You are hereTeachers appreciation week is evil.

Teachers appreciation week is evil.

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By TheIdealNate - Posted on 08 May 2007

by Nathan Dubois
Yes, I said it. Teachers appreciation week is evil.

But before I get to my reasoning, I will ask any who knows me to admit to themselves that I have been wanting to be an American History high school teacher and later, college professor, ever since I have entertained the idea of retiring at 20 years. Even in my current job, teaching those under me is the single biggest enjoyment with my work that I have. I love to help develop young mind, and in the process, exercise my own.Yes, I said it. Teachers appreciation week is evil.

But before I get to my reasoning, I will ask any who knows me to admit to themselves that I have been wanting to be an American History high school teacher and later, college professor, ever since I have entertained the idea of retiring at 20 years. Even in my current job, teaching those under me is the single biggest enjoyment with my work that I have. I love to help develop young mind, and in the process, exercise my own.So here is the BIG problem with this week we are in.

When deployed I can be gone any where from 1 month to 1 year. In the last 3 years I have gone on (2) 6 month deployments and am currently in a 1 year deployment in Okinawa. During this time my wife takes care of the home. She must maintain the house, maintain the cars, drive the kids to (2) separate schools the furthest being 20 miles from the house. She is also a part time student earning 4 credits this semester twice a week in class. Also, my wife is a USMC reservist. During her drill weekends and ANY time she has a college class when the kids are off school, my wife drives over 60 miles to pick up her mother to watch our children. This past Sunday she fired on the rifle range, picked up the kids late driving a 100 mile round trip home and getting everyone to bed in the late evening. Waking up at 6 A.M. the next morning, she took the kids to school, and spent the day working on her homework before driving 40 round tri- miles to pick them up, then cook dinner, help the kids with homework, put them to bed, do more homework, and eventually fall asleep. WHAT A GREAT WIFE!!

Howver, this week is not "Mother Appreciation Week!" She only gets one day to call her own. Instead it is Teacher Appreciation Week, where my wife can add to her duties: buying a fresh flower, helping my daughter make a card for the teacher, and whatever else is "suggested" to do for the teacher on the (3) other remaining days of appreciation. Do you think my wife is so free of distractions and easy on time that she needs to spend (5) days thinking about how to appreciate the teachers of my kids who are PAID to do their job (9) months out of the year? Mommy gets (1) day, the teacher gets (5)?

This is so typical today of the culture that teaches us that teachers are more responsible to teach our children than parents. That a parents, more specifically a Mother's, job is to go to work and pass off their child to daycare. Teachers are so full of themselves in this society that they forget their job every time they sacrifice a kids education so that they can strike for more pay. It is sickening the "honor and glory" our society is placing on the "public servant."

NEWS FLASH: A teacher GETS PAID to do what they do. A parent gladly PAYS for the privilage of being one. A teacher no more deserves reverance than a plumber. They are not Nuns who dedicate their whole lives to the service of God without the comfort of pay and normal living. They are not doctors or missionaries who have left society and comfort to go to Africa to do charity work for the better part of their lives. They are American teachers who recieve a paycheck, pention, and in many cases can graduate your student even if they have never learned to read so long as the teacher has tenure!!

I love my wife. And for that reason I hate this week.

May god Bless Mothers everywhere who dedicate their lives to taking care of their children.

God Bless
Nate

TheIdealNate's picture

In a lot of our debates on site like this, we all emphasize the need to get the context right. Once we do that, we can see the applications and purposes for what is written. Let me break a few down from this rant of mine.

Here are some comments and questions posted for me:
"But why is there a need to bash teachers in general?" Norm
"This is the "hasty generalization" statement I was referring to above."MichaelB
"You can't generalize though, and I think that is why Nathan's post has gotten so much flack."Tami
"Nate they are not evil just "full of themselves" according to you. Your "extreme statement" does nothing for a logical argument."MikeB

Ok...So where are these generalizations? Right here...
"Yes, I said it. Teachers appreciation week is evil."
This is not attacking teachers, it is rather attacking the emphasis society puts on their appreciation while all along degrading the family. I understand John H disagrees, and that is ok. But I am not attacking teachers in this statement, and Tami described it best:
"I remember those days: the flower on Monday, the card on Tuesday, something for the theme basket on Wednesday. And if you forgot, you were viewed as someone who didn't care (read: didn't "appreciate" LOL) Talk about
forced affection. Meaningless.

My other statement of "generalizing....where context has been most abused:
"Teachers are so full of themselves in this society that they forget their job every time they sacrifice a kids education so that they can strike for more pay."

this is clearly an "If the shoe fits, where it" statement. Now John H got offended because instead of striking, his wife gave up a percentage of pay and never got it back. That is not problem...clearly I am not talking about her or any other teacher that does such. Like I said:

"Teachers are not "honorable" because they are teachers. Only honorable teachers are honorable.

