Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

[paidagogos]

Larry wrote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Furman class was another great example of you just being wrong. He was asked to present a viewpoint to an educational forum. That is not compromise. He was not participating in ministry with them, or endorsing their view. He was telling them why he believes what he believes.

</font>[/QUOTE]Really? Do you know what his topic was? What do you think Dr. Bob, III’s and BJU’s attitude would have been toward Jerry Falwell if he had spoken at Furman twenty years ago?

The community does see his speaking at Furman as a tacit endorsement.

 

[paidagogos]

Larry wrote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You say you don't share my value system. I don't know ... I don't know enough about yours to know. I do know that you seem willing to shade things a certain way to come to a conclusion. I certainly don't share that value.

</font>[/QUOTE]Are you questioning my truthfulness?

The problem with some guys is that when they can’t refute another guy’s argument they hit below the belt. They question his manhood, his character, his integrity and his patriotism. Such dirty tactics are an indication of one’s character. Words and deeds betray what is in the heart.

Please plainly say what you mean here. Don’t accuse me of anything that you’re unwilling to back up. I don’t like the tone and matter of this insinuation. Don’t take offhanded swipes at me by innuendo. I am willing to believe I am mistaken if you plainly tell me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why do I see an apparent internal contradiction here?

Because you didn't read closely, and didn't understand my point. As I said, my statement about a PhD is true (I was not wrong and if I were I would admit it ... They have never offered a PhD and likely never will). The point was that whatever Rude said about DBTS, it was not 30 years ago. You said that very strongly as if it were absolute proof of something. Had you said "about" I would have passed over it.

As for sharing and preaching, you are welcome to use the words however you like. In my experience, your analysis is wrong. I have never seen anyone make that distinction as you have. There are those scared to preach against sin. They do share the love of Christ. But that does not bear your distinction. I simply disagree, but who cares ... It is semantic game.

As for the PR issue, yes, in years past BJU had a fairly neutral to negative image in teh community. Taht was not an attribute of godliness. They set out to rectify some of that and have been successful to my understanding. There is nothing godly with having a negative PR and nothing wrong with good PR unless you compromise to get it. BJU clearly did not compromise to get a better image. If you want to challenge that, then feel free to offer actual examples of biblical compromise in the PR process.

As for Furman, his topic was about Christianity from his viewpoint. I don't remember exactly, but I knew at one time. As for what he would have said 20 years ago, who knows. 20 years ago we all would have done things differently. We all mature in our thought and spirituality. Maybe this is a case, maybe it isn't. Who really knows? I never saw any evidence that the community viewed it as cooperation with Furman, just as I don't think the community saw Alan Keyes several appearances as evidence of cooperation with the RCC.

As for questioning your truthfulness, you made some statements that, at face value, were inaccurate. You explained them in a way that was sufficient for me to believe you were not intentionally misrepresenting the truth. On the issues of PR, community involvement, and the like, you are shading the issues a certain way to achieve the basis for your argument. I don't think that is the right approach for debate. I haven't questioned your character, or hit below the belt. I do question whether or not you have been fair in your representation of BJU.

Your last post is an overreaction, perhaps because I hit close to home for you, perhaps becuase you are just a little bit on edge ... or perhaps you just misunderstand. As I said, and I will make it as plain as I can ... You said some things that, at face value, were untrue. You explained them in a satisfactory way that lead me to believe there was no ill intent. However, you have shaded issues of the discussion in such a way that I believe you have intentionally misrepresented the issues about BJU and the community involvement. You have unfairly accused them of compromise and I think you should tone down your rhetoric. You can disagree with them without resorting to that. That is not an attack on your character. It is a statement about your tactics.

 

[paidagogos]

Larry wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Because you didn't read closely, and didn't understand my point. As I said, my statement about a PhD is true (I was not wrong and if I were I would admit it ... They have never offered a PhD and likely never will). The point was that whatever Rude said about DBTS, it was not 30 years ago. You said that very strongly as if it were absolute proof of something. Had you said "about" I would have passed over it.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah? How did I say it strongly? I just said it.

