From Celiede at email@example.com on 27 January 1999
Just surfed onto your webpage and wanted to say that your articles are very well written. What I wanted to comment on was your motto "out-thinking the pagans".
No matter how you try to defend your beliefs and discredit the beliefs of others, they will be working in turn to defend their beliefs and discredit yours. I don't believe the world will ever come to just ONE conclusion about Truth. Do you?
Reply from Allan Turner on 27 January 1999
Thanks for your comments. No, I don't think the world will ever come to just ONE conclusion about Truth, nevertheless, I do believe there is true truth, whether the world believes it or not. My job, as I see it, is to discover what that true truth is, and when I do, share as much of it as I can with others. That's what the web page is all about.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
From: Kenneth James Hoerricks at firstname.lastname@example.org on 18 Feburary 1999
I did want to ask you to respond to a few questions from your point of view, as I am one of those you call pagan.
Jesus' parables are trivial and incomprehensible. They are "hidden from the wise but revealed to the babes" (Matthew 11:25), a state of affairs which encourages ignorance and unreasonableness. Jesus and his followers represent a lethargic ethic of the status quo, the very opposite of the Greek quest for moral excellence; indeed, his blessing on the poor and downtrodden and his repudiation of the rich make moral effort impossible. Had he not taught that selling everything and giving it to the poor (Matthew 19:21), thereby becoming a lout and a beggar and a burden on others, was the height of Christian perfection? . . . .
Furthermore, Jesus did not follow his own advice. His show of weakness in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his arrest was disgraceful: having preached fearlessness in time of persecution to his disciples, he exhibited only fear and trembling at the moment of his capture. When Jesus stood before his accusers, he spoke like a guilty man, not like a hero on the order of Apollonius of Tyana who had been hauled before Domitian . . . . Had he been a god on the order of the ancient heroes, he would have flung himself from a parapet of the temple, he would have appeared after his death to haunt Herod and Pilate - or, indeed, to the Senate and People of Rome, to prove he had risen from the dead. That would have convinced everyone of the truth of Christian belief, and it would have spared his followers the punishment they now suffered for their beliefs. In short, had Jesus cared for his followers he could have taken care to spare them their martyrdom."
How would you as a Christian in modern times, respond to the above commentary?
Reply by Allan Turner on 19 February 1999
Don't believe I've got a response to your "few questions." Not that I'm speechless, as you've already learned from my site, just that I'm choosing not to respond. Just this: Whether Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, as He claimed to be, does not depend upon your definitions or criteria of what a god ought to be like, and I'm convinced that one day you'll realize this.
Furthermore, you said, "I am one of those you call pagan," like it's my term of derision for folks like you. By using the term "pagan," I assure you I meant no disrespect, but thought it was a title folks like you were happy to wear, as I am the appellation "Christian."
If you'll give me your URL, I'd be happy to surf on over there for a look. Who knows, I might learn something.
From Byron Nash at email@example.com on 20 February 1999
Dear brother Allan:
My name is Byron Nash, I live in the Atlanta, Georgia area. I have been a member of the Lord's body for over 30 years. My family and I attend the Lilburn church of Christ. I am one of five men who are responsible for creating a Bible School program for the congregation.
First, let me thank you for the valuable assistance that you have given to us in teaching the subject of Calvinism to our adult Bible class. We have used the excellent articles that you have placed on your web site as a guide for teaching what Calvinism is and why it is anti-Biblical. We have done additional research and placed John Calvin and Martin Luther into a historical perspective. We have also researched other material and shown that Calvin and Luther and others were simply trying to reform Catholicism back to the views espoused by Augustine. We have attempted to show that Luther and Calvin and the other reformers rejected Pelagius' understanding of free-will.
The reason for writing to you is to ask you if you have written any articles on Neo-Calvinism? If you haven't do you know of any class material that I can use on this subject? Is there a web site that provides information on Neo-Calvinism?
Please also accept my heartfelt appreciation for the work that you are doing on this web site. It appears to be well-thought out. Your responses to unbelievers are thoughtful and careful (Christ-like). Please continue to do this work.
In His name,
Reply from Allan Turner on 20 February 1999
What a nice email. It is always good to hear that one's efforts are helping others. There is a book entitled Neo-Calvinism In The Church of Christ edited by Tom Roberts and published by the Cogdill Foundation back in 1980. It contains chapters written by Wayne Partain, Bill Reeves, Robert Gabhart, and Tom Roberts.
