September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« God Bless America | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

July 05, 2012

Comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8

The day will likely come when the rage and intolerance that we see in the militant homosexual community will issue forth in political decisions that result in imprisonment for those who dare to share God's perspective on sexuality. Then, also those who kill Christians because of their view will likely be exonerated on the grounds of duress or some other thing. It is coming. I could be wrong. The rage in this video and the hate is the same thing that Jesus recognized as murder.

I’m reminded that this world is not our home. The world hates Jesus—the real Jesus of the Bible—and it will hate you. Are you ready for this? Will you continue on in truth, loving others and worshiping God, or will you fold?

Being persecuted about one's opinion on any particular issue doesn't necessarily mean that one has the correct position.

If a member of the Hutaree got up and presented his beliefs, he would likely receive a similar response. Would STR have the same type of objection to the crowd's reaction then?

Or how about a "Christian" from the KKK?

IMHO, some viewpoints are worth sneering off the stage.

Furthermore, informed disagreement with STR's position on homosexuality does not mean that one has "folded." Frankly, that's a rather unreasonable claim to be making.

Brgulker,

Amy didn't say being persecuted means one has the correct position.

I disagree that sneering someone off stage is ever a good response. Whenever someone is trying to reason with us from a stage, we must demonstrate an ability to reason back, to counter reason, no matter how unreasonable we think the other person.

Otherwise, you're likely to end up with a group of people who don't know how to reason against opposition: only mock. This is the trouble with the younger secular generation that is rising in America. They are raised on shows like John Stewart and The Colbert Report and books from new atheists where the only (or at least in some instances primary) modus operandi is refutation by mocker. But of course mocker isn't a form of refutation at all. It's only a form of whipping yourself and your choir up into an emotional fervor.

What you end up with is a new generation of seculars that know how to bully but not how to reason.

Your final statement about informed disagreement with STR's position is just question begging, isn't it? What if I think, after assessing the arguments, that STR has the only reasonable position and that any position disagreeing with it is, by its very nature, uninformed? Perhaps me and my cronies should stalk you online and sneer you off any forums we find you engaging in.

I disagree that sneering someone off stage is ever a good response. Whenever someone is trying to reason with us from a stage, we must demonstrate an ability to reason back, to counter reason, no matter how unreasonable we think the other person.

My implicit point is that some viewpoints are fundamentally not rational.

What if I think, after assessing the arguments, that STR has the only reasonable position and that any position disagreeing with it is, by its very nature, uninformed?

I would say that's a clever dismissal of those who disagree without engaging them in a conversation/argument.

Perhaps me and my cronies should stalk you online and sneer you off any forums we find you engaging in.

That would seem an immature response.

I'm not defending the response of the students in the video. It's pretty obvious that there are plenty of inappropriate responses.

Otherwise, you're likely to end up with a group of people who don't know how to reason against opposition: only mock. This is the trouble with the younger secular generation that is rising in America.

I don't think there's anything new to this or unique to this generation. I think it's pretty fair to say that most young generations express themselves in very loud, boisterous, emotive terms.

The contrast between the speaker and the students is very obvious, and it makes the mockery that much more obvious.

That said, it would be interesting to see the context reversed. What if a "liberal" affirming professor visited a Christian campus like Liberty (which they'd likely not allow in the first place). Do you think the response from the students would be all that much different?

Brgulker,

You say: "My implicit point is that some viewpoints are fundamentally not rational."

I respond: that's a clever dismissal of those who disagree without engaging them in a conversation/argument.

You say: "That would seem an immature response."

I respond: As does your suggestion that sometimes it's appropriate to sneer someone off stage.

You say: "I don't think there's anything new to this or unique to this generation. I think it's pretty fair to say that most young generations express themselves in very loud, boisterous, emotive terms."

I respond: So what's so new about new atheism, ya think? While young people always have a tendency to be emotionally and rhetorically driven, such behavior has been so openly promoted and modeled by the older generation (Dawkins et al) for the younger generation.

You say: "That said, it would be interesting to see the context reversed. What if a "liberal" affirming professor visited a Christian campus like Liberty (which they'd likely not allow in the first place). Do you think the response from the students would be all that much different?"

I respond: What reason do we have to believe the response *wouldn't* be all that much different? We already have prima facie reason to think it would be: Christian response to new atheist tactics has largely been to reason and not return with mockery in kind.

I went to a Christian college. Our biggest sports rival was a secular college. Whenever we played them in an away game the students of the other college would engage in bad behavior, mocking our students, not letting them sit in the bleachers, etc. But whenever we played a home game against them, our professors and the deans and the coaches would speak to the entire campus telling the students to be extra-nice to our guests. We couldn't mock or taunt and we were even encouraged not to show disrespectful attitude toward the referees' decisions.

So what reason do I have to think that the faculty and staff of Christian institution would even let such behavior occur without immediately stopping it and disciplining the students and even taking preventative measures in lecturing the students to be respectful?

Douglas Wilson did an excellent job and is to be commended. I highly recommend the Q & A session as well.

