**Rowland Croucher** wrote:
> Chris Bell wrote:
>
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:OYtVj.37$IK1.15@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "**Rowland Croucher**" <rccroucher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given those two statements, and taking them as making literally
>>>>>>> true statements, unless you can find Billy Graham saying he
>>>>>>> believes all come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, what
>>>>>>> you've got here isn't really all that strong a case for him being
>>>>>>> a universalist like Rowland is;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where have I said categorically that I'm a universalist?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where have you categorically ever said that you are anything? It
>>>>> takes integrity to make a categorical statement of one's beliefs,
>>>>> integrity to say, this is what I believe, and then stand and defend
>>>>> it against its challengers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Anyone can parrot off a statement of beliefs, without
>>>> actually believing a word of it. Integrity is the living out of
>>>> those beliefs, even while not necessarily believing them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Integrity is acting on beliefs you don't have??? Have you gone
>>> 'round the bend, Chris?
>>>
>> Possibly. But I have a different take on beliefs to you. Where is it
>> in the gospels that someone says to Jesus "Help me in my unbelief"?
>>
>> What we actually need is faith, even without belief. Have faith in
>> Jesus, even in unbelief, and you are acting with integrity. Notice
>> that the operative word is "acting".
>>
>>> Besides, who said anything about "parroting" a statement of beliefs.
>>> I said it takes integrity to make one's TRUE beliefs KNOWN, and then
>>> defend them against all comers.
>>>
>> And I repeat my point is that it is only when you are tested in action
>> that you discover what you truly believe, or at least that is my
>> experience. Hence the power of almost all good literature and movies.
>> When have you had to pit your life or home or friends or family
>> against what you believe? The book of Job is in the bible for a good
>> reason.
>>
>>>
>>>>> No, Rowland, you've never "categorically" stated you are a
>>>>> universalist. You've just taken every op****tunity you ever had to
>>>>> either argue for that belief yourself, or provide article after
>>>>> article by others who either do, or express sympathy for that
>>>>> belief. That makes you worse than a universalist, Rowland, for a
>>>>> universalist is "either warm or cold" (they TAKE A STAND), and you
>>>>> are neither.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See above. Rowland takes many "stands" as you call them, and I would
>>>> never call him either warm or cold. He is definitely in the "hot"
>>>> category!
>>>
>>>
>>> Easy to say, Chris. Give me an example of Rowland making a firm,
>>> clear expression of a belief he has, and then justifying it against
>>> its challengers.
>>>
>> I will let Rowland speak for himself, but in my experience he has done
>> pretty well in going into bat for those who cannot do it themselves.
>> Two examples here in arc - Dawn and Ninere (?).
>
>
> It's *Ninure*: she's doing well at the moment, according to her emails
> and Facebook communications. (Anyone else here a Facebook person? It's
> an interesting way to keep in touch with friends...)
>
Mea culpa. Put it down to creeping dementia. My memory for names was
never that good, and it is not geting any better.
> But Dawn Rowan's pretty low (see http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
).
> We spent several hours last night trying to put into words various
> communications with powers-that-be...
>
>>> I can cite you example after example where he has simply thrown a
>>> panoply of differing beliefs at people who were truly seeking
>>> guidance in their search for truth. Is that your idea of what a
>>> minister of the Gospel is supposed to do?
>>>
>> Yes. Absolutely.
>
>
> It's actually a responsible pedagogical method, rather than/ in
> additional to an especially Christian one. True teachers allow people to
> look at all sides of a question, and make up their own minds. Treating
> adults like children (or Pharisees... who have to posit everything in
> black-and-white credal terms) is, as Henri Nouwen wrote, a 'violent'
> rather than 'redemptive' way for a teacher to teach (in his book
> 'Creative Ministry').
>
Not sure I totally agree. In my experience, there are some (very few)
adults who act in completely childish ways, and to help them move on, it
is sometimes necessary to treat them like children. One example comes to
mind in arc. Once they have realised that childish=stupid in an adult,
then alternatives can be offered, but are not necessarily accepted.
After all, childish often feels safer than adult responsibility for
oneself and one's life choices.
>> Chris
>
>
|