Also, if you check out Watchman magazine at http://www.watchmanmag.com/ , I remember Tom Roberts doing some articles on that subject in past issues, I think. As far as a site dealing specifically with that subject, I'm not aware of any. I'll do some checking around, and if I find anything I'll let you know.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write me.
God bless you in all you do for Him,
From Rachael at firstname.lastname@example.org on 21 February 1999.
I'm sorry sir, our ideals differ to [sic] greatly. It is a nice site but I do not agree with the ideals on it. BTW [this is computerese for by the way] being a 20yr [old] female my morals are not those of Bill Clinton. I haven't any children. And I'm NOT a christian. Just so you know the whole world isn't going to hell like you seem to think it is.
P.S. I have some excellent friends that I would give my life for that are homosexual!
Reply from Allan Turner on 22 February 1999
Appears to me that your intolerance is showing. As a former police officer and military man I can tell you that I have laid my life on the line for homosexuals, as well as a lot of other folks who I do not agree with morally or politically.
Nevertheless, isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing, even when you don't agree with what the other person is saying?
From Paul Harris at PHarris825@aol.com on 3 March 1999.
I read the text of your sermon. [He's referring to this article] As a linguist I fear that you make a fundamental error in your definition of the 'homophobe' and thus ruin the intellectual basis for your argument..... Follow me a moment if you will... If I walk into a park and seeing a man and a woman making love in public in daylight and I express my distaste does that make me a "heterophobe"? The answer is, of course, NO. I should be guilty of expressing my opinion about a form of behavior that is inappropriate in that setting -- nothing more, nor less.
You repeat your error one sentence later when you write, and I quote, "You know you are a 'homophobe' if you are afraid for your small boy to use the public rest rooms because the urinals and toilets are frequented by loitering homosexuals." Wrong again, I fear. You are guilty of being a concerned parent.
I was interested to read that something like 94% of child abuse in this country according to the FBI (not a wildly liberal institution) was committed by an adult of one sex against a child of the other sex. Thus is a parent who is worried that his son or daughter is going to be sexually abused by a teacher of the opposite sex a "heterophobe"? The answer is of course not... He or she is merely a concerned parent.
As a writer and linguist I am concerned at the way language is used in ways for political means and in so doing perverting its meaning. By the way in which you argue, you overstate a case and thus by exaggerating it create holes in your own argument. Your central thesis is almost certainly correct -- the way you argue your case though is not.
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 March 1999
I know you said you read my article "Homophobia" And The Homosexual Agenda, but, based on what you said, I find it hard to believe. Even so, I'll take you at your word. You wrote, "As a linguist I fear that you make a fundamental error in your definition of the 'homophobe' and thus ruin the intellectual basis for your argument." You end by saying: "By the way in which you argue, you overstate a case and thus by exaggerating it create holes in your own argument. Your central thesis is almost certainly correct—the way you argue your case though is not."
Please believe me when I say that I appreciate constructive criticism. When I have been wise enough to take it, it has done me much good over the years. Furthermore, as a preacher/teacher/writer, I am always trying to get better at what I do. I really tried to understand what your complaint was, and I could just not figure it out. In fact, Paul, I believe you've missed my point entirely. My caricature of what the homosexual agenda is saying about who is a 'homophobe' is not MY definition at all, as you seem to think. The definition is theirs, and they have been quite effective with their propaganda machine. I agree with YOUR assessment that the reasonable reactions to the inappropriate behaviors being depicted are not, as the homosexual agenda claims, aberrant behavior. Tell me, as you identify yourself as a "writer and linguist," how is it that you missed this?
Finally, where are the holes in my argument? If those in the homosexual agenda make these arguments, and they do, and your response to these arguments are reasonable, then it sounds to me like I was successful in doing exactly what I set out to do. And that was to demonstrate that there are plenty of ways to describe one's revulsion to the behaviors depicted than to label them "homophobic."
Again, for the sake of clarification, let me say that the definitions you take exception to are not my definitions at all. If I had actually overstated the case, or if I had put words and labels in the mouths of Gay Rights Activists that are not a true representation of their agenda, then I need to be corrected. But, you have not argued that this is the case, and it isn't. Therefore, cut me some slack and give me some reason to believe you are really what you say you are. You, of all people, if you are a writer and linguist, ought not to have misunderstood what I was doing in the article.
Back To The Dialogues