Regarding much of the crowd response: If you're in a gunfight and your opponent suddenly throws their gun at you, you can be sure they're out of ammunition.

And if you're in a debate with someone and your opponent resorts to name calling, you can be sure they're out of reason.

Some of those people asking questions are deeply confused in so many ways.

Sometimes it makes wonder where we should draw the line between spreading the Gospel and being ready to give an answer and not to give what is holy to dogs nor to cast pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Having said that I'm sure some of those confused people can be saved if approached more individually but the mob mentality prevailed.

Wow, and this is at a university! A university! I really wished it could have been Bill Craig answering the call. Its seems these kids were just looking for a fight more than anything.

If this passes for "the marketplace of ideas" at most colleges today, I may have finally found a reason to be grateful that none of my children opted to pursue higher education...they won't have to un-learn reasoned discourse to master blind emotionalism. I guess I was most surprised at the number of people who went up to ask questions, and openly admitted they had not really listened to the talk...they only came to fan the flames, not take part in conversation. I'm not surprised that they didn't listen, just that they were so honest about it.

The day will likely come when the rage and intolerance that we see in the militant homosexual community will issue forth in political decisions that result in imprisonment for those who dare to share God's perspective on sexuality. Then, also those who kill Christians because of their view will likely be exonerated on the grounds of duress or some other thing. It is coming. I could be wrong. The rage in this video and the hate is the same thing that Jesus recognized as murder.

This is already happening in some parts of the world, so I'm kinda on board with the idea that things that are going this way...

I agree with Amy's point. It's not nearly as bad as some examples of college inhospitality, but still there's this tendency to use force rather than reason to make their points. The thing I took away from the session was the exemplary patience of the speaker. Lord, help us all to have the wisdom of Dr. Wilson!

For a treat, go to "William Lane Craig Questions and Answers" on Youtube. The students are mostly agnostics, but clearly respectful--and Craig just shines.

The level of disrespect is astounding.

I think that the topic was a recipe for disaster. Sexuality from a biblical perspective is a hard sell on a secular campus where the majority of students and faculty don't accept the authority of scripture. It seems to me that you first have to make the case for the authority of scripture before you try to make the case for sexual morality based on the scriptures. I don't know anything about Dr. Wilson, but I think that he was ill advised to accept an invitation to speak on this topic at this venue, his patience notwithstanding.

Aw dude, this is so inspiring. I totally want to try something like that at my college campus. Focus on the Family has a thing called Day of Dialogue that seems very similar to this. It's supposed to be a forum about the Christian view of sexuality, but I couldn't find enough support to do it on my campus. I'm so stoked to do it next year now.

@Nick, "If this passes for "the marketplace of ideas" at most colleges today, I may have finally found a reason to be grateful that none of my children opted to pursue higher education...they won't have to un-learn reasoned discourse to master blind emotionalism." Nice. It is heartbreakingly true.

That network of congregations that did this event has issues as scary as their audience's.

I watched the 40 question Q&A session and it seems to me that some of the folks toward the end became somewhat less combative. I think it shows that a lack of exposure to the reasoning behind classical Christianity is largely responsible for their mistaken views and hostility toward Christianity based on those mistaken views. It is not that they were not exposed to Christianity, but the reasoning behind its worldview and positions based on that worldview. This might be in some part due to the emphasis in some churches on basing their entrenched Christian positions on emotionally loaded arguments rather than being based on the more stable foundation of reason. It brings home the importance of reason based apologetic and the exposure of the culture to it. Now I think that the emotional responses on the opposing side in the video is simply emotional responses responding to other emotional responses, which is the way both Christian and non-Christian components of our culture are often motivated. We need to get away from ambition that has this as its motivation for there to be any kind of intellectual dialog between people who disagree. I think the only way to do this is to tear down these emotional barriers that we have built up and only reason can effectively do that.

That man is a true saint. The patience and grace he showed in the face of mockery and scorn was amazing.

I'm from Indiana and am embarrassed by most of those kid's clear lack of critical thinking skills or even basic listening skills for that matter.
Not to mention their total lack of respect for the someone presenting at their university. Regardless of whether they agree or not, common decency should be in play. I'm afraid we've left common decency in the past and this hostility is going to bubble up to the leadership of our country. Very sad.

www.persecution.com

That man is a true saint. The patience and grace he showed in the face of mockery and scorn was amazing.

Agreed. As disgruntled as I was watching some of the audience's disrespectful actions in this video, I couldn't help but notice that Pastor Wilson handled it very gracefully, much better than I would have. It's a good example of how to react to such behaviour...

Mike

"Not to mention their total lack of respect for the someone presenting at their university. Regardless of whether they agree or not, common decency should be in play."

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment and judgment. I think we need to take a closer look at the constellation of tolerance, approval, entitlement and civility. I think that the marriage of entitlement with an improper understanding of tolerance fueled by emotion results in a lack of civility that expresses itself in the kind of indecent behavior demonstrated by the students in the video. The kind of combination of these elements in ways I describe them, result in a powder-keg that needs little to ignite it. All it takes is a threat to a sense of entitlement of a group that is mollycoddled, spoiled and filled with a sense of entitlement to perceived rights, to set the keg off. I agree that they are an outright embarrassment, not only to the region and university they come from, but to humanity in general and if they aren't, they should be. All this does is emphasize how miserably needy we human beings are for a redeemer to step in and save us from our sinful plight.

