Landmark Baptist

Does this mean "only preachers are allowed to post in this forum" or "only preachers have to be polite" ??

Now that you asked, I think it means that only preachers who post in this forum have to be polite. lol It is not a bad idea for preacher to be polite posting or not posting. lol.

Politeness in religious discussion is when you "agree to disagree" and pretend that you think the other guy might be right when, in reality, you think he's a blithering idiot. It goes something like this:

"Yes, dear brother - and I do mean dear, dear, brother - it seems to me that your sincerely held innovative ideas will restructure the whole concept of worship as understood by Baptist people for hundreds of years, and move our younger generation toward the practices of the censored in their worship. But I know you have the advancement of Christ's kingdom at heart and I would never dare question your motives nor your sincerity. I just ask that you please consider a few thought that I'd like to share with you from the olde traditional perspective. And remember, every thing I say I say with the deepest heart of luv and concern."

Its a shame that a bunch of grown men, who profess to be men of God, can't defend their doctrine and practices without crying like a bunch of wome.....I mean babies every time someone challenges them. Oh well, this will be my only post to the politically corr.......I mean polite forum.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

P.S. I hope this isn't a little too saucy for some of you little fellers. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Mark Osgatharp wrote:Politeness in religious discussion is when you "agree to disagree" and pretend that you think the other guy might be right when, in reality, you think he's a blithering idiot.

No, that is weak minded & deceptive posturing.

Politeness in religious discussion is when you use manly courage and wisdom to meet the topic squarely, keeping excessive emotion checked while meeting challenge with challenge, and bringing Scripture to bear on that topic effectively instead of reaching into the nursery toy box and pulling out the childish weapons of unfounded disparaging insinuations and comical character attacks, which serve to deflect the discussion away from the issue at hand and makes deeper Biblical understanding more difficult.

One need not shout the truth with the vulgarity of the world, in order to credibly stand for the truth, unbending, and unyielding.

Political correctness is for career politicians. Shocking top-water accusations are for immature arguers, strikers, and brawlers. Hard hitting meaningful debate, that challenges the mind and heart is for men of honor who earnestly contend for the faith.

Proverbs 16:32 [He that is] slow to anger [is] better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.

Proverbs 5:1-2 My son, attend unto my wisdom, [and] bow thine ear to my understanding: That thou mayest regard discretion, and [that] thy lips may keep knowledge.

AS a blithering idiot, I find this topic offensive. Wait... what was the question?

Utahlandmarker wrote:I may agree with Bro Mark in his post.

Do you?

I find it funny that we are being impolite over what it means to be polite. I think we preachers have some sort of mental disorder.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]
polite
POLI'TE, a. L. politus, polished, from polio, supra.

1. Literally, smooth, glossy, and used in this sense till within a century.

Rays of light falling on a polite surface.

This application of the word is, I believe, entirely obsolete.

2. Being polished or elegant in manners; refined in behavior; well bred.

He marries, bows at court and grows polite.

3. Courteous; complaisant; obliging.

His manners were warm without insincerity, and polite without pomp.


Hmm. I must say, my "working understanding" of the word polite, is not quite the same as this definition. This definition seems a little more "fluffy". I have always just thought of it in terms of being civil, and non-combative. In other words, debating with vigor the issue, while at the same time avoiding the temptation of casting mud upon your opponent by making negative assumptions about his motives, and/or intelligence. This definition above actually calls for some elegance, a word that scares a bearded Baptist preacher from the mountains.

So here is a question. Is it or is it not, impolite, un-civil, dis-courteous, or just plain wrong to cast negative light on the thoughts and intents of an opponent, when debating his stance on an issue.

Can we not let a man dirty himself up with an incorrect stance without calling him stupid, or claiming he has something to hide, or some ulterior motive? Or is this too much of a soft painted pastel portrait?

Will we actually be in danger of failing to effectively defend a doctrine or practice if we refrain from attacking the motives or intelligence of our opponent?

