Do the words “apostate” or “apostasy” appear in Ingrid’s article?

Mrs. Schlueter says “is refusing to pray in the name of Jesus Christ in his prayer posted on the official NDP website.” That makes it sound like he was asked to and refused.

“Contrast that betrayal of Jesus Christ” – She doesn’t say he compromised, or we understand his intentions but…, or we strongly disagree with this approach, no, she says a betrayal of Jesus Christ. That can surely mean apostacy.

Apostacy is a very strong word to throw around. It hurts me on the inside to hear it used too much.

Stephen King’s book, “The Stand” is categorized under your blog’s Recommending Reading list. Should I immediately interpret that as your being in favor of the destruction of the world? Of course not.

No Bud, you should interpret it as “Recommended Reading” as that’s what its categorized under, just as you should interpret Ingrid’s categorizing Ravi as apostate and abominable as apostate and abominable.

If only fundies would take words seriously and interpret literally rather than metaphorically.

Stephen King’s book, “The Stand” is categorized under your blog’s Recommending Reading list. Should I immediately interpret that as your being in favor of the destruction of the world? Of course not.

Actually, Bud, it is on my Recommended Reading list as “Favorite Fiction”, so I would expect that you would categorize me as believing that “The Stand” is Fiction.

In the same manner, if someone were to categorize Ravi Z’s involvement in the NDP under “Abominations” and “Apostasy Watch” that they believed Ravi was committing apostasy and participating in an abomination.

Let’s compare apples to apples and oranges, please. [It's no wonder discernmentalists like Ingrid and yourself have such a hard time piecing together basic things like logic...]

Hi Chris L:

My point is that Ingrid’s article did not contain the words “apostate” or “apostasy,” nor did it contain the words “dipstick” or “flange-head” or “stuck in stupid.”

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

Words are important, and can be used to lead or mislead…

In Christian love,
Bud Press

Bud,

I am wondering how one should interpret Ingrid classifying the story as an “Apostasy Alert”? Ingrid wasn’t really “implying” anything there.

Bud,

I’ve updated the article to reflect where Ingrid labeled Mr. Zacharias as being apostate.

Now, it is interesting that you wrote:

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

I will be sure to file that re: Matthew 23:2-3.

So, for example, if I were to apply this verse 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?

Hi Chris L:

My point is that Ingrid’s article did not contain the words “apostate” or “apostasy,” nor did it contain the words “dipstick” or “flange-head” or “stuck in stupid.”

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

Words are important, and can be used to lead or mislead…

In Christian love,
Bud Press

I agree, words are important and we should not imply what is not there. In fact, that is why blogs use categories, because they have meaning and can help assign meaning to so there is less misunderstanding.

Since Ingrid created a category called “Apostasy” and posted against Ravi under that category… a simple employment of literal/plain meaning leads to “Ravi is promoting apostasy.”

In contrast, you say she did not use the word “stupid” – which is correct, therefore if we claimed she called Ravi stupid you would have a good argument. But as it is, you don’t.

Neil

Hello everyone:

Let’s get back to basics. Please allow me to put things in terms everyone can hopefully understand.

1. Matt B posted his “Ravi’s Apostate?” notation, and stated “This has obviously been a bad week for Slice and Ingrid’s self declared ‘gift’ of discernment. The writer filed this post under ‘Apostasy Alert’, effectively declaring that Ravi has fallen away from the Christian faith” (note the words “effectively declaring”).

2. The headline to this thread states, “More heresy…*UPDATE*.” The intro to this thread states, “Since Ravi Zacharias is now labeled as an apostate…” (note the words “now labeled as an apostate”).

3. 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.”)

Now, please allow me to simplify my original question: Where do the words “apostate” or “apostasy” or, that “Ravi has fallen away from the Christian faith” appear in Ingrid’s article?

Indeed, words are important. They can lead, mislead, build-up or destroy.

Thank you for allowing me to post in this blog.

In Christian love,
Bud Press

Bud,

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?

The bottom line is, you objection is moot to the thesis of the post – that Ingrid’s attack on Dr. Zacharias was shameful.

Neil

Perhaps as an example to the silliness of the hair you’re trying to split:

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?

Neil – may I suggest a defined and substantial difference between “heretic” which implies objectionable teaching and “apostate” which implies rejecting the faith?

Sometimes when I catch up on these threads, I start feeling like I’m taking crazy pills. It kinda freaks me out.