I agree that every Christian should watch the Q%A and not only the short first section but the whole 2 hour Q&A at the bottom.
But not to recognize the obvious hate and disagreement towards the christian world view, but to witness the excellent response. What a great display of speaking truth and showing compassion, even in the midst of this.

You really ought to see "William Lane Craig Questions and Answers" on Youtube! From the accents I'd say it's a school in England. And the mastery of Craig's comments contributes to the respectful atmosphere.

@Louis
Very well stated. Unfortunately.

On one side, you have a guy that considers equating evolution to shapeshifting to be a premise of an argument.

On the other side, you have people being rude to him while others (on both sides) are not rude.

RonH

RonH

"On one side, you have a guy that considers equating evolution to shapeshifting to be a premise of an argument."

I think he likened it to shape-shifting , not equated it. Do I see a thumb pressing down on the side of "equating" on the scale of accurate representation of what was the intent of the statement?

Louis,

If you look around, you will frequently find the word equate being used to describe a likening or association of two things in some context-dependent way.

Paraphrasing from 13:41

The materialist believes matter is eternal and that, given enough time, anything can turn into anything else. In the beginning there was hydrogen with enormous potential. That's what evolution is all about. Hydrogen can turn into sea lions. Anything can morph into anything else. This is basic to the materialistic mind set.

You see the same thing in Ovid's Metamorphoses.

In Ovid, chaos gave birth to the gods. They, in turn, shaped other stuff, and for the rest of the Metamorphoses, shape shifting was the order of the day.

RonH

Patrick is absolutely right. The hatred displayed by those people shrieking and swearing is nothing compared to what's to come. We need to be prepared to accept it and not give in.

The sad part is that most Christians have already given in. Oh, they may not openly support same-sex marriage, but they'll support civil unions. (Which amounts to the same thing in practicality, only under a different name.) They may not personally agree with homosexuality, but they won't say a word in opposition to it - not anywhere, not even online.

Christians are forever apologizing for the bad treatment given to homosexuals - which bad treatment has not been done by them, their families, their churches or communities, sometimes for generations!

As Christians, we need to stop feeling guilty. Stop apologizing already.

People like the ones screeching in this video are the ones who should be apologizing to US. We shouldn't expect it. But we need to start saying it. There is nothing wrong, immoral, unbiblical or "un-Christian" about holding people accountable for such bad behavior.

@ brgulker -

"IMHO, some viewpoints are worth sneering off the stage."

Then your "humble opinion" is in error and is not so humble, since it demonstrates arrogance to say such a thing. No one has the right to freely attend an event as a guest and then choose to interrupt the speaker, scream, use profanity and yell at them to, "Shut up."

"Furthermore, informed disagreement with STR's position on homosexuality does not mean that one has "folded." Frankly, that's a rather unreasonable claim to be making."

First, it's not just STR's position on homosexuality. It is Scripture's position.

Second, you may disagree, but that does not make your view correct.

Third, since you've misrepresented STR's position, your third point is invalid.

Mo,

No one has the right to freely attend an event as a guest and then choose to interrupt the speaker, scream, use profanity and yell at them to, "Shut up."

Regardless of what the speaker says?

RonH

@ Ron H -

I'm sure some imaginary scenario can be brought up where it may be okay. But I don't like to play hypothetical games like that. You can go around and around for hours, and it serves no real purpose. I prefer to deal with the practical realities of the specific situation at hand.

There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by those people screaming in that video. None.

RonH

"If you look around, you will frequently find the word equate being used to describe a likening or association of two things in some context-dependent way."

I think that a link of association does not need the strong equate position to be valid. Sharing only some of the characteristics or even only one, is sufficient to establish an association based on that shared trait. That you may see the same things in other examples of shape-shifting does not necessarily mean that every aspect of evolution fits the description of some mythological shape shifting. I think it is a bit heavy-handed to make a claim on the basis you provide that he was equating the two.

Louis Kuhelj,

Wilson does not equate evolution and shapeshifting.
He doesn't do an across the board comparison.
He equates the reality of the two.

Mo,

hypothetical games... go around and around for hours...serves no real purpose

I take it you understand me. Good.

RonH

@ RonH -

No, I'm sorry. I do not. (And I'm sorry, but I don't have time/energy to play games like this. If you have something to say, just say it.)

RonH,

Regardless of what the speaker says?

Let me guess; because, “What if it was Hitler…or the KKK…or Louis Farrakhan?” Please. Doug Wilson was being respectful while expressing views that didn’t warrant the type of reaction that took place. Moreover he was expressing views that many people hold. The implication is that any that hold those views would warrant the same treatment.

The good thing is that youth makes people do very stupid things and many will grow out of it. The bad thing is that many will not.

The comments to this entry are closed.