Andy Stanley doesn’t like little churches…
Andy Stanley apologizes for not liking little churches…
Not everyone likes the megachurch…
Tribute to the late Jerry Bridges…
Why Christians should oppose the death penalty…
Five realities of church life today…
CT apologizes for son in law wanted ad….
Incredible interview with an abused wife…
Historian Justo Gonzalez on creation…
Thom Ranier will “mentor” your pastor for 250 a month…
Sermons should be the servants of scripture…
Five ways to make the most of unemployment…
How are Driscoll and Trump alike?
One fifth of Americans online “almost constantly”…
Israeli Christians think and do opposite of American Christians…
Five mission opportunities in North America…
Fighting the invisibility of mental illness…
Nine things you should know about Seventh Day Adventists…
Podcast on how Christians should approach politics…
Women in church history…footnoted and forgotten?
Bucking Horses, Failing Moms, and the Grace of God
On being dead, dirty, and weak…
Wenatchee the Hatchet has more on Driscoll and some interesting thoughts on propaganda…
What if animals believe in God?
A good story about growing up evangelical…
Huge thanks to EricL as always…support him at top right.
Thank you for posting Olson’s article against the Death Penalty. When I read the article earlier this week, I thought it expressed my view pretty well, and was hoping the readers here would have the opportunity to consider it for themselves.
When you see something like that you think is worth sharing, email me the link.
We can use all the help we can get. 🙂
I don’t like Andy Stanley. He is the king of the Disney Church. He says stupid stuff on a fairly regular basis.
That being said, his apology was great. Good for him.
animals believe in God because they have meaningless rituals? okay
maybe the chimps throw rocks into hollow trees for the fun of it … like shooting hoops or something 🙂
if i hear one more young woman (under 60 🙂 ) say that modesty makes her ashamed i will be convinced that end is near…
God made the woman’s form a beautiful one… if men did not find it desirable, i’m pretty sure that they’d just be content to hang out with the guys… modesty prevents me from carrying that thought any further
there is a big, big difference between hiding and flaunting – can women of today not discern the difference?
yes, there is an attitude that some men take that we can respond, “that’s your problem!” … but that said, common sense should tell us when it’s our problem…
if your Dad has common sense and character and he tells you, “young lady, you can’t go out of the house looking like that,” you should ask and he should be prepared to explain to you just why he says that… and he should not be ashamed to do so … IMNSHO
the deer tore out the horse fence again today, so i am short on patience, i guess
My chihuahau came to us as a Roman Catholic but has since converted to Orthodoxy.
My hens are Baptists.
Mr. Noodles the cat is a Rastafarian.
I think the Scriptures declare that all of creation praises God…not sure how that works.
I hear you about the cat… 🙂
If you stop and think about it, all the troubles that animals have is because of us. If it weren’t for our sin (Adam and Eve’s and our own, too) the animals would still be living in Eden-like conditions, never hungry or cold or pursued.
My pig is a filthy sinner.
as animals believing in God? i think they KNOW there is – just as they know to migrate in winter … well some do …
how did Xenia get those chickens baptized, BTW? lol
#8 – don’t remind them … they might run out of grace
Roger Olson self-describes in the article as a “Christian ethicist and theologian” and unless I missed something managed to avoid including any one direct verse of Scripture for his position. Nice work if you can get it.
Not sure why we can’t acknowledge that the death penalty in America needs major reform while also recognizing God has been very much “pro death penalty” for human government (since Noah) but with specific restrictions which could be applied for our modern era. If the Law is holy, just and good, then no aspect of the Law is somehow evil and wrong.
Now, if Olson could show through the New Testament that death penalty implication is wholly inconsistent for anyone following the True and Living God, because God had somehow changed on that issue, then fine. But Olson does not.
2 or more eyewitnesses. No doubt of guilt. No 20 years to wait on death row either. But plenty of time to meet with the pastor/priest of your choice and hear the gospel before sentencing is carried out. That’s the starting point for any reformation of the death penalty. More could be discussed of course (admissions, pleas, DNA) – it is a complicated issue.
That’s going to greatly limit the number of murderers eligible for a death sentence too.