Utahlandmarker wrote:

G. Michael Coulter wrote:

Utahlandmarker wrote:I may agree with Bro Mark in his post.

Do you?

I may or may not, I probably do, yet cannot say for sure, because it might potentially be seen as a bit offensive to someone who may or may not hold the same opinion. In which case I would be totally out of line in the polite preacher forum to do something that may or may not be considered to be not polite.

Your answer is in "political correctness" mode. You are being elusive with your thoughts, and primarily centered on what others will think of you. You seem to be endorsing the idea that reasonable polite discussion is not definable, therefore truth for one person, (what constitutes mature polite discussion), may not be truth for another person. You are therefore caught in the trap of weak mindedness and deceptive posturing.

Of course, knowing you, it appears you may be doing this in a somewhat comical manner, perhaps accentuating the idea that "politeness" in religious discussion is either not attainable, or a ridiculous goal, as it requires dissimulation and at least some level of weakness that looks more womanly or childlike than manly. Perhaps this is not your goal.

However, the question still stands; is there a way to define the elements of reasonable, respectful, polite religious discussion? If so, what are those elements? Are they truth, or are they just opinion? It seems to me that to have a discussion board and have it run well, some reasonable guidelines must be in place. If you consult the terms of use, you see some guidelines put in place. There must be a way to define what is respectful polite discussion and what is not. And those principles must be grounded in something stronger than simple personal opinion.

The definition of polite, as given by Noah Webster above, does call for more restraint than many would think the word calls for. However, nothing in the definition speaks of avoiding tough issues because someone may get offended, or being elusive about what you truly think. It is simply the ability to control your words in such a way as to clearly and respectfully state your thoughts without doing so in an unrestrained rant.

As you have the authority to censor our words in this Polite Preacher Forum, you must have some idea of what is reasonable, respectful, and polite religious discussion. Could you tell us your thoughts on it? How is it different than the overall guidelines for the discussion board at large? What are you expecting to see or not see in this forum?

Some interesting thoughts here.

Utahlandmarker wrote:I think to be "polite" in a debate, especially things of so much importance as religious convictions is really tends to really be phonieness. Much like the charade that goes on on Capital Hill with all the distinguished gentleman nonsense. I think that is what Bro Mark was alluding to.

So I am left wondering if you feel it is unnatainable and therefore bad to try and do. Why does politeness "tend" toward phoniness?

Utahlandmarker wrote:I was curious how many would be willing to really partake in a polite discussion or debate. My thinking was, few really would. I think that has turned out to be true for the most part as the discussion quickly turned into debating what it is to be polite while debating.

Hmm. Yes we are debating politeness in debate and/or discussion. Are we doing it impolitely? Is debate inherently impolite?

Utahlandmarker wrote:Reading in baptist history, Gods people were called upon to be bold preachers, not the panzies we are told to be today

Yes, God's preachers in any age need to be bold. But they also are not to be brawlers and strikers. Where is that proper way? Might it be described as polite? Is there a better word to describe discussion and/or debate that honors God's Word? Can a man of God thouroughly dismantle a poor Bible stance using Bible, clear thinking, and pinning the opponent into the corner with his well thought out and well aimed arguments and do it politely?

How do you describe a brawler and a striker?

Utahlandmarker wrote:All that being said, we should be able to have good, hard, tough, even emotional debate with each other and still be great friends at the end of the day.

What of the angry debater?

Proverbs 22:24 Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:

Do we look the other way at an angry debater’s hasty, judgmental words in our effort to make sure we don’t look pink?

Or is the real man, the one who can say what he means with force and clarity without having to scream or make the other look bad? If you have the Word of God on your side, I say get out of the way with insinuations and mud-slinging words and let the Word of God shine. I see nothing wrong with emotion filled preaching, and debating, but there must be, (actually there is), a right way and wrong way. What say you? Not what “tends” to happen, but what actually are the principles of honorable debate? What are the principles of dishonorable debate?

