A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
Indeed, I was trying to triangulate what would be the best response!
Equilateral or isosceles?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Indeed, I was trying to triangulate what would be the best response!
^^^ If I could put a circle around these keen insights I would. But, alas! I am reduced to block quotes.I'm all for reading and utilizing Catholic and secular sources, but there's a fine line between a Biblically sound utilization of such materials, and the wholesale absorption of non-Biblical doctrines as part of one's quest for self-generated healing. .....reaching and grasping for anything that fits... preconceived agenda.
How I wish that people would look inward when it comes to identifying sin and outward (to Christ and to the manifestations of the work of the Spirit) when it comes to identifying righteousness. That kind of Biblical double standard would save everyone a whole lot of grief. Instead we have people looking outwardly for sin and inwardly for righteousness.
One would think that because of the sexual liberations the culture has been pushing from every possible outlet over recent years, that children would be happier people. Sadly the agenda has backfired so terribly. Kids seem more broken than ever.The apparent escalation of mental health problems today is not because problems are finally being addressed (whereas before they were ignored) but because we, as people and as a society, are weaker and less able to cope with the realities of life. This is a result of decades of a victim-mentality, coupled with an extreme narcissism and sense of entitlement, being inculcated in our young. And, of course, the over-prescription of drugs which are now seen as a cure for all ailments. This all makes for very fertile ground for what we are seeing today: the mass delusion of transgenderism, the hysteria over covid, the anti-racism agenda, the virulence displayed on social media, the inability to cope with things when they don't go our way &c.
Social media.One would think that because of the sexual liberations the culture has been pushing from every possible outlet over recent years, that children would be happier people. Sadly the agenda has backfired so terribly. Kids seem more broken than ever.
"The rate of suicide for those ages 10 to 24 increased nearly 60% between 2007 and 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."
Ah, I see, critique of any manner is now "abuse". Arius would love to live in our day. Whenever your heterodoxy is critiqued or pushed back against, just cry, "abuse!", "racism!", "homophobia!", or "sexism!" and hordes of insecure evangelical and reformed men will circle around you to secure your voice rather than recommend you be taught the first principles of the faith again.I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.
I take responsibility for the discussion.I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.
I take responsibility for the discussion.
But not for the puns. I refuse to be responsible for those.
Seriously, though. She is thin-skinned for someone with a growing body of public work, isn't she?
Some of the comments on here were harsh, sure. Many were far more moderate. Some were insightful.
And then there were the puns....
Apologies for where I got sucked into this.Why should the PB "draw fire," be it from AB's antagonists or from AB? Is it our fight?
I don't think so, and making any comments (ignoring the puns) that focus in the least on personality rather than on substance seems like exactly the thing that validates a kind of personality-driven reaction (which is pretty much all twitter is good for).
In my opinion, every comment that reduces earlier personal attacks on AB to mere "slights," and denigrates her reactions as "thin-skinned" proves the point that few responses to her work have been free from personality-driven bias. That's a shame.
If AB feels compelled to include a degree of self defense in just about every response to criticism, it might be because so many of the critics can't judge her work purely on its merit, but feel compelled themselves to add fuel to the ad hominem blaze.
Wow. No kidding.I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.
I was a bit annoyed by the assumption there that nobody here -- or most, at least -- haven't read her work.If you read the twitter response, she basically did the exact thing that this thread criticized her for, literally the exact thing. Then, the rest of the people that came out of the wood work just all took shots at PB through ad hominem and didn't actually interact with the content at all.
I came back to this thread because Byrd tweeted the PB was being mean to her, and I found three pages of geometrical puns since I last login in. Well done friends.
Why should the PB "draw fire," be it from AB's antagonists or from AB? Is it our fight?
I don't think so, and making any comments (ignoring the puns) that focus in the least on personality rather than on substance seems like exactly the thing that validates a kind of personality-driven reaction (which is pretty much all twitter is good for).
In my opinion, every comment that reduces earlier personal attacks on AB to mere "slights," and denigrates her reactions as "thin-skinned" proves the point that few responses to her work have been free from personality-driven bias. That's a shame.
If AB feels compelled to include a degree of self defense in just about every response to criticism, it might be because so many of the critics can't judge her work purely on its merit, but feel compelled themselves to add fuel to the ad hominem blaze.
That is a fair criticism. But that needs to be properly parsed or it can easily turn to resentment for various sides of the discussion/debate.Part of the criticism of Aimee Byrd is necessarily personal: as a woman she is going beyond the bounds set by Christ of what is appropriate for women in the church. And further to that she has made herself the subject of much of her work and her online commentary.
This is the most time I've spent in this thread. All I can say is that no one has reported anything as sinful or breaking board rules or Christian decorum.In any case, I'm not interested in a platform war, and I'm sure the moderators are even more disinterested, so I'm not going to "reply" to Mrs. Byrd here. But upon scanning through this thread again, I don't think I've found any sinful speech. Perhaps I am missing something?
