Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

Opie
Opie

June 6th, 2006, 3:10 pm #21

So it looks like "Opie" has decided to terminate the discussion. He shouldn't accuse anyone of not being "brave" until he is brave enough to unmask. I'll leave it up to him. People wanting serious discussions are up front with each other, so that's why I called "Opie's" hand to unmask. I don't take anyone seriously or comply with any requests they make unless they reveal their name. But like I said earlier, the "discussion" had pretty well run its course, so it's just a moot point now. Peace.
It is really a shame...because I thought the conversation was just getting interesting. We were getting from the specific case of using TAGS to start a Bible conversation to the more general case of using innovative approaches in church. I asked questions you didn't want to answer, so you threw a unnecessary requirement in that you knew from previous discussion I wouldn't bite on and then you could dismiss me and my questions. (You don't require PPB to give up her privacy do you? Do you not take her seriously?)

I truly want to have a real discussion...I think it is obvious in my posts that I am sincere. I see you complain all the time about the liberal posts on this site getting off topic, resorting to name calling, etc...you have someone now who is willing to carry on an intelligent conversation yet you are unwilling. Why? If you have some RELATED Bible oriented questions you require me to answer first before you will answer mine, I will answer them directly and honestly. Why won't you do the same?
Quote
Share

B
B

June 6th, 2006, 6:28 pm #22

A flannelgraph doesn't teach the Bible by itself either. Both the flannelgraph and TAGS need a teacher to help make the Biblical applications.

Of course, I addressed this several posts ago.
Dr. Bill,

It's the internet. If you're unwilling to discuss with people you can't identify, then you might as well just shut it down now.
Quote
Share

Opie
Opie

June 6th, 2006, 7:06 pm #23

As I recall, "SBC" posted in another thread and wanted me to answer several personal questions. SBC seemed to stress things about Baptists; hence, I wondered if the poster was a Baptist who was "paranoid" over my postings and was posing as the "Southern Baptist Convention" or was a representative of same. I believe I requested that SBC unmask at that time. It is foolish to give answers to personal questions to a stranger, especially one who won't even give his name. After all, another poster refusing to unmask here has confessed to having spied on my house using a satellite. No wonder the anonymity for being a voyeur! Talk about being a pervert! That's hardly Christian behavior!

I wonder: If SBC received any written correspondence through the mail at home or at work (other than junk mail advertisements) that did not reveal the name of the sender, would SBC give any credence to that correspondence? Or would SBC automatically think that a "minor" had sent it and worry that desiring the name would make him a pervert? Like most wise people, SBC should toss such nameless communications in the trash.

The situation is no different at this web site. People desiring to hold a serious discussion or debate play on even ground: real identity against real identity. Imagine a public debate in front of an audience, and the moderator announces, "Debating tonight is Dr. Bill Crump, representing the church of Christ and the conservative side. His opponent has refused to reveal his name and his religious affiliation. In fact, Dr. Crump's opponent has demanded to hide in this box and not even be seen." The audience would automatically develop a negative opinion of my opponent for refusing to face me one to one. This web site is also a public forum with an audience of readers who see SBC hiding in a box. People with real issues to discuss stand up for what they believe and are not afraid to put their names to them, especially if they are standing up for righteousness, the New Testament, and Christian doctrine. With one exception, all of the regular posters at this site use their real names.

Regarding PPB, others have used her as an example for not revealing identities. But we're not talking about PPB here, we're talking about SBC and others who want to argue but also want to hide in the process. Let PPB worry about PPB.
I gave you the satellite image as an example of why I don't list my name...to prove the point, that's it...if it's "perverted" to look at Google Earth then I confess. But if it is, then I'm justified in keeping my privacy...because the churches are full of perverts according to Ken.

I'm not putting any stipulations on you. Personally I don't care if your name is Dr. Bill or Mr. T, I don't care, and I respect your privacy.

Yes, if we were engaging in a in-person debate, we would formally introduce ourselves. But we are on a web-blog where the convention is to maintain privacy. Check out any blog, or sports fan site, or IM, or myspace, etc. Some people use their full name and "unmask themselves" but the convention is to use aliases or initials.

You continue to skirt the issue...complaining about my bravery and pervertedness or B's delusions or listing 20 episodes of TAGS, but refusing to actually discuss the topic at hand. Now your getting me off topic as well.

