First, I told you specifically that Mohler was supporting the GCR. That is specific, and apparently you don’t understand the seriousness of that. There is more, but pointing anything further out is not worth the effort.
Second, you are very free with invective while accusing me of doing what you began and continue to do. You might consider that there is an element of projection there.
Third, I have not called Mohler a “liar”, as you put it. Falsely attributing things to others doesn’t help your case. Mohler has gone way off the tracks with the GCR and the “homophobia” slur, which he has subsequently tried to walk back. There are things that could be constructively changed in the Convention, but weakening the Cooperative Program and inching (or galloping in some instances) in the direction of social liberalism aren’t among them.
I don’t think Mohler is malicious, but I do think that he has become too focused on what he sees as the needs of his institution and I know that he really doesn’t understand the sodomite problem in our culture because he doesn’t understand sodomites or the lifestyle.
If this were a more rational exchange we would be agreeing that Mohler has done a lot of good in the Convention but has recently made some serious errors in judgment that endanger Southern, the Convention, and the people who look to him for guidance.
Achilles2000 said:
First, I told you specifically that Mohler was supporting the GCR. That is specific, and apparently you don’t understand the seriousness of that. There is more, but pointing anything further out is not worth the effort.
This Just In reply:
You said Dr. Mohler supported the GCR, but you have yet to post any quotes to substantiate your accusation. You wish for me to take your word for it because “you told me…”, and for me to do so would be irresponsible given the seriousness of this matter. Your comments contradict what I have read and heard from Dr. Mohler himself.
Achilles2000 said:
Second, you are very free with invective while accusing me of doing what you began and continue to do. You might consider that there is an element of projection there.
This Just In’s reply:
Accusing you of being a liar is hardly “invective” or “projection”. I accused you of statements which I believed to be false base solely on Dr. Mohler’s words. In your initial post (#8) you said:
“Everyone should know that Mohler was not long ago castigating Baptists for the non-sin of “homophobia”
I read Dr. Mohler’s article regarding the subject and your statement was a gross misrepresentation. When I noted this discrepancy you linked me to Bob Allen’s article. Mr. Allen’s either being disingenuous or dishonest concerning the topic. Furthermore, when I mentioned that I had been reading and listening to Dr. Mohler for many years, you responded:
“Of course, when you want to change things without losing revenues, you continue to muddy the water by telling the traditionalists what they want to hear most of the time. That way they can ignore or deny what is really happening.”
You are accusing Dr. Mohler of lying. You stated that he says one thing during the Convention and Annual Meetings, and another elsewhere. If he was speaking out of two sides of his mouth, Dr. Mohler would be trying to willfully deceive the members.
I was never under the impression that you believed Dr. Mohler to be malicious. I know that your concerns are legitimate. I have seen and read about the changes as well, but I have to question your comments when you’ve failed to substantiate your accusations.
Achilles2000 said:
“If this were a more rational exchange…”
I find this to be amusing. Your posts weren’t irrational. I understood you perfect.
I have sent Dr. Mohler a letter, which includes your comments. I know that due to his responsibilities and obligations, Dr. Mohler employs staff to read his emails. I’m hoping he’ll respond to my letter personally. I’ll be sure to contact you then.