Why do you "guess" that your post needs to be censored? Is it simplyu a guessing game or are there principles that serve as boundaries. Then again, if you "guess" it should be censored, why didn't you? One could get the feeling that you may not understand what you are trying to govern. But I know you to be quite intelligent and would like to know your thoughts about what is proper debate and what is not. It certainly can't be that everybody says whatever they want and just everybody don't take it personal. Or maybe it can, what do you think?

Ok. I find myself thinking that Bro. Utah is committed to the comical aspect of this discussion in a way that I am not. He can answer if he wishes to clear up my understanding if it is incorrect. I don't have all the answers about honorable debate and discussion. It is fluid and dynamic, and at times we may skirt the border or even cross the line here and there. I challenged Bro. Hamlin on the 1Peter thread when I thought he had made harmful insinuations. I have challenged Bro. Mike here and tried to explain my understanding of doing debate honorably. I keep coming back to a central thought. I can examine and disect something that has actually happened or something that has actually been said or written. I can bring the Word of God to bear upon what has actually occured and give my honest conclusion. However, if I try to do the same with thoughts or feelings in another persons mind, how can I do that "honestly"? What has been written, I can work with honestly. What your motives are, I cannot really know unless you tell me.

I think this topic is worth serious discussion. It is very important to me, I want to get it right.

A God called Baptist preacher should not be muzzled; he needs to reprove the works of darkness, and at times, Paul named names and called for avoiding people.

At the same time, I don't feel I have a right to foam at the mouth about everything I talk about, and I do feel there should be a difference in how I speak to one much older than me.

I have perhaps not done it right everytime on this forum, please forgive me if I have crossed lines I should not.

I am asking for other to give input. Perhaps some hoary heads to give some insight on the principles from God's Word that chart us our proper level of freedom and restraint in honorable debate and discussion.

Mike Faulkner wrote:I dont think I was being funny on my response. I just added some definitions to try to clarify terms, so that we are talking of the same thing.

I stand corrected.

Mike Faulkner wrote:Striker- one apt to inflict blows or hit another.
Brawler- - one who is inclined to fight.
I believe both striker and brawler are referring to physical attacks.

I have never heard these qualifications limited only to physical attacks before. Interesting. Don't agree, but would be open to your thoughts.

Mike Faulkner wrote:You also said something I agreed with that may not be considered to inapropriate and not polite though.

I added the last part to draw interest,

Ok. You drew my interest. What is it?

Mike Faulkner wrote:It was what you said about a remarried man. And I agree with what you said, just did not seem to be the most appropriate place to do it. Not very polite.

Understandable. From my perspective, I was asked to preach on the qualifications. I tried my best to temper what I had to say with expression of humility on the subject, but could not feel honest to just skip that one. Here is the outline from that portion, my stomach was tied up in knots realizing that there were men I respected a lot, who taught it differently. In the delivery, I tried hard to not appear condemning. I felt between a rock and hard place. Either preach my Bible convictions, or fearfully avoid fulfilling my task. One of the toughest 5-10 minutes in the pulpit I have ever had.

Ok. How could it have been better in the polite arena?

B. Husband of one wife - a one-woman man

1. I believe that a divorced and remarried man fails this qualification and should not be a pastor

a. He is not what the Bible considers a one woman man if there are two women in the world to which he has uttered the statement, "I will keep to you and you only, as long as we both shall live".

b. I believe that being loosed from your spouse
happens with their death.

1) Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

c. Remarriage before the death of the first spouse is breaking a vow.

d. I believe the "exception clause" concerning fornication refers to unfaithfulness during the espousal period.

1) Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

a) fornication is separate from adultery here and in other passages
b) this clause is only found in the gospel intended for Jewish readers

2) This clause defined by the actions of
Joseph

a) Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

e. It makes him a type breaker

1) Num 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
Num 20:11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
Num 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

a) the type here was Christ and His death

2) Eph 5:22-33 - The type here is Christ and His church

a) As New Testament church members, we may lose the blessing of being married to Christ and living in the Holy City, by committing spiritual fornication during this espousal period. However, once the marriage supper has taken place, our groom will never get another wife.

b) The reason Moses could not lead God's people was because he failed to sanctify the Lord in the eyes of those he would lead. In plain words, he painted the wrong picture of Christ by insinuating that He could be struck twice. When a man, after he is married, divorces, and gets another wife, he paints the wrong picture of Christ by insinuating that after Christ marries His bride, that He could put her away and get another wife. It breaks the type. Men, we show Jesus and His bride to the world by how we conduct ourselves in our marriages.

2. There is more to study on the issue. Important point. Whereas I believe that we should not ordain divorced and remarried men to the office of pastor, the fact is, that this issue is widely disagreed on. There are indeed churches, which have and do call men to pastor who have been divorced and remarried. I do not believe we should let this fact drive us to be disrespectful or any other such thing. We can interact with pastors who have a different view on this in a cordial respectful way. I have not always held this view, yet over the last few years have been driven to it by the Scriptures. I am not the only one with an opinion on it, nor am I willing to treat anyone else wrongly because they don't share my same opinion. I will just conduct myself as a preacher and teacher of God's Word in accordance with my beliefs, not demanding others to agree with me.

Mike Faulkner wrote:So that is where I think I have been going on this and other threads, when are we to be polite, non offensive, when do we speak our convictions. Anytime we are speaking our convictions it will be offensive to someone.

Yes I see. It is a good point you make. To have a goal of never having anything we say be offensive to anyone is a wimpy goal because it makes their feelings more important than truth. However, you are classifying non offesiveness and politeness in the same category as if one cannot politely speak a thing that someone gets offended at. One can preach a message against pedobaptism and chop that heresy into mush, in an honorable and even polite manner. Speaking our convictions need not be oppositte to speaking politely, or having a respectful and honorable debate.

We are indeed to be polite and honorable in our discussions and debates. That is not the same as being non offensive. We control our speech, but we cannot control their response, which may be to take offense.

Tom and Jack debate about whether Ford trucks are better than Chevy trucks. Tom rails on Jack being so stupid to think that Ford is better, and goes on about "Ford stands for Found On Road Dead", and insinuates that Jack is really a Ku Klux Klan member for even thinking that way. Jack refrains from that petty stuff and brings out stat after stat proving his point that Ford is better. He does not holler until he is hoarse, just vigorously debates. I say Jack debates honorably and Tom does not.

Of course they both got it wrong, because DODGE still rules truck land.

What say you?

Here is a question for you Bro. Faulkner,

What exactly must I write on this forum in order to be dishonorable in my debate or discussion. What can I not get away with?

Bro. Coulter,

Excellent last post. It is definitely something that I could work on.

Bro. Jonathan

G. Michael Coulter wrote:Here is a question for you Bro. Faulkner,

What exactly must I write on this forum in order to be dishonorable in my debate or discussion. What can I not get away with?

Mike Faulkner wrote:to answer Bro Coulters question.
Nothing, as I said, in a previous post, in my mind all is fair!

Hmm. Do you feel you should have the same type of freedom in the pulpit? If there is nothing (besides dishonest things, which you have already condemned as dishonorable debate), that could be said that qualifies in your mind as dishonorable debate, is there nothing, aside from dishonest statements, that could be said that you would consider dishonorable preaching?

Your pink colored, politically correct friend

Ok. A preacher is preaching on end times issues. With sweat flying and feet stomping, he states, "Now I spoke with Pastor so and so recently and he told me that he actually believes that the rapture will happen at the first of the week. No thinking man can read the Scriptures and come up with this trash. He knows full well what the Bible says. I tell you, he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes brethren. Stay clear of him, for his desire is to sway you from the truth of the Bible. Now he told me that his belief comes from honest study, and he actually believes it to be true, but I know different, so I warn you now, stay clear of that man, he's dangerous to your souls!"