Furthermore, your point of mentioning the Ph.D. was that I was wrong because DBTS never offered a Ph.D. Otherwise, the whole statement was nonsensical.

Still sounds like excuses to me. As a good friend of mine used to say, "Weasel words." It's hard to admit when you're wrong.

 

[paidagogos]

Larry wrote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your last post is an overreaction, perhaps because I hit close to home for you, perhaps becuase you are just a little bit on edge ... or perhaps you just misunderstand. As I said, and I will make it as plain as I can ... You said some things that, at face value, were untrue. You explained them in a satisfactory way that lead me to believe there was no ill intent. However, you have shaded issues of the discussion in such a way that I believe you have intentionally misrepresented the issues about BJU and the community involvement. You have unfairly accused them of compromise and I think you should tone down your rhetoric. You can disagree with them without resorting to that. That is not an attack on your character. It is a statement about your tactics.

</font>[/QUOTE]Wow! You're quite an amateur psychoanalystist. Did you learn this at BJU?

How do you know so much about the situation in G'ville. Long distance is pretty expensive between MI and G'ville, SC unless you have lots of free minutes on your cell.

Larry, you really don't make any solid hits but you offer a lot of innuendo. I have not stepped over the line of good taste and manners in anything I said.

Who are you to judge me? I disagree with some things and stated my position. You seem to want to control my free speech and put me in my place.

You have offered no solid evidence for your side. You have simply contered my opinion with your opinion. You have not refuted anything that I said. You just said that it was wrong. So, I think you're wrong. So what?

 

[paidagogos]

Larry: Your last post is an overreaction, perhaps because I hit close to home for you, perhaps becuase you are just a little bit on edge ... or perhaps you just misunderstand.

Paidagogos: And where did you come up with this speculation? Can’t you tell when a guy is having fun and thoroughly enjoying himself? You are way too serious with your feelings and sensitivity on your sleeve. I understand perfectly.

My opinion is that you are a BJU graduate who has bought into the BJU press releases. I am not so gullible. Old timers, such as myself, who sincerely love and are loyal to the school are concerned about the trends and where they will go. This is not bitterness and rancor but it is being true to the principles and beliefs that were drilled into us—you can guess where. Now, I may be wrong about you. So, please tell me plainly. Am I right? You are a BJU grad and you approve of the direction the school is going.

Truthfully, I am bearding you somewhat. However, I am serious about my principles and beliefs.

Larry: As I said, and I will make it as plain as I can ... You said some things that, at face value, were untrue.

Paidagogos: Nope, you are wrong. It seems you are reading your own assumptions into my posts. Discipline yourself, man, to stay with the information that you have in front of you. That’s the problem with these modern version guys, they read too much many emotions and feelings into the literal words.

Larry: You explained them in a satisfactory way that lead me to believe there was no ill intent.

Paidagogos: Thanks. That’s generous since I had no ill-will or guile. Well, perhaps I was toying with your mind a little.

Larry: However, you have shaded issues of the discussion in such a way that I believe you have intentionally misrepresented the issues about BJU and the community involvement.

Paidagogos: Now, there you go again. You just can’t break that habit. You have to pull the punch. Larry, old boy, I have not intentionally shaded or misrepresented anything. You may contest my perception or conclusions but you cannot accuse me of intentionally shading or misrepresenting. This is below the belt. You can’t know my intentions unless you are a psychic.

Hey, you say I am wrong. How do you know? Are you in close touch with G’ville? Perhaps I know things that you don’t know. There are a lot of folks in G’ville who would agree with me. You don’t know what I know. I don’t know how much you know. So, your assertions become meaningless clichés. State data and evidence to support your opinions, man. I tried relating info to you. I named names and referred to events and actions.

