Defending one’s position in a debate is not a sport for the faint of heart nor the unprepared, no matter how ‘nice’ you demand that your opposition behave. Anyone that thinks there has been any uncivil debate here today should go and talk to a hospital Chaplain about what doing verbatims is like.
I would submit that someone of renown in the field of Reformed theology would not be so evasive and circular in their arguments. If they were, I would question their position with the same intensity as any other question I have posted today. If one wishes to make any assertion, then the burden of proof lies upon him, and no one else.
sorry to hear that [tag]Michael_Cole[/tag]. Please can you private message me (or any other Moderator/Administrator) links to the “attacks and misrepresentations” so we can investigate the matter (unfortunately with so many posts every day, it hasn’t been possible to read them all)?
Hi John
I don’t think any of us would disagree with you there. However, I confess I am a but surprised that you classify the robust challenges Cole has encountered here as “abuse”. Especially coming from someone who is always such a stickler for accuracy on this forum. 
I can’t speak for anyone else. But I for one would say *exactly *the same things I have said to *any *proponent of reformed theology. I have been very vocal in my criticism of the theology of reformed thinkers and preachers such as John Piper and, ahem, Mark Driscoll. (I know, I know, you find that hard to believe .) And I have always been *totally *upfront about how I feel about reformed theology - at least as far as election to reprobation is concerned (as, indeed, have you ) . I will oppose it with every fibre of my being until my dying breath.
But I had thought that was the whole point of this forum, to challenge each other’s views and opinions, in as civil a manner as possible? Sometimes the debate on Calvinism, and predestination to reprobation in particular, has got somewhat heated, as you know. But most of us, most of the time, are able to debate without resorting to abuse or ad hominem attacks. I trust I have always walked that tightrope successfully. But if I haven’t, I would be more than happy to apologise, should the error of my ways be pointed out to me.
I am sorry that Cole sees “nothing but attacks and representations against God’s children (the elect)” in this forum. But I think he’s wrong on that score.
Cole, if you are still reading my posts , I would be delighted to sit down with you and share a beer were you ever to visit England. But I will continue to fight my corner vis-a-vis Calvinist doctrine with all the strength God blesses me with.
Cheers
Johnny
i’ve followed a fair number of his threads (there are alot), and i’ve seen
a) no attacks
b) no abuse
c) polite counterarguments
d) respectful debate
contrariwise, i have seen the OP apparently change his whole view on everything at least 3 times now. in the space of days.
so i think this is definitely a case of “poor me”. and chances are, this whole topic is out of date, as the newer threads are about turning his back on Christianity.
baby and bathwater?
Well, being such a stickler, you’ll note that I haven’t made any classifications yet.
More to the point, don’t you think the response “bollocks” to something that Cole posted could be classified as offensive or abusive?
I don’t doubt it for a second my brother. I’m delighted to say that I’m sure that a man such as yourself is no respector of persons.
In general, I can only stand back in amazement at your erudition and precision when attacking vile toxic doctrine but as for what “the whole point of this forum is for”, perhaps you can tell me 'cos I don’t stand a chance of deciphering that:
He is definitely employing overstatement to say the least.
- and perhaps I am guilty of the same. God bless you Johnny!
Point taken corpslight. Perhaps I need to clean the dirt off my spectacles. I thank you.
John
My dear old thing (as Henry Blofeld is wont to say ).
Granted. Mea culpa.
Quite possibly, had I in fact used that fine English epithet in response to something Cole had posted. Which I did not. Please check your facts, John. I have used the word ‘bollocks’ twice in recent posts (well, three times now, obviously ), neither time in response to anything Cole has posted. Indeed, while it is only my opinion, I had thought my debates with Cole had been conducted entirely civilly. You will of course correct me if I am mistaken.
I freely admit that had I responded to a post by Cole, or indeed by anybody else, with the unqualifield expostulation ‘bollocks’, then I could indeed have laid myself open to the charge of abuse. But I trust a careful examination of the evidence will reveal otherwise.
Exhibit 1: Michael’s thread directing us to a You Tube ‘video’ accusing Barack Obama of being Satan incarnate, on the grounds that his name sounds a bit like the Hebrew words for “lightning falling from the sky”. Following up with a similar inference that Ronnie Reagan was the Antichrist, because his full name - Ronald Wilson Reagan - has 6+6+6 letters in it.
Now it is my considered opinion that this is " a load of old bollocks". I stand by that judgement. And if tender ears are offended by my use of the word ‘bollocks’, I respectfully ask them, which do you find *more *offensive? The use of a mildly vulgar epithet, in a clearly humorous context, or the contemptible accusation that the President of the United States of America is the Satan?
**Exhibit 2: ** Eric Fry’s thread on reformed theology, ‘Young restless and reformed’. I proffered the opinion that Calvinism is the chosen religion of those who “are smug in the certainty of their own personal salvation, and bollocks to the rest of us”. Again, I stand by that assertion. Disagree with it you may (although I suspect you do not … ). The context here is a discussion primarily between Eric and myself, two chaps who *clearly *hold Calvinism in similar degrees of contempt. I don’t see Eric complaining about the strength of my expressed opinions.