Did God lay that on His heart? Is that honorable preaching? Is it merely a preference issue or does it actually violate Scripture for him to say these things?

Ok. So he has a discussion with another pastor. That pastor tells him that he believes in first of the week. He responds by saying, "Why are you trying to mislead people by teaching that?" To which that pastor responds by saying, "I am not trying to mislead anyone, I believe the Bible teaches it."

Then he tells his people about the conversation and claims that that pastor is not telling the truth when he says he believes the Bible teaches first of the week. He tells them that pastor is being decieving and that such deception is dangerous to them.

Is this perfectly fine?

Mike Faulkner wrote:My goal is to warn of the philosophy or idea and let that mark those that preach it, simply because their intentions, I do not know.

Behold! Do mine eyes deceive me, or have you just provided us with a guideline for honor in preaching, debating, and discussions? Is it not really "All is fair?"

Or is it?

Mike Faulkner wrote:If I felt the Lord wanted be to single out a person though, I would do it.

Do you mean here that you would single out someone for preaching the false teaching you warned about?

or

Would you single out the person to accuse their intentions? If not, why not?

So then, if in preaching you would refrain from speaking authoritatively about one's intentions based on the fact that you don't know those intentions, would it be any different in debate and discussion on this discussion board? Except for Jon I guess?

Here is a passage.


Philippians 1:15-17 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

Here Paul clearly was speaking about the motives and intentions of others.

Uh oh Mike, have we gone pink?

Would Paul be banned from the Polite Preacher's Forum because he accused the intentions and motives of others?

Any comments from anyone?

G. Michael Coulter wrote:Any comments from anyone?

Yes, I would like to make a few comments...

Politeness in conversation/discussion/debate is not so much about the meaning of the content as it is about the manner of the delivery. It is not so much about the intent of the message of the speaker/writer as it is about the intent of the heart that is put forth from the speaker/writer to the hearer/reader. Regardless of what is actually being said, politeness is about the way it is being expressed.

A short dictionary/thesaurus search on the subject yielded the following related words:

civil
polite
tactful
gracious
courteous
respectful
considerate

In the context of these forums, consider the following:

~ Being civil with each other is a way of keeping peace among brethren...

~ Being polite is exercising 'The Golden Rule'...

~ Being tactful is remembering that others also have feelings that can be trampled on...

~ Being gracious is not forgetting that you will one day be judged...

~ Being courteous is kindness-in-action that makes the fellowship more pleasant and enjoyable...

~ Being respectful is acknowledging that you are no better than anyone else, and others have the same right to have their own belief or opinion as you do...

~ Being considerate is realizing that others need edification, too...

G. Michael Coulter wrote:Politeness in religious discussion is when you use manly courage and wisdom to meet the topic squarely, keeping excessive emotion checked while meeting challenge with challenge, and bringing Scripture to bear on that topic effectively instead of reaching into the nursery toy box and pulling out the childish weapons of unfounded disparaging insinuations and comical character attacks, which serve to deflect the discussion away from the issue at hand and makes deeper Biblical understanding more difficult.

You said that very well - good statement!

It is needless to belittle anyone. It only serves to distract and destroy. It does not edify.

G. Michael Coulter wrote:I keep coming back to a central thought. I can examine and disect something that has actually happened or something that has actually been said or written. I can bring the Word of God to bear upon what has actually occured and give my honest conclusion. However, if I try to do the same with thoughts or feelings in another persons mind, how can I do that "honestly"? What has been written, I can work with honestly. What your motives are, I cannot really know unless you tell me.

It is the responsibility of the writer to produce statements that communicate well the idea they wish to impart (to the best of their ability) - including whatever intents and/or motives they wish to be understood as part of the "message" or "thought process" they are endeavoring to communicate.

