers! Nothing about Paul's examples in that area! Just whether or not it was the loving thing to do to publish emails from Christians who did not know they were going to be used in this fashion when they wrote them and didn't give their permission later on.
Nathan,
Yes, it was a show of brotherly love... towards the church... I tried to get the individuals to repent, but they defended it; so, as an elder, it is my responsibility to warn the church... I'm guessing that you think biblical discipline isn't a showing of love either...
These guys taught these things publicly... I've already explained this
If saying that: "One of the attending churches felt the meditative prayer experience was too closely related to some meditative practices of varying non-Christian sects. Obviously, that was not our intention. We have made changes to the prayer activity of that night which ties it directly to Scripture in order to make sure the students have the chance to focus clearly on God’s Word and its power in their lives."
... is repentance, then you have no idea what biblical repentance is... Lifeway never admitted any wrong in the matter... they blamed it on the interpretor... it was, "one church felt this way, this was not our intention, so, we'll change it." It should have been, "this prayer is no where in Scripture; therefore, we've sinned, we repent, and we've changed it."
BTW: Lifeway still sells books like this... they have a lecto divinia book by Tony Jones on their shelf right now... in every store!
My buddy just critiqued it: www.jeffwright.exaltchrist.com
"ECW is obviously Orthodox and I was hoping his blog would be good but it looks like he updates it once every 6 months or so."
Guilty as charged. Absolutely.
I've been in hiding, more or less, for over a year now. I'm hoping to have something more to say on a regular basis real soon now© but the proof is in the pudding.
I'm always open for emails: christopher@tuirgin.com.
Jared -
"Yes, it was a show of brotherly love... towards the church... I tried to get the individuals to repent...."
Please, just forget everything you did prior to Aug 13th when you published your blog entry entitled "Buddhist Prayer @ M-Fuge". Let's pretend that prior to August 13th, everything you've done in the course of addressing this problem was fine and dandy, God-pleasing, in accordance with scripture, wonderful, great and all-around well received by everyone and their uncle. Ok? So we're not discussing anything prior to your pushing the "submit" or "publish post" button on your blog-platform. I am only talking about what you did in typing up that post and publishing it - that's it. Prior to that, I don't care. I don't care who you emailed or why you emailed them. My original argument about the demands of love was focused entirely on your actions of Aug 13th - nothing prior, understand? I've responded to some of your statements that were clearly confused on that point, but again, my argument about love has been on publishing that post and only publishing that post.
Now, if you want to say that publishing those emails without permission is somehow tied up in your "responsibility to warn the church", then fine, but you're going to have to do a lot more explaining to make that argument.
"... is repentance, then you have no idea what biblical repentance is..."
You know, you're right. They didn't repent, because clearly they disagree with you on why/whether this exercise was wrong. That is their right, and frankly, you need to be open to their correction as well. But I'll point something out to you - they acted out of love for their brother in Christ. They changed their program so as to not cause YOU problems, so as to not offend YOU. They did this with YOU in mind. They acted out of the love demanded of us by Christ. They acted as you should have acted. They put their brother in Christ before their own desires. What did you do?
Don't offer me that tired "confronting false teaching" line, because you DID NOT HAVE TO PUBLISH THOSE EMAILS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. You didn't even have to write that post in order to confront the teaching. You did that well before posting your entry.
"My buddy just critiqued it: www.jeffwright.exaltchrist.com"
I've seen his critique and have posted a few comments. While I can understand your concerns about the exercise at M-fuge, I see very little merit in Jeff's objections to lectio divina.
ECW -
We all go through those dry spells. Better to post something substantive, then a lot of fluff - something I'm guilty of fairly regularly!
Nathan,
I do believe it was love shown to the church by posting those emails... not love for the individuals mentioned... Lifeway is an organization, not a church... biblical discipline doesn't apply here... warning of false teachers does apply... if I didn't post the emails by exposing specific people in the Lifeway camp, then my love for the church would be lacking as well as love for the truth of sola scriptura... for, these guys claim sola scriptura, but don't practice it... and yet, they're a SBC organization who staunchly stands for sola scriptura...
...I noticed you backpedaled on the repentance part...
Once again,
if you can show me where I have broken the law, then you have an argument... and I'll remove the names of the individuals, etc.
But, otherwise, it's just your opinion...
If I stand up and quote something to my congregation that Benny Hinn has shared with me in private... something that he publicly teaches... then, is this a lack of love for Benny Hinn?
*Note: Please understand that I'm not angry...
Jared -
"not love for the individuals mentioned..."
This has been my point all along and I'm glad you're finally owning up to it - posting those emails without permission was a failure of love for their authors. As for the rest, its clear we're just talking in circles. I'll accept that you felt it was necessary to post those emails without permission for some higher reason.