There is a serious issue at stake here, John. Are we to be muzzled to such a degree that we are not allowed to use *any *word that *any *person *anywhere *might possibly deem ‘offensive’, while being given absolutely free rein to express such offensive theological concepts as the Calvinist doctrine of predestination to reprobation and eternal torture.
As a fellow Englishman, I’m sure you will recall the furore caused by the release, in the mid 70s, of the Sex Pistols’ seminal album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols. In these days when blatantly obscene, nay blasphemous and satanic releases from bands such as, say, Slipknot, Cradle of Filth or Marilyn Manson (I don’t know much about this stuff ) pass by with nary a whisper of protest, it seems hard to recall the *outrage *the Pistols caused back in 1976. But the obscenity case went to court, and no less a person than John Mortimer QC defended their right to release the album, in its full uncensored glory. And with the traditional, pragmatic sagacity of British courts through the ages, the case was thrown out. Bollocks!
Tony Campolo, the American baptist minister and sociologist, is apparently given, on occasion, to using the following opening gambit in his sermons: “I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
Food for thought, I would say.
All the best, as ever.
Shalom
Johnny
Well, I for one, will no longer post anything but sunshine bubbles anymore…
Wow, Hate that Michael. We argue here sometime but for the most part this is one of the most tolerant groups I’ve encountered. We appreciate all views, makes us think and stay on our toes.
i find that offensive! 
Johnny, you’re right about the odd thing about satanic stuff causing very little comment now, but there was a t-shirt (put out by cradle of filth, an awful pop band at best), that caused some legal hassle for the young gentleman wearing it when someone saw fit to complain…so there is still a bit of people getting up their own bottoms and getting all offended by everything. something i feel is a waste of time, and just gives the offenders what they want!
as a denizen of the dark regions of extreme metal, i come across alot of provocative stuff all the time, and really have to take it philosophically that the poor, deceived people spouting nonsense are doing so because of the rotten example of the church, blatant misconceptions about Christianity, etc…and that one day they’ll be frightfully embarassed about it all, but no less welcomed into Heaven for that.
Hi James
Indeed. And indeed they should be. I think that most of this ‘satanic metal’ nonsense is nothing more than a bunch a immature teenage boys wanting to do something that will shock their parents - and where there’s a market, somebody will cater for it. I am very anti-censorship, and consider myself largely unshockable.
But I do have my limits - and Cradle of Filth are beyond my limits!
And on a serious note, while I think Marilyn Manson is a theatrical fake, I also think that anything which promotes an unhealthy interest in black magic is bad news. Vulnerable people can be damaged by this sort of nasty rubbish. But whether it should actually be banned I confess I don’t know.
All the best
Johnny
well, i definitely don’t feel it should be banned. it’s charlotanry anyway, the occult stuff, and frankly if we started banning that, where woul we stop? everything has something about it that preys on the vulnerable…even some expressions of church i’ve seen! the key is to minimise vulnerability by empowering people to recognise real dangers.
some are undoubtedly just out to shock, as you say, but there are some who quite seriously feel that their ways promote freedom and individuality, and the church that they oppose keeps people in chains. honestly, i can see the reasoning behind that, and while i disagree, i think they’ve also got a point that shouldn’t be ignored, regardless of how shockingly presented it is…
Very good, fair points, James. I do agree with you, on balance. Banning things is pretty much always counterproductive (witness the miserable failure of prohibition in the US). And free speech is very valuable thing, that must be protected at (nearly) all costs.
And I do see the point about the occult / satanic churches etc. Some might argue that certain branches of mainstream Christianity causes more harm than they do. Sadly, there are some living witnesses to the damage hyper-Calvinism can do on this board. But personally I have never heard of a single person who was screwed up by truly believing in the absolute, all-embracing love of God, as URs do.
You’re probably much too young to remember , but in the early nineties there was a terrible to-do in the right-wing media here (well, mainly the Daily Mail) about so-called ‘video nasties’. Up until that point videos had been totally unregulated, and you could rent uncensored gore movies and hard-core porn in your local video store. (It was great! ) As far as I remember, nobody was tipped over the edge into psychopathy by this, but the government duly caved in to the pressure from the moral minority and introduced the Video Recordings Act. At a stroke all the ‘video nasties’ disappeared, as did the hard porn. (The porn into licensed sex shops; the horror films simply banned outright).
But today, pretty much every single one of those ‘depraved’ video nasties is freely available on amazon, or down your local WH Smith. As far as I know, almost the only reasons the BBFC cuts or bans movies these days are if they depict sexualised violence, real animal cruelty (eg horses being tripped by wires in stunts etc) or something that is legally defined as obscene (whatever *that *means - I have heard it defined as ‘anything with Adam Sandler in it’, but apparently this definition is not universally accepted).