Just answer the questions!
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 7th, 2006, 12:20 am #24

Dr. Bill,

It's the internet. If you're unwilling to discuss with people you can't identify, then you might as well just shut it down now.
Of course, I don't make the rules here, but if "B" is unwilling to discuss topics identity to identity, then he sheds a most unfavorable light on himself and is free to find other forums where he can hide "in peace." As far as the Internet goes, if "B" is so afraid of posting on it, then he should stay away from chat rooms altogether. BTW, I will advise "B" to stick with the New Testament as the prime source for beginning any biblical conversation; TAGS can't hold a candle to it. Go in peace, my son.
Quote
Share

B
B

June 7th, 2006, 5:36 am #25

No one said that TAGS does hold a candle to the Bible. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're deconstructing imaginary points of view.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 7th, 2006, 6:20 pm #26

“B” makes an excellent point: TAGS doesn’t hold a candle to the New Testament. It never did, and it never will. How clever of “B” for thinking of that! I’m so proud of him! Therefore, if TAGS never did, does not now, and never will hold a candle to the New Testament, then it is foolish to use TAGS as an adjunct to or to complement the New Testament. Discerning people will recognize that it is far wiser to cut to the chase and go directly to the New Testament, the first, best, most logical, and the only authoritative source for teaching Christian principles and the New Testament Itself. Why settle for less than the very best--the New Testament?


Quote
Share

SBC
SBC

June 7th, 2006, 9:46 pm #27

As I recall, "SBC" posted in another thread and wanted me to answer several personal questions. SBC seemed to stress things about Baptists; hence, I wondered if the poster was a Baptist who was "paranoid" over my postings and was posing as the "Southern Baptist Convention" or was a representative of same. I believe I requested that SBC unmask at that time. It is foolish to give answers to personal questions to a stranger, especially one who won't even give his name. After all, another poster refusing to unmask here has confessed to having spied on my house using a satellite. No wonder the anonymity for being a voyeur! Talk about being a pervert! That's hardly Christian behavior!

I wonder: If SBC received any written correspondence through the mail at home or at work (other than junk mail advertisements) that did not reveal the name of the sender, would SBC give any credence to that correspondence? Or would SBC automatically think that a "minor" had sent it and worry that desiring the name would make him a pervert? Like most wise people, SBC should toss such nameless communications in the trash.

The situation is no different at this web site. People desiring to hold a serious discussion or debate play on even ground: real identity against real identity. Imagine a public debate in front of an audience, and the moderator announces, "Debating tonight is Dr. Bill Crump, representing the church of Christ and the conservative side. His opponent has refused to reveal his name and his religious affiliation. In fact, Dr. Crump's opponent has demanded to hide in this box and not even be seen." The audience would automatically develop a negative opinion of my opponent for refusing to face me one to one. This web site is also a public forum with an audience of readers who see SBC hiding in a box. People with real issues to discuss stand up for what they believe and are not afraid to put their names to them, especially if they are standing up for righteousness, the New Testament, and Christian doctrine. With one exception, all of the regular posters at this site use their real names.

Regarding PPB, others have used her as an example for not revealing identities. But we're not talking about PPB here, we're talking about SBC and others who want to argue but also want to hide in the process. Let PPB worry about PPB.
When the questions get tuff, then comes the the "UNMASK" request. I am not a genius but its apparent whats going on here. Dr. Bill, why engage conversation with the "MASKED" posters if you have no intention of answering their questions?
Quote
Share

Jimmy Joe
Jimmy Joe

June 7th, 2006, 10:10 pm #28

No one said that TAGS does hold a candle to the Bible. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're deconstructing imaginary points of view.
Hey B. I wonder why Dr.Crump considers that your are hiding your idenitity but PPB is not. PPB is never taken to task for hiding behind a moniker yet you are. Could it be because you do not agree totally with everything the good doctor believes. Just wondering.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 8th, 2006, 2:14 am #29

When the questions get tuff, then comes the the "UNMASK" request. I am not a genius but its apparent whats going on here. Dr. Bill, why engage conversation with the "MASKED" posters if you have no intention of answering their questions?
The answers to the questions are simple enough. But in our experience, most detractors couldn't care less about the answers except to use them as a springboard to carry the "discussion" far away from the original topic. It's a typical distraction move we've seen numerous times. Since I now require people to unmask to get answers, we'll see how desperate the masked people are to have those answers. Sort of a moment of truth challenge. But I suspect that the incentive to know the answers will never outweigh the detractors' fear of unmasking. Full name and religious affiliation: that's the requirement.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 8th, 2006, 2:25 am #30

Hey B. I wonder why Dr.Crump considers that your are hiding your idenitity but PPB is not. PPB is never taken to task for hiding behind a moniker yet you are. Could it be because you do not agree totally with everything the good doctor believes. Just wondering.
Could be, but "B" will just have to face his own identity fears. PPB can take care of herself.
Quote
Share