How extreme am I? Only enough to call the spade a spade. This is not generalizing all teachers, only the ones wearing the shoe. And in ALL cases, I have made a case that they do not deserve a week to their own for "appreciation" for doing a job THEY CHOSE. In this I am consistent in applying it not only to myself, but to all fields of work. Do your job, shut your mouth, do it as unto the Lord.

This has become an interesting study in the way people react to what is being said, instead of taking in what is being said. And more so than not, it has been very revealing to see how friends react to what you say.

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Ed's picture

Nate,
It's really about whose ox is being gored. If you would have written something like this about home education, you probably would have heard about it from me and JL (and maybe Virgil - but he's nicer than JL and I).

I understood you perfectly the first time. I concur whole-heartedly.

And contrary to Mike's assertions, even though I have disagreed with you in the past, there's nothing wrong with being strong in your convictions.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

MichaelB's picture

No one said that there is something wrong with feeling strong about your convictions. Its quite another to make a statement like "all teacher are full of themselves"

A) Hasty Generalization
B) Not a sound logical argument
C) Tends to negate the point being made

You can still be strong on your convictions and use good sound logic without fallacies.

Jhedges's picture

Mike your a wuss. hehe

MichaelB's picture

Nate writes:
However, this week is not "Mother Appreciation Week!" She only gets one day to call her own. Instead it is Teacher Appreciation Week, where my wife can add to her duties: buying a fresh flower, helping my daughter make a card for the teacher, and whatever else is "suggested" to do for the teacher on the (3) other remaining days of appreciation.

A) Maybe no one deserves an appreciation day, or week. EVER THINK OF THAT. Mothers know what they are getting into when they have kids. It is their JOB. You sound like the Brother of the prodigal child complaining to the Father about what the prodigal got. Like the vinyard worker complaining about his wages because the other worker didn't work as long.

B) If you feel so strongly about it, then tell your wife to stop making the stupid cards. No one is making you do it.

C) What is stoping you from having more days of appreciation for your wife than one day? Why do you need the government to tell you to honor her more? Give her a week. No one is stopping you. It isn't like the world stops for teacher's week and mother's day. Life goes on. It's just a red day on a calendar.

D) Stop making hasty generalizations =) Don't make it sound like all teachers are the same. All mother's are not the same either.

E) Hey JL since teachers get paid the same no matter what they do compared with each other. IE paid for performance. Maybe we should reward Mothers with more days only if they are really good =)

TheIdealNate's picture

Mike: "all teacher are full of themselves"
Nate: "Teachers are so full of themselves in this society that they forget their job every time they sacrifice a kids education so that they can strike for more pay."

Hmmmmmmm I have the feeling I am not the only one seeing what you are missing.

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Ed's picture

Nope, you are definitely not the only one...

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Windpressor's picture

*******************

Teaching Happens. Like other human functions, it can be good or bad.
It is known to occur in the top 2 institutions first thought of when the idea of "lockdown" is entertained.

I am of an optimistic persuasion about truth-bearing liberation such as invoked from John 8:30-32. Though it does seem that the course must traverse through shadowed valleys of disillusionment.

I don't see where a soldier, cop, or teacher is of more societal value or worth greater honor over a truck-stop waitress, an "untouchable" latrine worker in India or a catfish plant worker, in Mississippi, ruined by repetitive injury.

Watch PBS or 60 Minutes or 20/20. Read a little.
The sobering truth is that we owe our very existence to the colonial slave economy and ancestral debaucheries attendant with the War Between the States in addition to disadvantages bestowed by more recent circumstance. Would some pro-life extremist dare claim that the embryonic miscarriage, 15 months prior, has equal life value to my own first gasps? Can not abortion just as easily be found justifiable by scripture? --
Ecclesiastes 4:2-4(ESV)
2And I thought the dead who are already dead more fortunate than the living who are still alive. 3But better than both is he who has not yet been and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun.

Perhaps I digress philosophical.

Nate, the unease you experience may only be symptomatic of a deeper angst. Another blind man, of finer dexterity than me, might better describe the textures of a living room oriented pachyderm. Two things that I have noticed about the public education issue is that:

1. "Public Schoolism" is essentially a religion contrary to the intent of the establishment clause and other state legislations.
AND
2. While the idea of "justifiable plunder" is euphemized as "tax" and "children first", the reality is that a "property tithe" is imposed that is nothing more than theft. However enthralled one might be by matters of "educational excellence" and the grandiloquent pedagogy cathedrals, they are endowed by share in stolen property.