My point is that times change. What offended us yesterday may be suitable for our kids to watch tomorrow. I know some people lament this ‘erosion of moral standards’. But to me, it’s all just part of what it means to be a human being.
So, I’ve never listened to a Cradle of Filth record, I personally find their publicity material offensive, but no, I agree it shouldn’t be banned. Down that road Hitler went …
Cheers
Johnny
also, the Catholic church, as much as i respect much of their history and what they stand for these days (excepting their medieval views on contraception and their rather hardline views against homosexuality, something they share with many evangelicals, mind), has set themselves up for a LOT of criticism. many cultures were converted by the sword (never mind the peaceful missionaries that came first), and some of the rage at the loss of heritage still rankles, particularly in the Norwegian and Swedish black metal scene. i think the death metal scene of America focuses on evangelical brainwashing.
both do their best to rub salt in any wounds they open with offensive imagery, and sometimes i find it hard to sympathise with the church when it comes to this. often the criticism is warranted.
but i agree, a rightful expression of God’s love and acceptance, plus a relaxed attitude toward things that Puritans often think of as black and white sin in every occasion, doesn’t provoke as much ire!
the video thing…one of my bandmates, during his rebellious teen years, used to love the banned horror films. he has watched a few recently and laughs at how the un-banned modern films outstrip them for gore/disturbing themes. the whole banning thing really didn’t help/stop anything.
also, he is one of the only metallers i know that has a nice word to say about CoF. he says their first album was good! i’ve not met anyone else who is seriously into metal that thinks of them as worth talking about (maybe a guilty pleasure) lol…they appeal to rebellious emo teens, i think. but anyway, he has a really bad, faded tattoo on his shoulder that now looks like it says “Crable of Fifths”…
Love it!
yeah it’s a running joke for us! LOL
Oh come come dear sir, being the ‘stickler’ that I am, might I assure you that I have no need to check the facts. It was indeed the said Cole who posted the questionable material. I grant you, he may not have been the author, but on no occasion did I suggest that he was! He DID post it onto this forum (or if not then by Jupiter we have an impostor posting under his name!).
and Ye gads, I have now quoted you my good man!
Is “a load of old” in front of the said “bollocks” a qualifier? Because we have ascertained now that your testicular reply was indeed a reply to Mr Michael Cole’s post.
Then by your own words, my good man, you are an abuser! - and though it was BY your very SELF that you were judged, I doubt that I would grammatically correct in calling you a ‘self abuser’! (My grammar has been failing now for some time).
-Au contraire, as the German’s say.
and who was the poster of Michael’s thread?
From one who can only stand back and admire your erudition and the cornucopia of words within your vocabulary, and upon examination of recent posts from your good self, I can only conclude that you really DO have too many bollocks. Funnily enough, a late friend of mine suffered from a sparsity of the same, but with regards to yourself I remain in a state of awe.
Ah, now I see what you are doing here, you are trying to get on my good side aren’t you?
One of my heroes
He is[size=150] DEFINITELY[/size] off my Christmas Card list.
In all seriousness Johnny, it would not be correct for me to post my defense in public. I will PM you ( if I might adopt that quaint way in which our American friends turn every God-forsaken noun into a verb), I will PM you so that you might have a better understanding of where I am coming from.
I accept almost everything that you and Corpselight and Eric have said.
God bless us all.
if Johnny had called Michael_Cole something rude, that would be abusive. i’m reasonably sure he just called his statement bollocks.
that’s not abusive, that’s just as if i’d said it was “rubbish” (which, i know you agree, Reformed theology quite simply is)
so far the mods haven’t called me up for that…and it has the same meaning, just that it’s slightly more socially acceptable language, in some circles. and as Johnny says, just about anything you say might insult a circle somewhere.
so i echo what i said (and you appeared to agree with). Michael Cole has tried the patience of many on here with constant total reversals of thought and many many threads!!! for all that, people have been fairly tolerant, polite and patient. the same with that wikiwikiwoowoo chap.
now, i’ve seen you disagree heatedly with people on here, about how far we’re meant to go tolerating rubbish (oh no, i said it again!!!) in support of Calvinism, and the nature of offense in regards to what we’re allowed to say against a doctrine. and i’ve agreed, to a point. some dogma is harmful and toxic, and we may know it by its fruit. and such dogma ought to be spoken against!
i don’t know about this Obama video, but it sounds like a load of old cobblers (rhyming slang for bollocks, i believe) too
this isn’t meant to stir things up, what i’m trying to do is smooth things over. i think, Pilgrim, that you, Johnny, Eric and a number of others on here are on the same page on a few subjects. we ought to try to be patient with each other…so i’m trying to be a peacemaker here. if i said anything to offend you, i have failed in my endeavour, and i apologise!!!
John
Got to fly, so only time to say that Michael Cole and Michael are two different people!!!
Speak properly soon.
J