I have simply and forcefully articulated my considered views and perceptions. Perhaps my style is too strong for you. You do seem rather weak and mild in your argumentation. It seems that you do suggest and imply rather than boldly assert.

 

[Paul33]

Bob Jones III wanting the SC Flag to come down sounds about right.

When I was at BJU, I was the reason that the confederate flag was no longer allowed to be flown from the windows of the dorm rooms.

I objected to it before prayer time in the dorms. I was then asked to pray. I ended my prayer by petitioning the Lord that the confederate flage would come down from the window real soon. Well, you would have thought that I had murdered someone. The prayer room leaders (I forget what they were called), and the hall monitor met with me immediately after the devotional time. They were incensed. I told them it was a racist symbol and had no place in a Christian University. I was called spiritually flipant for praying the way I did. This was two days after Bob Jr had prayed that Al Haig would be smitten "heart and lung, hip and thigh" that he might be utterly consumed. I asked how my prayer was different than Bob Jr's. That didn't go over well either.

In any event, two days later, from chapel, the announcement was made that "no confederate flags were to be hung from the dorm windows."

Chalk one up for me! I was still asked to leave the university after that semester for being spiritually flippant! So I paid the price. I transferred to another Christian college, met my wife, and have been truly blessed!

 

[Paul33]

In 1950, Billy Graham preached in L.A. under the auspices of some "religious" folks that included some that weren't quite fundamental in approach. For that he was denigrated and rejected by BJU.

Now Bob III speaks at Furman under the auspices of the "religion in life" series.

How are the two events different?

Both BJIII and Billy Graham claimed that they were using the event to preach the gospel.

I think BJU owes Billy Graham an apology.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Paid,

While i appreciate the sentiments of your PM and am not worried or offended in the least, I merely comment on what I see vs. what I know to be true. You, for some reason, have some kind of issue that has led you to what I believe is an overreaction. You are simply wrong on some of these things.

You say I am "weak" in my presentation. That is intentional. I know for an absolute fact that you are wrong on these things, but I have approached it more gently in the interest of common courtesy. I see no reason to make the kind of wild and ridiculous assertions you have. I have tempered it. You need to get over whatever is bothering you. Your accusations are unfounded.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Paul33:
In 1950, Billy Graham preached in L.A. under the auspices of some "religious" folks that included some that weren't quite fundamental in approach. For that he was denigrated and rejected by BJU.

Now Bob III speaks at Furman under the auspices of the "religion in life" series.

How are the two events different?

Graham spoke in cooperation and support of apostates. Jones spoke in an educational forum to give a biblical perspective. He was not cooperating or supporting them. I think sometimes in the haste to be judgmental, these very obvious distinctions are overlookoed. It is unfortunate. These things are so vastly different that one can only wonder how they got in the same post.

Graham, in teh late 40s took a direct and intentional turn away from biblical obedience. He joined hands to partner with people who denied the gospel that he preached. Men whom he greatly respected pled with him to not go down this road of disobedience. But he refused to listen to the counsel of Scripture. He joined in support and endorsement of apostates. That was wrong. While an apology might have been appropriate for the tone of some things that were said, there is no apology needed for hte content. It was biblical and Graham unfortunately refused it.

 

[Broadus]

The particulars of so much of the discussion of the last page or so are beyond my knowledge. From my perspective, however, there is only a most superficial correlation between Graham's reaching out to and fellowshiping with liberals through his crusades and Dr. Bob's speaking at a forum at Furman.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
In 1950, Billy Graham preached in L.A. under the auspices of some "religious" folks that included some that weren't quite fundamental in approach. For that he was denigrated and rejected by BJU.

Now Bob III speaks at Furman under the auspices of the "religion in life" series.

How are the two events different?

Both BJIII and Billy Graham claimed that they were using the event to preach the gospel.

I think BJU owes Billy Graham an apology.