The morality of redistributions for education seems to be acceptable without question, however, Gary Demar has addressed the ideological conflict and supports my contention that "Schoolism" is government endorsed religion --

What the Battle’s All About

"... The classroom has become the laboratory where the secularist worldview has been formulated. There can’t be any worldview competition. Here is a prominent humanist educator explaining the humanist goal to reshape the minds of students to adopt a worldview where God is systematically removed:

'I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will be finally achieved.' (emphasis added)
["A Religion for a New Age"Humanist Magazine(Jan/Feb 1983)]

"The goals of the humanists are clear and forthright. They hide nothing and demand everything. The humanist agenda has been relentless in its efforts to remake man and the world in the image of autonomous man. There is no compromise or lack of vision. The humanist worldview is comprehensive. Humanist thinkers have made a concerted and planned effort to work for an ideological monopoly in the areas of education, law, and religion. Unfortunately, many Christians believe that an arena of neutrality exists where humanists and Christians can discuss issues based on an “objective” study of the facts. This is an impossibility, as John Hostettler learned and probably already knew."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also check out a group advocating to get government out the education business --

Alliance for the Separation of School & State
G1

..................................

G-Juan Wind

EWMI's picture

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, Kansas - 1895

This is the eighth-grade final exam* from 1895 from Salina, Kansas. It was taken
from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society
and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

The top of the test states > "EXAMINATION GRADUATION QUESTIONS OF SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS
April 13, 1895 J.W. Armstrong, County Superintendent.Examinations at Salina, New Cambria, Gypsum City, Assaria, Falun, Bavaria, and District No. 74 (in Glendale Twp.)"

TheIdealNate's picture

It is painfully obvious that to get a point across, I used an extreme to call this week "evil."

Thanks for pointing THAT out, and ignoring the points.

To Michael B. YOU know that being a teacher is what i want to be. Teachers are not evil, but the focus society puts on appreciating a group of people who are paid to do what they do is ridiculous. Especially when considering the demeaning of the American family that the very same culture does. Teachers are not "honorable" because they are teachers. Only honorable teachers are honorable. But none deserve a "week" of appreciating.

JHedges: Darn right. I SHOULD NEVER be praised for just doing my job. That is another thing anyone who knows me knows, I HATE being called a hero, and I hate being put on a pedestal for the purposes of justifying this war as our government does. I love America, but I get paid to do what I do and I CHOSE my profession. I don't deserve a week either! (I also hate medal hounds...people who try to do what they do for the purpose of recognition, and not for the sake of just doing it).

Very interesting responses, but none to the point except JL...Teachers and parents are not even close to the same level. One gets paid, one sacrifices. One does a service, the other is a servant.

That is the simple point of my purposefully extreme statement!

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

Nate they are not evil just "full of themselves" according to you. Your "extreme statement" does nothing for a logical argument.

A) Teachers are "full of themselves"
B) Nate has wanted to be, still wants to be a teacher, and currently "teaches" people.

Therefore: Nate is, and would like to be, "full of himself" =)

Either that - or the statement "teachers are full of themselves" is a hasty generalization =)

You tend to do this alot. For instance we have spoke about going to a church to share Preterism.

Your response - "I don't think going to a church and yelling..."

Hey wait - nobody said anything about yelling. Guess what I went there last night in front of 100s at a hermeneutics class and challenged the teacher on some things. Had a group asking me questions and a couple people giving me email adresses wanting to hear more about it. No fights - can you believe it =)

You see bro - you do this all the time. I don't know why but your brain seems to get caught in extremes all the time when there is no logical reason for it.

God Bless
MB

JL's picture

Michael,

Maybe Nate is just tired of trying to beat the system and wants to join them. Then he'll get to be evil and be full of himself, just like all the others. Maybe he wants to be paid the same regardless of his performance. Maybe he wants to get that annual seniority raise then bald-facedly claim that he hasn't had a raise in years. Maybe he wants to spend 5 years getting tenure, so he can spend the rest of his life doing as little as he can get away with.

Nate is just an extreme sort of guy. Maybe he just looks forward to going over to the other extreme.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Jhedges's picture

"Maybe he wants to be paid the same regardless of his performance"

Thats called comunism.

MichaelB's picture

LOL ya I wonder if the statement "Calvinism leads to racism" is a "hasty generalization" also - any thoughts - LOL - who said that again? =)

JL's picture

Michael,

No, that was a perfectly correct in it's context. The history of the African slave trade with Europe, North America, and the East and West Indies and the history of Calvinist governments are two sides of the same history.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

JL - you can not prove the connection in your statement. Your connection between Calvinism and african slave trade then the statement "calvinism leads to racism" is no different than Virgils "bread" blog. 99% of crimes are committed 24 hours within eating bread - so what?

I know alot of Arminian racists. The are called Dispnsationalists. They think that God has a chosen people called the Jews (no matter what) and I CAN connect Arminian Dispy theology to racism =)

I know a lot of black Calvinist...are they racists too? How does that work =)

JL's picture

Michael,

Show me one Calvinist government that was not racist to the core.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

Put up or shut up - LOL - you have made no logical connection.

