Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
I understood most of what you were saying in your post. The one distinction I think should be drawn between "idolatry" and the "C" word is that the "cult" word is just a label that is a noun.
Idolatry is a specific act of sinfulness described by the Word of God that our behavior can be measured against.
|
And I agree. But even when you take it to the action level, it is still a label, albeit of an action. It is also a state of being of the heart. For that reason, the limits of its reach could be enormous. But discussing idolatry does not demonstrate
how the LC played a role in the development of behaviors. It is trying to find out
why the LC played a role.
I am not disparaging the actual discussion. I think that the how and the why should be separated. Let the two carry on separately. Here is why I think that separation is worthwhile:
I think this may have been one of the problems with the little fiasco of the past couple of days. The original issue was how. But even the originator of the thread started trying to answer why. And Don stepped in provided examples of how he tried to avoid those things. We now have three topics going on simultaneously; how (with examples), why (with analysis and accusations), and how not (also with examples). In hindsight, no matter where it started, it begins to seem that each person saw the whole of the thread in terms of the angle they were addressing (how, why, why not, how not) and not reading others within their proper contexts. When “why” is read as “how,” it suddenly says something different than was intended. We all got caught up in it. We brought BlessD into the mix and seemed to be disparaging her account, although I do not believe that was ever intended. I eventually saw certain things. I may think I was clear on some of them, but I probably was not on all, and maybe none.
I read people on both sides who quoted the person with whom they were disagreeing and then read their characterization and wondered if it was entirely fair and accurate. I did not keep notes on specifics, but I could go back in and find some. I would rather not. We all would probably be embarrassed at some level — including me.
That leads me to question whether we are doing ourselves a favor to continue to have two different aspects of one thing discussed at the same time when we have already seen an example of what can go wrong. Yes, we could try to be more careful. But it may not be worth the risk.
I know I could be beating a dead horse. It is still just an opinion. If you understand my concern and still disagree, I’m quite OK with it. I just want to be sure you understand my concern.