"for, these guys claim sola scriptura, but don't practice it..."
As it is classically understood, sola scriptura does not deny the existence of other sources of authority - it welcomes tradition, so long as it is subjected to scripture. Your formulation is rather more rigid than many Christians, including several Reformers, have understood it. You require explicit affirmation in scripture whereas other groups are content to allow something so long as it is not expressly prohibited. Who is to say that your (or your group's) understanding is the correct definition of sola scriptura, since there have been so darn many?
"...I noticed you backpedaled on the repentance part..."
I was speaking from memory in that post. After re-reading the letter, I agree that they were not repentant because they didn't feel they had anything to repent of. I agree with them, and while I applaud their commitment to not causing you to stumble, I lament that they didn't enter into a dialogue with you to support their position.
"But, otherwise, it's just your opinion..."
But this is just your opinion...
Look, let me give you a piece of advice on debating on the internet. Telling someone repeatedly "that's just your opinion" while failing to respond to their arguments in any meaningful way is a sure-fire way to breed animosity. I know its my opinion, and yes, I could be wrong - but so could you, and until you actually engage someone else's argument, you can't really be sure that your position is unassailable.
Nathan,
you didn't answer my question about Benny Hinn... please answer that question.
Emails are copyrighted. Unless you're covered by fair use, you have violated the copyright.
How much "proof" will it take to overcome your stubborn pride, Jared?
Karen,
it will take more than you just saying that it's wrong. Show me the law that says emails are copyrighted. To expect me to do something simply because you say so is ridiculous... please prove it to me from the law that you are quoting.
It saddens me, Jared, that you'd prefer to believe a Christian woman was lying to you than take the miniscule effort necessary to Google for 'email copyright.'
Karen,
I don't know you at all...? How can I assume you're a Christian? Also, even if you are a Christian... you could be mistaken, the law could have been changed since the last time you looked, etc.
You haven't Googled yet, have you?
And you're not going to. You're going to continue coming up with thin excuses for as long as it takes, because your pride won't allow you to admit you may have made a mistake.
On your own head be it.
Karen,
you've been telling me that I've done something illegal... but, you haven't proven it. Why won't you prove it? You expect me to do the leg work whenever you're the one making the accusation...
Jared, I'm stunned by the hardness of your heart. If you're truly listening to God's Spirit and He can't move you to even consider the possibility that you've sinned against someone, *I* sure don't stand a chance.
Karen,
you're killing me... you say that it's illegal for me to post emails due to them being copyrighted... I tell you if that's true, then I would like for you to prove it... and that if you can, then I'll publicly repent... and, you now say that I have a hard heart... if indeed emails are copyrighted... then, please show me, and I'll repent... otherwise, why should I believe you?
-What if I told you that posting on here was breaking the law... would you want proof, or would you just believe me?
Jared, no, I wouldn't believe you. I would ask for proof.
However, and here's where you and I differ, when you told me where proof was, I would at least do you the courtesy of looking at it. I might not agree with you about its veracity. I might not even go into it with an open mind. But I would at *least* go look at it, out of common courtesy.
Karen,
If I accused you of something, and this is where we differ, I would back up my accusation with proof. I would at least do this out of common courtesy.
This from www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm#aut
Registration.
Although web pages and email messages are protected as soon as created, copyright registration is needed before U.S. owners can bring suit. Also, prompt registration provides remedies that make lawsuits affordable. Statutory damages of $150,000 (or more, and attorney fees) for willful infringement can be obtained if published works are registered within three months, or unpublished works are registered before they are infringed.
Jared, I offered you proof, you dismissed it without looking at it.
Or are you too proud to admit you don't know how to Google for 'email copyright'?
Alana, one thing that site is a little misleading about is that the copyright *can* be registered, and suit brought, after the infringement occurs. You just can't file for statutory damages and attorney fees. Real damages are still fair game. That's why they say "prompt registration," though I wish they were clearer about it up front.
Not that it's especially relevant to this particular case, it just is one of those things that bugs me. It would be more likely for one of the authors to simply file a DMCA claim, which would shut the page (and perhaps the site, depending on how enthusiastic/nervous the host gets) down until the copyrighted material is removed. That doesn't require registration at all.
Alana
thank you for showing me where I had sinned. I have corrected my blog, and publicly repented. I really appreciate you showing this to me. Thank you for your time.
In Him,
Jared Moore
Jared: Alana posted the first of many links that come up when you (wait for it) Google for "email copyright."
Jared -
"you didn't answer my question about Benny Hinn... please answer that question."
You have failed to answer many of my questions and have seemed to pointedly ignore several of my arguments - why is that? And your Benny Hinn scenario does not accurately reflect this situation. When you have altered your question so that it does, I will answer it.