Ed's picture

Hey Mike, let's look at what Calvin says himself, eh? You see, what struck me was that you, a Calvinist, kept referencing some Black Calvinist group, and never once went to Calvin to find quotes that disproved the accusation of racism. Why would that be? Perhaps because Calvin's words prove JL's point?

Let's set the context. Calvin believed, with most of his day, that blacks were descendants of Ham. This is still a common belief. Calvin, in Chapter 11, was speaking about how God would punish the followers of Shem for their ancestors disobedience, and he compared them to the children of Ham. Here is the quote from Chapter 11:

"what are we to think of the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long before in their father?"

You see, he believed that blacks were cursed in their father Ham. This was used to justify, by Calvinist governments, the race based slavery that infected this country in its early years, and the race-based discrimination that existed for over a century after slavery was abolished.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

MichaelB's picture

a Calvinist, kept referencing some Black Calvinist group, and never once went to Calvin to find quotes that disproved the accusation of racism.

No one said that there are not Calvinist Racisists Ed. I can find Arminian Racists too. The point is that 5 point Calvinism as layed down at the synod of Dort (where the five points was stated) does not LEAD to racism or slave trading. As made obvious by the Calvinists today that are black and Calvinists tooday that are white who do not believe in slavery.

Ed's picture

AND YET, every Calvinist government that has ever existed has embraced slavery or racism or both.

You keep making the argument about individual Calvinists. JL and I are speaking of institutional Calvinism, which according to Calvin's teaching, views the black races (children of Ham) as under a curse because of their father, Ham. That curse? Slavery.

Of course there are individual Arminian racists. That was never the point. The point was, that you keep avoiding, that every Calvinist government that has ever existed has been an institution of racism; e.g., America from the beginning, then the American South, South Africa, etc., etc.

If this is untrue, name one Calvinist gov't that wasn't.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

JL's picture

Michael,

Roderick made the connection with the South African Calvinist government and their Apartheid and called it an aberation. That is the context of my original comment. South Africa was no aberration. All Calvinist governments have been fundamentally racist to the core.

I don't need to make a logical connection between racism and Calvinism to make that claim. I only need an exhaustive list of Calvinist governments.

Dutch Republic - 1581 to 1795

England from Cromwell to Wilberforce

Puritan New England

Scotish Presbyterean Antebellum South

South Africa until the fall of Apartheid

Do you deny that those governments were all racist?

Show me one Calvinist government that wasn't racist.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

TheIdealNate's picture

JL,
The problem is bigger than Calvinism or Armenianism or Catholcism. The problem is finite man trying to legislate an infinite God's holiness.

It has been a "curse" ever since the people of Israel made their oath to God to abide by it. They could not, and worse than failing, the leadership in charge bastardized it to the point of complete wickedness.

When Christ revealed His place in the covenant during AD 70, he revealed that mankind was no longer to be in charge of legislating God's law. It is HIS job alone.

It is not the "type" of religion that is in charge, it is man ordained religion BEING in charge.

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

When Christ revealed His place in the covenant during AD 70, he revealed that mankind was no longer to be in charge of legislating God's law. It is HIS job alone

Hmm - how does that work? So we should not legislate ANY laws? Only laws that are NOT patterned at all to God's law? Cool. That make's sense.

TheIdealNate's picture

No. Just don't claim to defend them in defense of God, or legislate them in the name of standing up for God.

If AD 70 showed us anything, it is that those who were in that position were incapable of it, and He could very well defend Himself, AND HIS PEOPLE, without a government speaking for Him.

Any claim to be "standing up for God's Law" or "defending Christianity" through a man made government is a false claim. Humans can't help but fail at it. And that is the heart of JL and your debate.

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

Nate writes:
Without a government speaking for Him.Any claim to be "standing up for God's Law" or "defending Christianity" through a man made government is a false claim.

How does Romans 13 fit into this idea?

MichaelB's picture

Nate - here is the irony - you claim I have "misinterpretred" your article. That I am "not seeing your point" How ironic.

You expect me to extend you hermeneutical courtesy yet you interpert John the apostle like this?

"Some have asked me what Revelation 20 means, and to this I can only ask them to define it how they will. I personally see it this way. In the love story written about God and me, As far as the 1000 years, how can I apply those events to my own life? ...So I see Revelation 20 as unfolding over these past few years in me. I have had that time of bondage and temptation by Satan. etc..."

No hermeneutics whatsoever - just subjectivism. How dare you tell me what your article means, or is about. I can interpret it any way I like right? If not, then why not - give your Pret Idealist hermeneutic you have no right to tell me what your article is actually talking about. I get to determine that myself.