Paul, you and I finally agree on something.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Paid,

While i appreciate the sentiments of your PM and am not worried or offended in the least, I merely comment on what I see vs. what I know to be true. You, for some reason, have some kind of issue that has led you to what I believe is an overreaction. You are simply wrong on some of these things.

You say I am "weak" in my presentation. That is intentional. I know for an absolute fact that you are wrong on these things, but I have approached it more gently in the interest of common courtesy. I see no reason to make the kind of wild and ridiculous assertions you have. I have tempered it. You need to get over whatever is bothering you. Your accusations are unfounded.

Larry,

I call your hand and raise you. Show your cards. You're bluffing.
1. What do you know? Tell us.
2. How do you know? Your esoteric knowledge is too wonderful for us. Enlighten us.
3. You were WRONG to use what I sent in a PM since I wanted to keep this from getting personal. I thought what I said might be offensive in a public forum so I did PM where you would not be offended and feel lost of face.

Well, I won't make it personal but you are up to your old tricks again. In other words, I won't question your character, morals, or mental processes but I will call your hand and criticize your behavior. You are using innuendo while trying to appear mild and reasonable. You keep saying something is bothering me as if you know my mental processes. Obviously you don't. What are you? A psychoanalyst?

Yes, I am bold and assertive in my posts because I am confident of my data and I know my convictions. I debate vigorously! Is that wrong? When I boxed in sport, I came out of my corner swinging. When I wrestled or fenced, I gave it 100% percent. When I did martial arts, I tried my best to throw the other guy. Sometimes I decked the other fellow and I am sure it hurt a little. Sometimes I got hit, punched or decked but I took it without malice or whining. I wasn't mad at the other guy but I did my best to beat him. When I debate, I debate my hardest trying to win. I developed an intense distaste for the guys who wimped and whined when they lost. They invariably had excuses. So, don't question my motives when you can't answer my questions.

I am beginning to develop a real distaste for your demeanor. Without evidence, you repeatedly say that I am wrong. If I am wrong then tell me where I am wrong and state evidence to support your position. You insinuated that something is wrong with me personally. You said, “You need to get over whatever is bothering you.” What bothers me is the innuendo. I do dislike people who make ad hominem attacks through innuendo and insinuation. If you think I am schizoid, neurotic, or paranoid, then state it and prove it. Call me an ignorant, rabid Fundamentalist rather than beat around the bush. Be honest and straightforward. It is virtuous to be gentlemanly and mannerly but it is no virtue to portray meekness while undercutting another with innuendo and insinuation. I can respect and handle forthright opposition and disagreement but I despise innuendo under the guise of gentleness, sweetness and reasonableness. This cuts you off at the knees while stroking your back.

There is nothing wrong with me. I have no problems such as you imply. The problem is that you are not willing to allow me my viewpoints contrary to what you want to believe. You cannot rationally refute my assertions so you try to discredit me by inferring that I am wrestling some internal turmoil. You are like the thought police. If one disagrees with you, then he has some problem. No, I just don't agree with you.

All my posts on this thread have centered around two basic theses: (1) BJU is changing although they deny it and (2) BJU has violated previously professed principles or convictions. My whole purpose is to expose the true nature of the situation and challenge BJU to be transparent on these issues. They can say that they have changed some principles. Then, we know where they stand.

You cannot say that BJU has not changed any religious conviction and be truthful. This thread started with the question whether Dr. Bob, III was candid on LKL. He seemed to deny that BJU was ever segregationist or had based segregation on Scriptural premises. It seemed that he put a spin different from what we know and remember. Read and judge for yourself.

Yet, Dr. Bob, Sr. wrote a pamphlet, Is Segregation Scriptural? Also, their Supreme Court case defense was based on the premise that their policies were protected under the “establishment of religion” clause of the Bill of Rights. If this was not a religious conviction, then how was it protected under the “establishment of religion” clause? Non-religious items such as building codes, fire and safety laws, etc. do apply to BJU and are enforceable. Can you deny these facts? They are documental and verifiable. This is no one's perception. Do your homework.

