|
John has left a new comment on your post "Guess Who Is Working with the New Jeske-Patterson ...":
Mr. Schottey:
Ah. I think I understand, now. It's up to the reader to pick out exactly what Pilgrim posts on its website is what the pastor and congregation actually hold to.
No thanks. I'll only think of associating myself with a congregation that clearly states and practices its confession.
I'm talking about my eternal life here. I'm not about looking for disclaimers.
Disclaimers are worthless. They're meant to cover the back sides of the folks who post them, only.
Any confusion is caused by the congregation posting links to churches with which it is not in doctrinal agreement.
Something I was taught at a very young age is: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's probably a duck.
---
John has left a new comment on your post "Not A Duck - A Soaring Eagle - The GIA Eagle":
Mr. Schottey.
You are absolutely correct. I did miss your point, and I sincerely apologize for not only missing your point, but also for sarcastically turning it on you.
I was careless in commenting without first being certain that I fully understood what you were saying.
I ask your forgiveness.
John
7 comments:
*sigh*
Didn't say that (actually, neither does the disclaimer). What IS up to the reader is a modicum of reading comprehension.
The disclaimer doesn't change the stupidity or culpability of the schwaermer links in any way.
If anything, like Rev. Jackson said, it digs the hole that much deeper with its insistence that some of those strains of "Christianity" are worthwhile.
However, to publish a post with the links but not the disclaimer is dishonest, lest those who look without clicking think the church is practicing "link fellowship."
Take a links and the disclaimer however you will, but looking at the entire picture is better than looking at only part.
That is very noble, Michael, but the disclaimer was there before. Everyone has had the chance to see this. Nothing was done, just like every other instance. I do not have time to look all these up. WELS members and pastors are forwarding the information to me. I just do some of the art and some light-hearted patter. Call me the color commentator.
The typical WELS apostate approach is to say, "Hey there, you did one thing wrong, which is a worse sin than anything you pointed out. Therefore you are the issue."
I know you are not on their side, Michael, so let's stick with the substance rather than massaging the message.
WELS church with garage band justifies its existence based on the myth that Luther approved of marrying religious lyrics with popular tunes:
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=12198
excerpt: (Note: One of our esteemed editors recently visited the web site of a WELS congregation where the church’s CCM group justified its existence based on the “fact” that Luther used bar songs.)
John, you make some very good points.
Right you are Jackson!
Schottey is massaging the message. A good choice of words. But isn't he just doing as he was trained? Every SINGLE solitary WELSman will do nothing more than equivocate and massage the message UNLESS he diverges from the training he received.
We're talking about Dr. Goebbels-style indoctrination here folks. Schottey and other casualties of the system must learn to actively deprogram themselves. Schottey has definitely fought for Sound Doctrine before, and he definitely will again, so I'm not trying to pick a fight with him. But until he deprograms himself he will be an exemplar of the Best of WELS education.
I don't know Michael or where he comes from, but I do know a few people who went through the WELS education system who finally became deprogrammed. It was through much blood, sweat and tears, sadly.
Bored,
My "Dr. Goebbels-style" education taught me that generalizations often speak volumes more about the subject rather than the object.
You're right, you don't know me, so I kindly ask you to keep your faulty opinions to yourself.
You, and John have (twice now) fantastically missed the point of what I said and why I said it.
It isn't about "massaging the message" it's about using the FULL body of evidence to nail the butts of schwaermer to the wall instead of half.
It isn't about softening the blow...it is about giving no recourse of thought or action--so no one can point and call this a half-truth.
We're all in agreement that the disclaimer does not exculpate anyone, rather it makes the case that much more forceful--that a pastor would willfully lead his flock into a wolf's lair untended.
How in the world is that "massaging the message?"
In your haste to point out my need for "reprogramming" you didn't realize that putting the disclaimer on there (and commenting on it) only increases the validity of the point.
Mr. Schottey.
You are absolutely correct. I did miss your point, and I sincerely apologize for not only missing your point, but also for sarcastically turning it on you.
I was careless in commenting without first being certain that I fully understood what you were saying.
I ask your forgiveness.
John
Post a Comment