Again thanks!

iggy = )

I think Bud is playing you guys. Chris, I don’t want to be, uh mean or anything, but you are using a ‘C’ to spell your name. You know that right? Just checking.

jerry

If one of your ‘discernment’ targets had an article on the inerrency of scripture and he categorized that article under ‘fiction’ and ‘cults’, would you not consider this to be evidence of anti-Christian writings?

Furthermore, in your comments above you imply something happened from 1. to 2., that Ravi went from being “effectively declaring” to “labeled” – same thing.

Ingrid declared and labeled Ravi as an example of apostasy.

Neil

Neil

Not that I’m giving ground to your unfounded argument – but there is a sense that we employ terms like “heresy” in an obviously hyperbolic sense – in direct contrast to ODM’s who banter it around in regards to anyone with whom they disagree.

Neil

Thank you for allowing me to post in this blog.

We don’t block/delete comments from anyone (though we reserve the right to delete outright blasphemy and vulgarity).

To address your question:

I wrote and simply asked, “Do the words ‘apostate’ or ‘apostasy’ appear in Ingrid’s article?” (note that I didn’t say headline or category, but “article.”)

If you look at the screenshot I attached, the word ‘apostasy’ and ‘abomination’ BOTH appear in the article (as labels at the top). These are not some random-associations unrelated to the content of the article’s body, but they are a part of the article (which includes the headline, the categorization, the body, the timestamp, the author, etc.).

In short, Ingrid chose ‘apostasy alert’ and ‘abomination’ as the taxonometric description of the article she wrote, which reasonably infers that the content could be categorized as an ‘abomination’ and ‘apostasy’. She labeled it this way.

Now – it seems very much that you are straining a gnat but swallowing a camel here, missing the overall point being made. (or, in layman’s terms, ‘majoring in the minors and minoring in the majors’).

Now, I would like to revisit the advice you gave previously and the question related to it, which you have not yet answered:

Bud:When reading an article (or a blog post), it is important that we not assume or imply something that isn’t there.

If I were to apply this advice in real life:

Let us say that I were to read a book in which the author is describing the canonization of scripture in the Fourth Century (Synod of Hippo, Councils of Carthage, etc.), and how, when we say that we have faith in the truth of the Bible, that we are also having faith that God led the men who canonized its book.

Would I be violating the principle you stated if I decided to take a snippet of this section of this author’s book and declare that he denies Sola Scriptura? By doing this, would I “assume or imply something that isn’t there”, and would that be a violation of Biblical principal?