Did it ever occur to you that if they are covering up on this one issue that there may be other issues being covered up? If so, how can you be so confident that my information is wrong?

So, I'm calling your bluff. You're a BJU graduate who has bought into the official pabulum written by Jonathan Pait. Can you deny it? You say that you know. What do you know? What are your sources? Put your cards on the table like a man. Tell where I am wrong. Show your cards! I say you're bluffing and I’m going to call your bluff.

Of course, you were wrong before and haven’t admitted it yet.

[ February 12, 2005, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

[paidagogos]

Addendum to my last post:

Paidagogos wrote: "I do dislike people who make ad hominem attacks through innuendo and insinuation."

This does not exactly say what I intended it to say. I went back to edit this statement but the time elapsed. Thus, I edit it here.

I do dislike people making ad hominem attacks through innuendo and insinuation.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Bob Jones III wanting the SC Flag to come down sounds about right.

When I was at BJU, I was the reason that the confederate flag was no longer allowed to be flown from the windows of the dorm rooms.

I objected to it before prayer time in the dorms. I was then asked to pray. I ended my prayer by petitioning the Lord that the confederate flage would come down from the window real soon. Well, you would have thought that I had murdered someone. The prayer room leaders (I forget what they were called), and the hall monitor met with me immediately after the devotional time. They were incensed. I told them it was a racist symbol and had no place in a Christian University. I was called spiritually flipant for praying the way I did. This was two days after Bob Jr had prayed that Al Haig would be smitten "heart and lung, hip and thigh" that he might be utterly consumed. I asked how my prayer was different than Bob Jr's. That didn't go over well either.

In any event, two days later, from chapel, the announcement was made that "no confederate flags were to be hung from the dorm windows."

Chalk one up for me! I was still asked to leave the university after that semester for being spiritually flippant! So I paid the price. I transferred to another Christian college, met my wife, and have been truly blessed!

Shame on you. Your statements and juvenile braggadocio expose your ignorance of the real issues. Although racists have appropriated the flag for their own purposes, the flag never had its origin or meaning in racism. It may be offensive to some blacks because they have been indoctrinated that it is offensive to them but your childish bravado is repugnant to Southerners such as myself who hold ideals and principles associated with the Battle Flag apart from any racist thought. Like many Yankees, you have swallowed a lie about Southerners and their heritage. The myth that the Confederate Battle Flag is a racist symbol is a lie! The same racists fly the American flag alongside.

The origin of the Battle Flag was not racist. It is a defiant symbol of self-determination and self-rule. The war was truly the War for Southern Independence. Today, the Confederate Battle Flag is flown in freedom movements around the world. It was flown in the Eastern Bloc countries at the fall of Communism; it was flown in Africa by freedom fighters; and it still flies at the head of freedom groups.

If you wonder why Yankees are not liked in Dixie, it is because they are obnoxious people who are loud, brash and run around sticking their nose in other people’s business just like you did. So, you are welcome to take I-85 or I-95 north anytime! Don’t let us stop and don’t bother visiting again.

You are speaking of things about which you evidently know little but have ingested the propaganda of people who have their own vested interests. For your information, unsavory agitators have used racial myth and propaganda for decades to divide white and black for their own agenda, political ends and power. They have used the Confederate Battle Flag as a whipping boy. Southerners do not associate racism with the flag. Southerners know what they think and believe so we don’t need you to interpret it for us. Don’t criticize my flag, boy.

If I had been a student at your dorm prayer meeting, you would have been flying out the dorm window. Christians do sometimes lose their patience with premeditated asininity. I would have seen it in the same light as Samuel hewing Agag in pieces.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Interesting how you hate ad hominem attacks but have spent the last three of your posts doing just that.

