Apparently my thought processes and motivations are the subject matter of this thread....
Post #11: "Do you consider that first paragraph of the article which YOU posted to be in any way defensible?"
Post #14: "I'm sure this article is a wonderful example of the sort of thinking that is characteristic of whateve confession the "Berean Beacon" represents."
Post #27: "When otherwise decent and intelligent people. people who sincerely seek the Lord Jesus and His will, display such hatred, contempt and ignorance of their subject matter, one has to suspect demonic influence..."
Post #28: "...do you think this thread was a good idea for the "reformed?" You must love Marcus Grodi and his ministry..."
| "...Corruptio optimi pessimum est, says the proverb: "the corruption of the best is the worst." The early Christians felt a measure of tolerance for the pagans, even though they were persecuted by them, for the pagans were ignorant. "This ignorance," Paul told the Athenians, "God winked at" (Acts 17:30). But Paul did not wink at him who brought "any other Gospel" within the context of the Christian community. "Let him be accursed," he told the Galilean church (Gal. 1:18). Honorable enemies are regarded with less hostility than the traitor from within one's own camp. The Christian life is often presented as spiritual warfare; if the pagans are the enemies, the heretics are the traitors." - Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies - The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. Doubleday and Company, 1984 edition, page 3 |
Posters frequently question the motives of why someone will post any given article. This happens to everyone, and not just in the religious forum. I find it ridiculous, but not worth getting upset about.
I like the one about "demonic influence."
Well, I can't say about the other posters, but I was not referring to you in my post. Interesting that you thought I was. I don't know you from Adam (okay, well, I guess you're probably younger than Adam AND you have a belly-button)and I didn't know whether you posted the article because you agreed with it or not. For example you could have thought of it as I do, as an egregiously hate-filled (and therefore at once risible and lamentable) piece of polemic. I think if you will read my post, you will see there is nothing in it which must refer to you.
And that would be because I was talking about the person who wrote what you posted, not about the person who posted it. Or to be precise, I was talking about what happens to me and what I think when I read such trash.
But if you agree with the article, then, unintentionally ,maybe I was talking about you. I dunno. Clearly the article indulges in so many lies and such gratuitous attacks on the Hahn's character that it can't be taken seriously -- or, at any rate, I can't take it seriously as a piece of argumentation.
Sorry for any part I had in the confusion.