It is the responsibility of the reader to interpret the meaning of the writer's statements based only on what can actually be gleaned from the statements themselves - without making assumptions about the writer's intents and/or motives.

Mike Faulkner wrote:Anytime we are speaking our convictions it will be offensive to someone.

G. Michael Coulter wrote:To have a goal of never having anything we say be offensive to anyone is a wimpy goal because it makes their feelings more important than truth.

G. Michael Coulter wrote:We are indeed to be polite and honorable in our discussions and debates. That is not the same as being non offensive. We control our speech, but we cannot control their response, which may be to take offense.

"Alas, it's human nature..."

What do we do?

We do our best:

Try not to offend.
Try not to be offended.

Speak our convictions? YES!

Offense unavoidable? Probably.

What, then?

Balance.

Mike Faulkner wrote:I edited Bro Marks post to show how silly it was for all the requests for polite discussion on the forum when debating things as important as these. Meaning things of faith.
You cannot please everyone, and when we try, our words become meaningless and purposeless.

By now, I hope everyone understands that Bro. Mike created this forum "in the first place" - "to make a point"... And, when everyone "has gotten it" -- hopefully, we will delete the 'Polite Preachers' forum and try to forget it ever happened. (We can move the Topics first.)

Why?

Because "politeness" is something that needs to be exercised in every forum - not just in a specially designated forum. It's not about a place to go to "be polite" - it's about having a reason to "be polite" - all the time, everywhere - whatever you may happen to be discussing - wherever you may happen to be discussing it.

For this reason, I moved this forum from the Doctrine section to the Community section. This is not a doctrinal issue. It is a community issue.

G. Michael Coulter wrote:However, the question still stands; is there a way to define the elements of reasonable, respectful, polite religious discussion? If so, what are those elements? Are they truth, or are they just opinion? It seems to me that to have a discussion board and have it run well, some reasonable guidelines must be in place. If you consult the terms of use, you see some guidelines put in place. There must be a way to define what is respectful polite discussion and what is not. And those principles must be grounded in something stronger than simple personal opinion.

G. Michael Coulter wrote:As you have the authority to censor our words in this Polite Preacher Forum, you must have some idea of what is reasonable, respectful, and polite religious discussion. Could you tell us your thoughts on it? How is it different than the overall guidelines for the discussion board at large? What are you expecting to see or not see in this forum?

May I suggest the following?:

~ Guideline #1:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." ~ Galatians 5:22-23

I put this verse in the pink 'Forum rules' box for a reason...

(to serve as a reminder)

To whatever degree everyone governs themselves appropriately, there is no need for further "confinement of law"...

(Inasmuch as you can "keep" this "law" -- you don't need another...)

~ Guideline #2:

If and when Guideline #1 appears to be insufficient to solve a problem, an admin or moderator will "step in" and "cast the tie-breaking vote" (using the stated "Official Site Rules" as a foundation, but also utilizing Common Sense together with whatever relevant facts or knowledge are available to consider - and all reasoned together).

~ Guideline #3:

Bro. Chad Whiteley gets the last word.

You see -- "respectful polite discussion" is the collective result of individual self-discipline. The remaining question is, "What do you do when that doesn't work?" --- and that's where "Official Site Rules" come in.

(Needless to say, the "Official Site Rules" may be revised as necessary. If they are lacking in some way, they should be updated.)

G. Michael Coulter wrote:What exactly must I write on this forum in order to be dishonorable in my debate or discussion. What can I not get away with?

I'm not sure the rules need to have the precision of a scalpel, however.

Mike Faulkner wrote:All that being said, we should be able to have good, hard, tough, even emotional debate with each other and still be great friends at the end of the day.

Yes, that would be ideal...

Bro. Gary,
Your last post was excellent! It was well thought out and clearly addressed the manner in which we should conduct ourselves on the forum.

Thanks,
Todd Dornan