To say I was wrong to use your PM material in a post does not quite add up. Why not tell everyone what you wrote in that PM? I would love to ... because I think it would show a side of you that is not being shown here, and I think it is a side that people don't see enough of. I will challenge you to make that post public. And then people can see me response to it. You don't need to worry the least about me being offended or losing face. This type of approach by you will certainly not worry me in that regard. It will take a lot more than you have said to do that.

I don't know your mental processes and haven't claimed to. It seems like you have something stuck in your teeth that you just can't seem to get rid of. Your accusations against BJU are unreasonable and you know that. It is the kind of stuff that springs from bitterness and anger. It is misplaced. I don't support everything that BJU does. In fact, I don't support much of it. But I do know that you are not rightly representing the situation.

I am not a "BJU graduate who has bought into the offical pabulum written by Jonathan Pait." I will categorically deny that. People can come to their own opinions by looking at the situation. You claim that I am not willing to let you believe what you want. To the contrary, I am more than willing to let you do that. But I am simply pointing out to others who may be interested that your viewpoints are not wholly in respect of the facts.

I don't really care that much about the discussion. I got involved because you made two factual errors that I corrected (about Dobson being coddled and Rude commenting 30 years ago about Detroit). I made a few comments of perspective about the PR issue and some other things. The rest of this is nonsense. If you want to debate, you will do so without me. Anyone who wants can go to BJU and see for themselves. I believe if they do they will see that you are slanting the fact in the wrong direction. You can have any viewpoint you want; I really don't care. And I don't care how vigorously you debate them. Just tell the truth.

But don't complain about personal attacks (when I made none) and then spend the majority of three posts on this page alone doing that very thing. That was hypocritical of you. Your second to last post was completely out of line. It was nothing but a personal attack and had nothign to do with teh conversation. I am not scared of your questions. I haven't dodged any that I know of. I talk to people in Greenville and at BJU from time to time. I read the news. I know what goes on. But don't make personal attacks against me.

 

[Brandon Tallman]

Hey give him a break,we all know what a hard brow breaking interrogations old Larry King gives!!!He cracked under the pressure of the Welcher grape juice man!!

 

[Paul33]

Paid,

Ha, Ha, Ha!

You don't like ad hominem attacks, eh?

Your post in reference to my flag heroics was just that.

In any event, your response is the typical southern redneck belligerence. If it weren't for us Yankees coming South, the South would still be marrying their cousins and using outhouses.

The War of Southern Independence was fought over the issue of slavery. The confederate flag is a symbol of racism and BJU knew it! My Southern friends at BJU couldn't stand it, but it was true!

I've lived in Alabama, so I have met many folks of your type. All hot air and quick to take offense. I suppose the next thing you will want to do is take it outside so we can fight.

Just a little heads up. The Civil War is over. The North kicked your butt. Get over it.

 

[Brandon Tallman]

Id probably lighten up a little Mr Paul33.The Civil War was worst,bloodiest,horrific time in American history.If someone from the south wants to fly a defeated flag,go for it.What it meens to them Ill never understand,but Im just a Yank!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually Paul, as a native southerner who loves the north because of the weather, the Confederate flag was not a symbol of racism to the vast majority of people. That is not to say that some didn't use it that way, but most did not. I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush on that issue. IN my experience, the racism in the north was far greater than anything in the south when I was growing up. It was a rude awakening to come up here and see the overt racial divisions that are being exacerbated. And I think the reference to people marrying cousins is way overboard. We don't need that kind of stuff here. It is untrue and serves no real purpose to further the discussion. It is as bad as a racial attack ... You are attacking a group of people because of a sterertype, not because of reality. You complained about racism, but then turn around and practice the same ridiculous stereotyping. If you made a similar statement about ethnic group of people you would be labeled as a racist. It is not any better to make it about a geographic group of people. Surely you can see that, can't you?