One irony, many Christians who reject the death penalty do so because it is too easy. They think the punishment should be life in prison with no hope of parole. I think that is more cruel of a punishment myself, but to each their own.
Like the abortion question though, as soon as rape and incest are asked, my question is if they would agree to banning all abortion except rape and incest (the answer is usually no)
So too the death penalty. Fine we abolish it. Question then is if life with ZERO hope for parole is the compromise. Often the answer is no there too. So this is less about the death penalty for some people than it is for others. More about the justice system in general which brings it right back to politics, not religion.
If you stop and think about it, all the troubles that animals have is because of us. If it weren’t for our sin (Adam and Eve’s and our own, too) the animals would still be living in Eden-like conditions, never hungry or cold or pursued.
That’s gold. Really shoots down any quarter given to Darwinian evolution too..
I think in the OT you could only give the death penalty if there are two or three eye witnesses? Did I remember that right?
In my neck of the woods, while recognizing that God did give the death penalty, nowadays it is better to let the sinner live so he has time to repent and be saved.
One of the best and most profound fictional TV episodes on this subject I ever saw (and was shocked as I watched it given Hollywood’s usual slant) was an episode where a very famous lawyer had a great record of getting people spared the death penalty in his appeals to the Supreme Court.
So some junior lawyer who looked up to this guy as a hero had a case and got him involved somehow and to her shock the big lawyer led the criminal to Jesus and prepared him for death so he was comfortable accepting his justice and receiving God’s grace when he died. No appeal to the SCOTUS.
She thought her hero was a religious nut and was furious and wanted him to fight and the big lawyer eventually made it clear is that the REASON he was able to spare some people from the death penalty before the SCOTUS is because he did not throw up a desperation appeal for every person on death row. If he took the time to file an appeal, they more often than not would take the time to consider it, often rule in his favor, because they knew that if he took the time to do so, he had a sound legal argument. In the case at hand, there was no sound legal argument.
The junior lawyer came from this idea of “we have to try everything” and he said, rather than try something that will fail and devastate the prisoner even more with false hope, how much better to prepare him to meet God and to do so as he dies receiving the mercy of Christ.
Obviously, considering I saw this like 20 years ago, it stuck with me.
Nice try smearing Roger Olson’s name.
Self-described ethicist and theologian?
No. Look below. He’s Foy Valentine professor of Xn Theology of Ethics.
What are your creds? Besides being an opinionated loudmouth?
And since when does not citing a Bible verse make an opinion worthless?
“My current professional status since 1999 is Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. Before joining the Baylor community I taught at Bethel College (now Bethel University) in St. Paul, Minnesota. My alma mater is Rice University (Ph.D. in Religious Studies). I graduated from North American Baptist Seminary (now Sioux Falls Seminary). During the mid-1990s I served as editor of Christian Scholar’s Review and have been a contributing editor of Christianity Today for several years. My articles have appeared in those publications as well as in Christian Century, Theology Today, Dialog, Scottish Journal of Theology and many other religious and theological periodicals. Among my published works are: 20th Century Theology (co-authored with the late Stanley J. Grenz), The Story of Christian Theology (winner of the Gold Medallion Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association), The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology. My book Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology will be published by Zondervan in 2011. My home is in Waco, Texas where my wife and I are members of Calvary Baptist Church, a congregation of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. I’m the proud dad of two daughters and equally proud grandfather of a beautiful granddaughter. I enjoy traveling, reading (theology, philosophy and historical novels) and working out (I try my best to keep my getting-older body in shape!).”
You need to chill.
I don’t think disagreeing with someone is “smearing their name”.
We post a lot of Olson’s stuff…and as a Calvinist, I disagree with much of it.
However, the point of this weekly article is to encourage people to read and think outside of all our different boxes.
We can disagree agreeably…
“What are your creds? Besides being an opinionated loudmouth?”
Thank you Frank for this. I have the same thought several times a week from him.
Frank, I know Olson’s work have read much of it and theologically agree with much of his soteriology too.
I was pointing out the terms he used to self-describe in THIS particular article and noting that in THIS particular article he did not use the Scripture to back up his points.