While your in the process of doing that, please go back and answer my question about sola scriptura in my previous post
Nathan,
there are many views, I agree... but, even those who hold to the normative principle... still limite worship... my pastor is normative... but, it's a normative that is still limited by Scripture... what they do... is they say that any form of word-based communication is ok... whenever Paul says, "through the foolishness of the message preached, I believe that's literal"... while he believes any word-based communication is fine, etc... he stands behind me in this battle...
Jared -
"there are many views, I agree..."
Then how do you account for these varying views? How do you know that your view is the correct one?
"but, even those who hold to the normative principle... still limite worship..."
Did you mean to say "those who don't hold"? If not, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
"whenever Paul says, 'through the foolishness of the message preached, I believe that's literal'..."
Ok, how do you know that's meant to be taken literally? What in the Bible tells you to take it literally and not figuratively or allegorically?
"he stands behind me in this battle..."
Who? Paul, or your pastor? Besides, any way you slice it, its still just your opinion....
Jared said normative -- regulative principle is what he holds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle, and the normative principle is that whatever isn't prohibited in scripture is okie-dokie so long as the peace is preserved.
ECW -
(BTW, what name do you go by?)
Jared is obviously using a different idea about the regulative principle. He holds that if it isn't explicitly sanctioned or taught in the Bible, then its prohibited.
"ECW - (BTW, what name do you go by?)"
Christopher, mostly. Ephrem is the name I took at Chrismation -- it's the name that people at work call me. But everyone else, including my parish, calls me Christopher... long story. I answer to both, but Christopher is probably easier in the long run.
So, Jared uses the Regulative, but he's arguing that even those who use the Normative still limit worship according to scripture. Which... is... uh... my take on it is that the Normative Principle didn't exist until someone came up with the Regulative Principle and everybody else thought that was hog-wash (warsh, depending on your accent) and so the Normative was coined to describe that which isn't Regulative. We could call it the Chestertonian Principle of Common Sense. Hey, I like that.
"Jared is obviously using a different idea about the regulative principle. He holds that if it isn't explicitly sanctioned or taught in the Bible, then its prohibited."
Right. The Regulative Principle is just that -- it must be sanctioned or else you're wrong. The Normative Principle says you're ok so long as it's not condemned and doesn't disturb the peace.
woops... my editing got screwy in that last comment... for the sake of clarity, here's what it should've been:
"ECW - (BTW, what name do you go by?)"
Christopher, mostly. Ephrem is the name I took at Chrismation -- it's the name that people at work call me. But everyone else, including my parish, calls me Christopher... long story. I answer to both, but Christopher is probably easier in the long run.
"Jared is obviously using a different idea about the regulative principle. He holds that if it isn't explicitly sanctioned or taught in the Bible, then its prohibited."
Right. The Regulative Principle is just that -- it must be sanctioned or else you're wrong. The Normative Principle says you're ok so long as it's not condemned and doesn't disturb the peace.
So, Jared uses the Regulative, but he's arguing that even those who use the Normative still limit worship according to scripture. Which... is... uh... my take on it is that the Normative Principle didn't exist until someone came up with the Regulative Principle and everybody else thought that was hog-wash (warsh, depending on your accent) and so the Normative was coined to describe that which isn't Regulative. We could call it the Chestertonian Principle of Common Sense. Hey, I like that.
Jared,
As much as we disagree on many aspects of this and many issues, I have always felt that you were, above all else, dedicated to personal, moral uprightness.
Therefore, it surprised me that, with even the hint of wrong-doing (ie. the email a laws), you wouldn't take personal responsibility to confirm if you were doing wrong. It isn't about taking anyones word for it, but taking responsibility. Ignorance of the law is not much of a defense, especially since the info you received without proof was right all along.
I was truly disappointed.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
that's fine if you were disappointed... but, if you are, then you have a double standard. Is not wrong theology sinful as well? But, whenever I question you on yours, you don't run and look up that which I have questioned, but you expect me, the one making the arguement to do the leg work and prove to you your wrong doing... how is this any different from what I've done?
Jared -
Theology is largely a matter of faith, whereas the copyrighting of emails is a simple matter of legal fact. The latter is easily ascertained and is far less complex than theological beliefs, which can include widely divergent vocabularies, values and underpinnings.
Jared,
While I disagree with your premise, even if I do have a double standard, that doesn't make your failure to take responsibility any better.
However, you are wrong. After each of your posts, I have spent a great deal of time in Scripture and searching other sources. In fact, I have learned a lot from the research that has come out of our discussions.
I would appreciate an apology for this misrepresentation based on an assumption. However, I am not angry, just somewhat hurt.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
I apologize for misunderstanding your position... if you look on my website... you'll find that I too did some research concerning this... for the website I posted conerning "fair use" is an entirely different one than the lady gave me...