When you decide to extend the Apostles the same hermeneutical courtesy that you expect when we read your articles then get back to me.

As far as following a man - I quote Spurgeon.

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again." — C. H. Spurgeon

"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me . . . Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church. (Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons, Still Waters Revival Books, p. 170)"

"Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth. (Sermons, Vol. 7, p. 298)"

"I am not a Calvinist by choice, but because I cannot help it. (Sermons, Vol. 18, p. 692)"

As far as the study goes. It was not soley my decision. You and Todd and JL are welcome to come still. I will add you on the list if you would like. But Nate here you are getting mad at me about the study when the fact is that your attitude there has run people off. Not anyone elses. Also I don't expect you to get upset anymore when we ask hard questions like you did before. Thats how we have always done things at that study. ALWAYS BE READY TO GIVE AN ANSWER.

Our study is a Presuppositional Apologetics - Sovereign Grace - Preterist - Historical Grammatico Hermeneutic - Study.

If you don't like that - you are still my brother in Christ but maybe you would be happier elsewhere. We don't want to dable in doctrines that clearly contradict scriptures.

TheIdealNate's picture

No Mike,
I expect the courtesy of a friendship.

That no matter what I write about how I feel about something or how I think a certain way about how I was acting, thinking, or responding to a certain theological stance, that YOU, as my friend, take our friendship and hold it higher than something I wrote, which you may be taking a little too personally. Maybe, as a friend, extend the benefit of the doubt that I was writing about something that MY heart was wrestling with.

At this point, when talking to you, hermeneutics are the LAST thing bothering me about all this.

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

Nate writes:
At this point, when talking to you, hermeneutics are the LAST thing bothering me about all this. Maybe, as a friend, extend the benefit of the doubt that I was writing about something that MY heart was wrestling with.

I guess I am just wired a different way Nate. My heart wrestles with alot of things but if it isn't supported with scripture and logical, then I usually drop it.

Many of your articles are merely "appeal to emotions". That kind of bothers me and I guess maybe why you seem to swing from one extreme to another IMO. Still your friend though.

Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

JL's picture

Nate,

The problem is, you made a very good and valid point. Michael doesn't like it, so he twisted your point. You, Ed, and I called him on it, and Michael has changed the subject by bringing up and twisting a previous unrelated point.

Michael can't answer the actual issue, be it why should Teacher Appreciation Week even exist, let alone preempt Mother's Day, or why has every Calvinist government resulted in the mpst extreme racism and institutional slavery the world has ever seen.

Michael has changed the first into you-hate-teachers-and-think-all-teachers-are-evil and the second into you-hate-Calvinists-and-think-all-Calvinists-are-racists. Both of those sentiments are false.

I went to my daughter's recital last night. The director, a PhD college professor, announced that it was National Teacher Appreciation Week and that all our daughters took her out to lunch. A few other things were said about the occasion, presentations made, etc.

Over about 300 years, 25 to 40 million Africans were shipped to the Americas, Europe, Eastern Asia, and the East and West Indies by ships flying flags of ostensibly Christian nations. To my knowledge, no Arminian Christian governments have ever been implicated in that slave trade. About 2 to 4 million of those slaves were shipped under Catholic flags. The rest were shipped under Dutch Republic, Puritan England, and US flags. Ships under US flag were primarily from Puritan New England and Puritan England taking advange of US neutrality.

The Calvinists are all denying this, claiming I haven't demonstrated a logical connection. This is history. This is what Calvinists have done in the past. Everybody but Calvinists seems to know this and understand this.

It may be true, but it is also irrelevant to claim individual Calvinists are not racists. Individuals are not governments. (Especially not Calvinist individuals.)

It is equally irrelevant to claim that individual teachers are selfless, dedicated, etc. An individual is not the beureacratic morass that demands more and more money while turning out worse and worse results. Nor does an individual teacher have the "pull" to demand and get bogus celebrations like National Teacher Appreciation Week.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

Love the third person JL. Hey JL where did I deny that there were no Calvinist slave traders? You simply can not answer my questions so you have to play the speak in 3rd person game as if I am not around. Lame

Apparently these guys missed the racist connection with Calvinism.

http://www.reformedblacksofamerica.org/blog1/index.php?itemid=91

But JL you don't want to address that Calvinism does not LEAD to racism. Presuppositions do.

Just curious if you think that the Theonomists of today are pushing for slavery JL? Is that your claim - if not why not?

Nate writes:
However, this week is not "Mother Appreciation Week!" She only gets one day to call her own. Instead it is Teacher Appreciation Week, where my wife can add to her duties: buying a fresh flower, helping my daughter make a card for the teacher, and whatever else is "suggested" to do for the teacher on the (3) other remaining days of appreciation.

