Cindy K

Paula wrote: I’ve heard of other big names in eschatology who reportedly are less than civil to those who oppose them, but I think we have to be careful about connecting their theology to their spiritual health.

Paula,

I was not trying to point out anything about anyone’s eschatology and how that would reflect on them personally, particularly when I did not have a vested interest in either side of the argument (which I never did really process anyway because the “window dressing” was so distracting.  If anything, I meant it to reflect the opposite of this — that how we argue might not actually reflect the merit of what we argue.  That applies to the person and their Christian witness as well.  My only point concerned the nature of how we argue, and how things that we don’t intend (and may not actually ever leak out) tend to betray us.  Pascal said that “The heart has its reasons that reason knows not.”  And our emotions along with the intent of our hearts speak, even when we do not want them to do so.  All that may not even have any bearing on the topic or anything else that makes any sense.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make that perfectly clear in my comment, as that was certainly in my thoughts.  Tommy Ice did not strike me as one who I would anticipate would respond in such a way.   I thought the example and the people I named and thought would be recognized by others posting in this thread, adding weight to my germane point regarding arguing a premise, as that one specific example of DeMar’s is certainly not central to his mission but is the one more frequently remembered.  It might also be of interest to some to note I’ve dis-associated myself from in recent years because I do not agree with the “patriarchal”  twist and increase in associations with other intolerant ministries that his own ministry started to follow (atypical for DeMar in the past).