The Narrow Path Ministries

For years this has been the only forum I have participated in to any extent. Since I retired many years ago I have done various remodeling projects on our home, for our kids, and on a church addition, etc. I got interested in woodworking, everything from cabinets to furniture. So several months ago I came across a woodworkers forum that was interesting and I joined and have been an occasional participant.

Something I noticed after being on the woodworker's forum for awhile was how much nicer the folks there are to one another. Kind, complimentary, and helpful with advice. Often someone will mention they have a need for a part for an old tool, or something else, and someone, or more than one, will promptly reply, volunteering to send what the person needs. And most surprising of all, considering the secular nature of the forum, I see remarks about praying for this or that person who is ill, more often there than here at theos.org.

This shouldn't be.

Anyway, merry Christmas!

That sounds like a good place to hang out, Homer. Do you attack them, too—and they don't answer you back?

To anyone who feels I have insulted them personally, my apologies.

You have not insulted Homer, even though we too have been on opposite sides of doctrine before. I came to this forum with nothing but love for Steve and his ministry, I did not expect to find this form of teaching here, and certainly not the aggressiveness used to defend it. While at the same time suggesting UR is ‘just as’ reasonable as Conditional immortality. The two are polar opposites, and in opposition. I have witnessed reasonableness from most everyone here on a wide variety of doctrines, yet no two here seem to agree on everything. That speaks of their reasonableness and desire for scholarship, this is attractive. I actually cannot think of one other person here besides you Steve that uses ad hominem statements to try and tarnish another poster.

I actually cannot think of one other person here besides you Steve that uses ad hominem statements to try and tarnish another poster.

Good. We should have as little of that kind of thing as possible here.

I invite Homer and JR (and anyone else) to look at the history of this discussion. What I believe you will find is:

—At this forum, no one comes out and attacks anyone else unprovoked, or starts a new thread for the sole purpose of attacking or ridiculing another viewpoint, as Homer and JR (and a very few others) do when attacking universalists.

—The same exhibit enormous hostility to the view—typically maligning, mocking and misrepresenting it.

—It is uncommon for anyone (other than Homer or JR) to hijack a thread on another topic by inserting gratuitous wisecracks against universalists, and baiting them to enter into further argumentation on that topic.

—Few contestants in any debate at this forum as regularly, and abusively, misrepresent any views that they seek to refute.

—Having initially raised the controversy in any thread, the same eventually exhibit resentment or hostility to anyone who opposes or points out the errors in the arguments used in the attack.

When their hostile misrepresentations of restorationism, or of the scriptures that they think apply to it, have been abundantly answered and corrected, no effort is made to either acknowledge (with apology) their errors and false accusations, or else to come back with evidence that the original claims were, in fact, valid. Instead the same debunked points continue to reappear in later posts as if they had never been answered.

We were asked by Homer to give the "top five" misrepresentations of universalism. I gave seven, with quotations from both Homer and JR to document them. Did we hear any response in the way of apology for these misrepresentations? I didn't. Instead, Homer simply opened this thread saying that he finds the forum here unfriendly. These are the things that have taxed my patience in these discussions. Other forums, I think, would long ago have banned such behavior long ago.

If this is not how you perceive the situation, please do a little research in the numerous threads on the topic of universalism, and let me know if you think you find trends different from this description.

Never admit to a fault, do you, even when given the opportunity.

Homer wrote:

Never admit to a fault, do you, even when given the opportunity.

I assume this statement is directed toward me, and not toward JR—though I am not sure why. A "fault" ought to be named and demonstrated—not simply accused or alluded to in vague terms. That is why I have labored to name and document the faults in your argumentation (and in JRs). I, myself, have many faults to which I freely admit when I am made aware of them. Do you find fault with my analysis above? JR, you are welcome to answer this as well.

For those reading this thread in isolation, it should be pointed out that Homer opened this thread in frustration over the arguments presented in the first 10 pages of another thread on hell, which can be found here: http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... &sk=t&sd=a (where a number of people, in addition to myself, expressed frustration at the irresponsible manner in which JR was conducting himself in debate). I would invite the reader to scan that thread, see the extent of my involvement, how I entered, what I said, and what both JR and Homer wrote there. It seems clear that Homer and JR were both corrected (gently enough, it seems to me) concerning some of their misstatements. Instead of either recanting or defending his errors, Homer decided to complain (at this new thread) that he was not being treated very nicely. If this is correct, then I apologize for any unkindness that might have been perceived from me. However, this is very different from the impression I get reading that thread, and others, where JR and Homer continually launch their attacks against restorationism and restorationists.