A) Maybe no one deserves an appreciation day, or week. EVER THINK OF THAT. Mothers know what they are getting into when they have kids. It is their JOB. You sound like the Brother of the prodigal child complaining to the Father about what the prodigal got. Like the vinyard worker complaining about his wages because the other worker didn't work as long.

B) If you feel so strongly about it, then tell your wife to stop making the stupid cards. No one is making you do it.

C) What is stoping you from having more days of appreciation for your wife than one day? Why do you need the government to tell you to honor her more? Give her a week. No one is stopping you. It isn't like the world stops for teacher's week and mother's day. Life goes on. It's just a red day on a calendar.

D) Stop making hasty generalizations =) Don't make it sound like all teachers are the same. All mother's are not the same either.

E) Hey JL since teachers get paid the same no matter what they do compared with each other. IE paid for performance. Maybe we should reward Mothers with more days only if they are really good =)

TheIdealNate's picture

A) Maybe no one deserves an appreciation day, or week. EVER THINK OF THAT. Mothers know what they are getting into when they have kids. It is their JOB. You sound like the Brother of the prodigal child complaining to the Father about what the prodigal got. Like the vinyard worker complaining about his wages because the other worker didn't work as long.

Mike,
I had already explained this is not the point of the article either. I was using one (Mothers Day exampled by my wife) to contrast societies implementation of another (Teachers week).

Do you really think I am stupid enough to NOT KNOW that I can appreciate my wife for the mother she is without a national holiday? Do I care if the government has a "Mothers Day" at all?

NO!
The point is that society DOES have a mothers day, and a Teachers WEEK! Contrasts was my point with that. So I am not going down your rabbit hole. Getting a better Mothers Appreciation was not the point of the blog.

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Ed's picture

Nate,
Michael knows exactly what you are saying, but since he already tried to make a fool of you, he can't back down until he wins. He can't admit that he was wrong about your article. He can't admit that you have a valid point. He MUST prove his point and make you look foolish, even if it requires misquoting you, misrepresenting you, etc.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

JL's picture

Michael,

I gave an exhaustive historical list demonstrating that all Calvinist governments have been racist. You have yet to face up to that fact. You play games and change the subject. You have yet to respond to anything I've written. Yet here you are complaining that I didn't respond to you. (Actually, I did. But you'd rather complain than address the issue, so you ignored my direct response.)

You claim Calvinism does not lead to racism, presuppositions do.

OK, I'll bite. Please tell me what the presuppositions were that led to 17th century racism and race-based slavery in Calvinist nations.

Please explain why these presuppostions were unique to or nearly unique to Calvinists, or if they were not unique, why Calvinists acted on them more consistently than did others.

Please explain why today's Calvinists would not fall for such presuppositions. That is, why are today's Calvinists different? Explain why inspite of this difference, you should still be called a Calvinist?

As for you question about theonomists, I answered you directly. You haven't bothered to respond. This is more evidence that you are just playing games. You have yet to say anything substantive on the issue. I'm still waiting.

In response to A) Fine with me. I'm not into the various Full Employment of Hallmark Workers Acts. Why then all the flack from you?

B) If you don't participate, there are strong negative consequences.

C) Nothing. This is irrelevant to the issue.

D) It is not a hasty generalization to claim that all Calvinist governments have been racist. All but possibly one have been a major factor in race-based slavery. Some 90% of all African slaves shipped by Christian nations were shipped by two Calvinist nations and that portion of the US that was predominantly Puritan Calvinist. This is worse than Pareto's rule. Calvinists made up less than 20% of Christians, yet did more than 80% of the slave trading.

E) Maybe you should worry about your mother and let me worry about mine.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

JL writes:
B) If you don't participate, there are strong negative consequences.

Whats that - becoming martyrs or something? Scared of school teachers?

What is more important the strong negative consequences or doing what you believe is right?

JL's picture

Michael,

No response on a long list of issues. Again you pick a side issue and start twisting without thinking.

Suddenly, you want to me to make my children into martyrs. In true Calvinist form, they aren't allowed to make that decision for themselves.

I'm not a Calvinist, Moslem, fatalist, or any other sort of deteriminist. I don't purposely place children in harm's way. Children are to be protected, not martyred by those they trust.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

Dude you are nuts.

Your children are not martyrs. I didnt say they were or had to be. I was using sarcasm. I hardly think the "consequences" of not getting a present or a flower or whatever for a teacher is going to cause them any issues. You are the one that makes it sound like it is a serious issue not to do it.

JL's picture

Michael,

My children have never been to school. For me it is a non-issue. You brought it up and insisted I answer. I tried to be a good sport and did.

If the issue is not a serious matter to you, then why are you bringing it up? Why are you so insistent that I answer your foolishness?

Don't bother answering that. You haven't answered anything else. I'd hate for you to break your streak.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

Here's the problem with JL's reasoning...