But, understand that if someone makes a statement, and does not prove it... I don't see how I'm obligated to go find out for myself...
-To me, every email being copyrighted... sounds crazy... and for someone to say that they're copyrighted, and not seek to prove it... for, if my repentance was what they were after... and, I told them I would repent if it was proven, and for them not to seek to prove it... just seems like they were making an untrue or unproven statement... like, they made it up or had heard it from someone... I didn't see the need in checking it myself.
Jamie, what if I just made statements to you with no backing... expecting you to do all the leg work... would you do it?
"-To me, every email being copyrighted... sounds crazy... and for someone to say that they're copyrighted, and not seek to prove it... for, if my repentance was what they were after... and, I told them I would repent if it was proven, and for them not to seek to prove it... just seems like they were making an untrue or unproven statement... like, they made it up or had heard it from someone... I didn't see the need in checking it myself."
This is the problem with relying on one's own sense of things -- we're often wrong. We can very easily be wrong in how we understand what other people mean by their words, let alone their motivations.
ECW,
did you see where Karen kept telling me of my hard heart, and stubborn pride? Her motivation was for my repentance, but yet, she wouldn't validate her statement...
I'm willing to agree to disagree with all of you at this point...
Jared,
Thanks for acknowledging the misrepresentation. Again, I am not talking about simply taking peoples word for it. Rather, I am saying that, as you affirm us to constantly be testing our hearts and lives for evidence of salvation, I expected that you would have taken immediate action to make sure you were not in the wrong, especially since, by your own admission, you were not aware of the law.
Just a thought.
Jamie
Jamie,
I would have, if someone close to me made the statement... if someone seemed to genuinely care... I would have... but, I didn't sense that... (Granted, it's hard to sense that in writing) But, I didn't even get close to it here.
"did you see where Karen kept telling me of my hard heart, and stubborn pride? Her motivation was for my repentance, but yet, she wouldn't validate her statement..."
I wasn't making a statement pointed at you or anyone else.
I was kind of hoping you'd draw the extension that I was referring to sola scriptura and the need for an interpretive community -- i.e. the church with it's apostles, "Fathers", bishops, etc.
It wasn't an attack on you. As I've said before, I have a brotherly and adversarial affection for you. Don't ask me why. I couldn't answer.
Jared,
Let me understand then. Are you saying that in order for you to take serious any suggestion of wrong doing, you must sense genuine care from them? Doesn't that put the responsibility for your violation of the law onto anothers shoulders? If you can avoid sin in any manner, shouldn't that be your primary objective, regardless of how your accusers feel for you?
At any rate, I do not want to come across as uncharitable. Like yourself, I am very passionate. I hope you know that my intention is not to attack, dismiss or mock you.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
Bottom line... if someone seems to simply be trying to get me to repent... and, then, they tell me where I'm sinning, but they refuse to prove it... then, no, I'm not going to waste my time trying to validate their accusation.
I don't have to know that the individual cares for me in order to believe the individual... but, in order to check out what the individual is saying, yeah... to just make a statement without proof simply makes it look as if the individual doesn't know what they're talking about
Anyways,
I'm tired of kicking this dead horse... it seems as if we're in a never-ending circle...
"Are you saying that in order for you to take serious any suggestion of wrong doing, you must sense genuine care from them?"
This, by the way, is a great realization for all to make. The old love the sinner, hate the sin cliche is about as useless as it can get because it's merely words out of so many mouths of people that the next minute spew out vitriol about homosexuals, liberals, and um "pagan catholics".
Going back, Jared, to a previous portion of our lengthy discussion we talked about the proper response to homosexuals. You insisted that no homosexual could be a part of the church, while I pointed to an article that told a story about a gay man that converted to Orthodoxy, though it took him 10 years to achieve the successful habit of celibacy.
Closer to home, now, I think we could probably all admit that we have at some point in these talks posted hastily out of irritation and judgment -- our judgment, the wrath of man -- rather than out of love for the other with which we are communicating.
Let's all remember that it is love -- God's love -- which attracts us to Him. And let's ask ourselves whether we are being a vessel of love, or a tool of domination. I say this to all of us, including myself.
I agree, Jared. Let's agree to disagree. It just surprises me, but not worth the time and energy to debate any longer.
I am posting my comments about your sermon at your site shortly.
Peace,
Jamie
This seems like a darn good place to close this puppy down - we've been arguing around in circles and it hasn't really gotten anywhere. I'm all for honest but friendly debate, though. So, over the next week or two, I'll post a few entries about my (currently in the process of changing) thinking about church, the Bible, tradition, etc and I would invite anyone and everyone to post as many polite, well intentioned comments as they like. Jared, I will continue to visit your site and engage your posts when I feel I have something to contribute or see something I don't understand.
Post a Comment