JR wrote:

I actually cannot think of one other person here besides you Steve that uses ad hominem statements to try and tarnish another poster.

And so the ad hominem continues.......(Homer, 12/22/13, 9:21 PM)

And on and on the ad hominem rolls. The implication is clear; JR and I are stupid. (Homer, 12/24/13, 9:26 PM)

The latter comment was made by Homer in response to a comment by another poster (who later says that he is in general agreement with Homer and JR). It is not made about me.

While I have made critical statements about some involved in this controversy, I have never, to my knowledge, resorted to the use of ad hominem in order to tarnish a poster. Making unflattering observations about a person concerning the traits they demonstrate in public discourse is not the same thing as ad hominem argumentation.

To use ad hominem would mean that one, in lieu of sound arguments to support his position, simply attacks the character, intelligence, associations or motivations of his opponent in a debate. For example, if someone were to say, "While I cannot argue against universalism by appeal to reasonable arguments, my opponent is demonstrably soft on universalism because he has friends and relatives who are not saved," this would be a typical example of ad hominem argumentation.

To point out that one's opponent is writing nonsense and exhibiting an inability to conduct meaningful debate would not, in itself, be an example of ad hominem argumentation, unless he is depending on such observations, in some way, to carry his argument at a weak point. If one defends his position by solid exegetical arguments, and expresses frustration with an opponent who consistently demonstrates either the inability or unwillingness to do the same, this is not what I would recognize as the fallacy of the ad hominem. It is the leveling of a personal criticism.

I would think that conversations in a woodworking forum wouldn't be as grave as the topics discussed here at the Narrow Path. Afterall,
you're just talking about wood projects but here we're talking about the most serious matter of all, the eternal destiny of human souls.
It doesn't surprise me at all that the discussion would be more light there even if it is secular. When people are discussing their hobbies
instead of serious matters they do tend to feel more relaxed. I crochet and when I'm speaking to others about patterns or whatever
we never get into serious discussions about anything really. The only thing the woodworking forum and the narrow path have in common
is the fact that they're forums, hardly worthy to be compared.

I invite Homer and JR (and anyone else) to look at the history of this discussion. What I believe you will find is: (Steve)

I just read through almost the whole ‘Barclay was convinced’ thread, I see everyone arguing for there side in a reasonable manner, I don’t see anyone bothered by the dialogs, thee whole site is disagreements over doctrine, in fact all the regulars continue to engage in these discussions as they do in every thread without much emotion (i.e. as did Bible protector).

—At this forum, no one comes out and attacks anyone else unprovoked, or starts a new thread for the sole purpose of attacking or ridiculing another viewpoint, as Homer and JR (and a very few others) do when attacking universalists (Steve)

These are 'all' the threads I have started, followed by the reasons for their initiation;

Universal love - Requested
Punishment and the fear of God – so not to disrupt ‘your’ thread
Jesus words only' and the book by this title - requested
Complaint Department – suggested by another, and to not disrupt another thread
Can a Christian be a Pacifist? – To raise the question brought up in another thread
The Penalty of death – 2 posts to clarify what I meant, to not distract from another threads direction
UR evokes many emotions – because I was mischaracterized in my personal life
What is wrong with the world? – My response to the school shootings
celebrate your freedom from oppressive big government! – A call to celebrate on the 4th
Christ is back He is here!!!!!! Wakeup!!!!! – An April 1st prank gone haywire
Christians and the Law – a response, and a thesis to go through all 600 laws of the OT, no arguments.
Why has the thread 'The Church service' gone... – a response to a server problem.
How big is God? Mind expanding Video/Photos – I shared a video from NASA

Which of these new threads were started for the sole purpose of attacking or ridiculing another viewpoint??? The only one started over a heated debate was the ‘Can a Christian be a Pacifist? thread, because I wanted to not sidebar Matt’s thread;

I do not think you understand what I am saying here, and since I don’t disagree with you on much of anything else, and I do appreciate your peaceful ‘intent’ I will take this fight to different thread, I suppose I will name the thread; Can a Christian be a Pacifist? (Help me get ready for…’ thread pg.3)

So where am I guilty?

—The same exhibit enormous hostility to the view—typically maligning, mocking and misrepresenting it.

… enormous hostility, this reminds me of a comment you made previously about me, I suppose I’ll have to look for it. But ‘where’ have I been hostile, typically maligning, mocking and misrepresenting? I suppose someone could help me out here (One time I mocked Paidion, but it was tongue in cheek, and I apologized)