WHERE were these implied "Arminian Christian Governments" during the height of the slave trade? The clue to this issue is found right in Jeff's comments. He notes Catholic Governments also participated in the slave trade.

That is because during the height of the slave trade, there were only two main types of Christians (& thus Christian governments) -- Roman Catholic or Protestant. The thing JL misses is that to be Protestant at that time was synonymous with being Calvinists -- The Arminians were minuscule.

Another set of facts left out is the number of Muslim governments involved in the slave trade.

Jl, you logic is as comparable as saying I was bit by a black dog so therefore all black dogs bite but since I've never been bit by a green dog, green dogs don't bite. The problem is, where were the green dogs while I was forming the conclusion? (i.e. the Arminian governments)

Thus, it isn't because these governments were Calvinistic or even because they were Christian (since Jeff left out the Muslims), but it was because they were ran by humans & humans everywhere at that time were engaged in the slave trade.

JL's picture

Michael,

Every black dog (Calvinist government) that has ever existed bites. Spain, Portugal, and France, (Catholic Governments) were a tiny part of the slave trade. I've never heard of Italy, Ireland, Romania, or any of the numerous eastern European nations (Catholic Governments) ever being involved in the slave trade. Germany, Austria, Switzerland had a mix of Lutheran and Catholic Government. I've never heard of them being involved in the slave trade.

You have falsely implied that all Christian nations were involved in the slave trade. Most Catholic nations weren't. The Lutheran nations weren't. If they were, certainly not to the degree fashionable in the Calvinist nations that made the slave trade a fundamental part of their economy.

As for the Muslim's they enslaved everyone regardless of race. Thomas Jefferson got Congress to declare war on the Muslims who were stealing people on both sides of the Mediterranean. This was not race-based slavery.

The Calvinists were clearly different.

My claims on this matter have been consistent. Yours are all over the place. False accusations of what I've said about modern Calvinists. False accusations against Catholic and Lutheran nations that weren't involved in the slave trade. False implication that the Muslim slave trade was limited to Black Africans. False claims that I am using faulty logic. And the bad logic that because you can find one Black Calvinist, no fundamental problems exist for Calvinism.

Here is my complete logic:

Roderick's Question #1: Why don't all Blacks of African Descent become Calvinists?

Roderick was pretending to want to know why there was a problem. I tried to help. His solution and yours is to shoot the messenger.

Roderick's Claim #1: Calvinism has a bad rap among Blacks because of South African Apartheid

Roderick's Claim #2: South African Apartheid was a corrupted form of Calvinism.

My question: What evidence is there that South African Apartheid is a corrupted form of Calvinism?

Historical Proposition #1: It is a true statement that: All Calvinist governments have been racist to the core.

Historical Proposition #2: South Africa's Apartheid government was a Calvinist government

Therefore, South Africa was not unique among Calvinist governments.

This leads to the question, Either 1) all Calvinist governments have been a corrupted form of Calvinism or 2) the problem is Calvinism itself?

To date, most Calvinists have been silent. A few however have decided to dispute Historical Proposition #1 or make personal attacks against me. Not one Calvinist wants to address the second question or suggest alternatives.

If the first half of Roderick's claim #1 is true, then Calvinism will continue to have little impact on Blacks except for revulsion, until you Calvinists face this issue. Finding an occasional Black who goes against the grain, is not evidence that no problem exists.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

I don't have a response on the calvinist issue because you have made no necessary connection between the two. You have no explaination why there are black Calvinists. You have no explaination why theonomists are not pushing slavery today. You are making a connection that isn't there. Whatever government that was in place at the time and place, would have had the same issue going on. It is a mere coincidence only that there were slave trading Calvinistic societies. It was nothing but a cultural issue. Not theological. The fact that no Calvinist owns slaves or endorses that today proves that. The fact there are blacks that happily call themselve Calvinists proves that also.

MichaelB's picture

PS if you think Calvinists are racist slave owners, or we all want that to be the case in your opinion, then don't come to the study anymore with your family if you feel we want to enslave them. After all just about everyone at the study are Calvinists. Naturally we must want what every one under the sun that named that named Calvinist wants or wanted. Right? That is great logic JL.

TheIdealNate's picture

Mike,
Why do you feel it is your job to "un-invite" everybody all the time? Being against Calvinism or being an idealist does not make people against YOU or Scott, ken, or anyone else.

Can you really not see why people can fellowship together, be friends, celebrate birthdays, help each other move, pray together, share our problems, etc EVEN if we are not Calvinists or are Pret Idealists?

The stupidity of always resorting to that mentality is the same that leads to the Roderick type splits, and better yet, the Protestant denominations. "Stop coming if you don't belong to my denominational mentality"!

Where does this insecurity come from?