Remember, we are not Christians cause we are good. We are Christians cause we know(sometimes) we are wretched. What good is a faith and even a church in which we are fixed on each other. We are broken and loved. But we aren’t always so lovable and sometimes we can get a little downright toxic. That’s when I try to flea from others/and even myself to Christ. It’s a win-win. But we should strive to do better in relationships and interactions and not write others off. Especially in real life, as opposed to online.I did a little bit of research on this topic. If I understand it correctly, it's not something I would practice, and I have always tried to be the transparent, open, interpersonal type person.
I love the people that make up the Church. But here's the truth which hurts me to say, and I wish were different, but in my years of being a Christian I have really come to see: many people are broken people, and if they are gotten too close to, they will break others. I've seen many "Christian" people who deep down don't really strive to be holy or loving, because they are concerned with the things of the flesh and the world. Such people I can't trust with the most sensitive and deep parts of myself, because in their evil they will end up hurting me through the experience. Lot's of people have caused pain in my life, sadly, when they had a good opportunity to bring happiness.
There are few people who I truly trust and can come to for healing. God primarily, my wife secondly, and then a few men I can confide in. This isn't shallow stuff, and I don't think just anyone is worthy of me exposing the deepest parts of my life to.
I know this is all very vague, but I have plenty of real life experiences in my mind.
Thank you, Ryan. I appreciated this.I did a little bit of research on this topic. If I understand it correctly, it's not something I would practice, and I have always tried to be the transparent, open, interpersonal type person.
I love the people that make up the Church. But here's the truth which hurts me to say, and I wish were different, but in my years of being a Christian I have really come to see: many people are broken people, and if they are gotten too close to, they will break others. I've seen many "Christian" people who deep down don't really strive to be holy or loving, because they are concerned with the things of the flesh and the world. Such people I can't trust with the most sensitive and deep parts of myself, because in their evil they will end up hurting me through the experience. Lot's of people have caused pain in my life, sadly, when they had a good opportunity to bring happiness.
There are few people who I truly trust and can come to for healing. God primarily, my wife secondly, and then a few men I can confide in. This isn't shallow stuff, and I don't think just anyone is worthy of me exposing the deepest parts of my life to.
I know this is all very vague, but I have plenty of real life experiences in my mind.
Is the level of intimacy implied by the inciting post really necessary and/or desirable for authentic Christian fellowship?
I would be really interested in hearing more thoughts on this.Thank you, Ryan. I appreciated this.
This is exactly where I am with the whole business itself, and really what I wanted to open up for reflection (not the Byrd bits that we quickly segued into): Is the level of intimacy implied by the inciting post really necessary and/or desirable for authentic Christian fellowship?
I would actually like to have this conversation with Byrd and some of the others who share her POV on this matter. I would like to hear their responses to some of our objections here.
I believe there is authentic Christian fellowship when we sing together on the Lord's Day, and attend to the preaching and praying, and observe the Lord's Supper. That fellowship is far better to me than the awkward mealtime between services designed for people to speak to each other but which really ends up in stilted conversations about uninteresting things. I like all my fellow churchmembers a lot better when we're all speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs than when we're trying to converse with nothing in common but our shared confession, about which there is not much to discuss.I would be really interested in hearing more thoughts on this.
I've been blessed with a few very warm and edifying Christian friendships over the years. But I've come to recognize those as rare and not something one can go looking for, exactly. At least for me, they've been gracious surprises.
Groups, on the other hand, have always been awkward for me. Our previous churches placed a lot of emphasis on small groups; the church we joined as newlyweds, in fact, stressed small groups as the place where "real" fellowship was expected to take place. I always found this confusing. That's not to say there weren't real blessings in these groups sometimes, but I didn't feel comfortable opening up and even dreaded being put on the spot. For a long time I assumed this was a problem with me -- that I was somehow resisting Christian fellowship -- but more recently I've wondered if there were assumptions being made about what constitutes fellowship, and if my discomfort was largely a personality thing.
First, I'll acknowledge what we've mainly been in the same small groups for the past decade plus a few. Even when there are friends in the group, or new friends made, it's just not a great context for "real" fellowship or "pastoral" care. For one, it's not the supernatural fellowship of gathered worship, word, and sacrament. There are special graces and special promises attached to those ordinary means. I don't see that there are any divine promises attached to such non-church gatherings.I would be really interested in hearing more thoughts on this.
I've been blessed with a few very warm and edifying Christian friendships over the years. But I've come to recognize those as rare and not something one can go looking for, exactly. At least for me, they've been gracious surprises.
Groups, on the other hand, have always been awkward for me. Our previous churches placed a lot of emphasis on small groups; the church we joined as newlyweds, in fact, stressed small groups as the place where "real" fellowship was expected to take place. I always found this confusing. That's not to say there weren't real blessings in these groups sometimes, but I didn't feel comfortable opening up and even dreaded being put on the spot. For a long time I assumed this was a problem with me -- that I was somehow resisting Christian fellowship -- but more recently I've wondered if there were assumptions being made about what constitutes fellowship, and if my discomfort was largely a personality thing.