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members of Chloe's household, that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I am saying is this: each of you says, "I'm with Paul," or "I'm with Apollos," or "I'm with Cephas," or "I'm with Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul's name?

Did Calvin die for you? Were you baptized a "Calvinist Full Preterist?"

This is why I refuse to quit on my friends, no matter how many other "un-invites" I get from you. And I hope everyone else who gets them ignores them as well.

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

Nate - you are the one that compared Full Preterism to Pharisees and Doubting Thomas.

JL compared Clavinists to slave traders and we are Calvinists.

None of us said that we were baptized in Calvin's name.

If that is the case then trust me you are not welcome to our study and it is clearly you two that drove the wedge of division between us.

No one univited you Nate. I just simply stopped emailing you. It was not my decision alone. We figured you would be happier starting your own study where you can make the bible as subjectivve as you would like.

Insecurity? I would be happy to have a friendly live recorded formal debate with you on Pret Idealism if you would like.

No one is insecure. We just dont want to waist our time on non-sense and contradictions to clear texts, and art and science of interpretation known as hermeneutics.

Your subjective approach is not welcome. Either are JL's accusations.

TheIdealNate's picture

You have uninvited me and Todd before in the same way you just did to JL. When I hear it from others, I will listen. But I continue to get invited. I consider all of you my friends, and if you (meaning MIKEB) chose to take everything I say so personal, then I can't help that. I applied those comments you refer to TO MYSELF...if you cared to read ALL of what I write, you might SEE that. I continue to be available to all of you as friend.

So far you are alone in your rebuke. Why is that?

God Bless Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

Nate - here is the irony - you claim I have "misinterpretred" your article. That I am "not seeing your point" How ironic.

You expect me to extend you hermeneutical courtesy yet you interpert John the apostle like this?

"Some have asked me what Revelation 20 means, and to this I can only ask them to define it how they will. I personally see it this way. In the love story written about God and me, As far as the 1000 years, how can I apply those events to my own life? ...So I see Revelation 20 as unfolding over these past few years in me. I have had that time of bondage and temptation by Satan. etc..."

No hermeneutics whatsoever - just subjectivism. How dare you tell me what your article means, or is about. I can interpret it any way I like right? If not, then why not - give your Pret Idealist hermeneutic you have no right to tell me what your article is actually talking about. I get to determine that myself.

When you decide to extend the Apostles the same hermeneutical courtesy that you expect when we read your articles then get back to me.

As far as following a man - I quote Spurgeon.

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again." — C. H. Spurgeon

"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me . . . Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church. (Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons, Still Waters Revival Books, p. 170)"

"Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth. (Sermons, Vol. 7, p. 298)"

"I am not a Calvinist by choice, but because I cannot help it. (Sermons, Vol. 18, p. 692)"

As far as the study goes. It was not soley my decision. You and Todd and JL are welcome to come still. I will add you on the list if you would like. But Nate here you are getting mad at me about the study when the fact is that your attitude there has run people off. Not anyone elses. Also I don't expect you to get upset anymore when we ask hard questions like you did before. Thats how we have always done things at that study. ALWAYS BE READY TO GIVE AN ANSWER.

Our study is a Presuppositional Apologetics - Sovereign Grace - Preterist - Historical Grammatico Hermeneutic - Study.

If you don't like that - you are still my brother in Christ but maybe you would be happier elsewhere. We don't want to dable in doctrines that clearly contradict scriptures.

JL's picture

Michael,

I have never accused any Calvinist alive today of racism. I've never said that Calvinism in individuals leads to racism or slavery. I've never said that Calvinist churches are racist. You continue to try to put words into my mouth.

I have never brought up this issue. It is always Calvinists who do so. Calvinists who want Calvinist governments. Calvinists who want others to become Calvinist. Calvinists who just want to mock non-Calvinists.

If you want to convince people that a Calvinist government would be a good thing, then you need to address these historic problems with Calvinist governments.

If you want to convince people (to whom these issues are important) to be Calvinists, then you need to address these historic problems with Calvinist governments.

If you are not willing to face these historic issues with Calvinist governments, then quit bringing up the subject.

Racist or not, Calvinist individuals are not a threat to me. Racist or not, a Theonomist government is a serious threat to me (and to you). And given history, until you can show me otherwise, I will assume that any other type of Calvinist government is a serious threat. Every example in history has proven to be. I'm not willing to take your word or any other Calvinist's word that next time things will be different.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Jhedges's picture

Nate,

AD 70 in ourtime line or out of time *winks*

TheIdealNate's picture

LOL...
I thought of that, which is why I phrased it like this:
"When Christ revealed His place in the covenant during AD 70, he revealed...

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

MichaelB's picture

John - I am pretty sure that Nate and Todd are the Idealist re-fulfillment of the two witnesses =)

True Bible interpretation is actually completely subjective now =) Forget the historical grammatico.

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43