I’m sure to those who have read my posts here for over 7 years, my snark was understood as to where it was coming from as these folks know I am one of the last guys to put down scholarship and the scholars that give us so much.
If I stepped on your toes in reference to someone you appreciate or to whom you agree, then that was not my intent.
Frank – Where is the smear? Here’s the quote:
“This essay constitutes my call as a Christian ethicist and theologian for Christian churches to publicly stand against the death penalty for Christian reasons.”
That being said, I am anti-death penalty.
I don’t particularly like that being used as a gauge of “authentic Christianity”.
I’m going to say this one time only.
Deal with the arguments and ideas without making its personal.
Steve and I have some deep disagreements about many things.
However, he also speaks his positions with clarity and he represents a very large segment of evangelicalism in many ways.
If we’re at all interested in gaining understanding that leads to any measure of unity we need to hear him and others like him.
If we can refute the arguments we should do so…but a personal attack does not and has never, refuted an idea.
In case no one has noticed, I value diversity and the exchange of ideas greatly.
“Social media tend to magnify the expansive self, encouraging participants to stake out a virtual identity within the ethereal territory of the world wide web: “This is who I am, like it or not!” “My political beliefs are part of my identity; to call them into question is to call my very identity into question.” Rather than discussing the issues in an intelligent way that might make us open to opposing viewpoints, we are now backing each other into corners, holding up to ridicule those stupid enough to find merit in, well, you fill in the blank.
The danger to our political institutions comes, not just from the refusal to extend charity to those with whom we disagree, but from a failure to recognize that democracy itself depends on competition and healthy differences of opinion.
Social media encourage Democrats to portray Republicans as so backwards and unenlightened that the country would be better off without them. Similarly, Republicans post memes that make Democrats look like dangerous radicals barely worth tolerating. I have yet to see a meme in which, say, a professed Democrat encourages Republicans to eschew certain unpalatable presidential candidates for the sake of the Republican Party itself and for the overall health of America’s democracy.
Where are the Republicans who believe that effective representative government requires a robust Democratic Party, even if they disagree with its principles?”
Jean, I spent five years in the theological classroom and libraries (plus the 4 years of undergrad work), earning my degrees in order to do 20+ years of pastoral ministry where on occasion I minister to people to those who have had a loved one murdered.
I guess years of faithful ministry and a couple diplomas hanging on my wall are the extent of my creds to share here.
Others find a calling to spend their lives in the classroom and libraries in order to teach and equip those like me with a different calling. Like I said, I am big on education for those in the ministry. And that means we need educators….like Olson.
However, I do stand by the claim that if someone is going to teach on Christian ethics, their arguments should be dripping in Scripture. I’m sure Olson is more than up for the task in other venues on the topic, but THIS article missed that standard.
Josh’s point about “authentic” is something I saw, but chose to not mention just to avoid inflaming those who take criticism of the teachings of a beloved teacher as a personal attack against not just the teacher but themselves.
Here is the smear: “More about the justice system in general which brings it right back to politics, not religion.”
Here is the actual argument based on Christianity:
“True Christians believe that either 1) Christ died for everyone (Arminianism), or 2) Christ died for his chosen elect and we do not know who they are (Calvinism). In both cases, Christians believe that every individual human being might be someone chosen by God for his salvation and for his service. Only God knows with certainty whom he can use for his service, by whatever means (including intercessory prayer), and who still has a chance to repent, believe (trust in Christ) and be saved. When we take another human life unnecessarily, we usurp God’s prerogative for that person’s eventual salvation or, if they are already saved, for that person’s future service for the Kingdom of God.”
You can agree or disagree with Olson’s argument, but it is a religious argument, not a veiled political argument.
As for Olson’s failure to mention Romans 13, I engaged Olson in the comments section on that very issue the day of the article:
Me: “Coming at this issue from a 2 Kingdoms perspective, with the authority granted governments to wield the sword, how would you address Romans 13 in your argument?”
Olson: “I do not interpret that as requiring Christian support for capital punishment. I take “the sword” to refer to government’s authority to defend the defenseless.”
Amen Michael… There is no need for personal attacks here. I appreciate your forum here allowing various views of mostly stuff that doesn’t matter in the end.
Olson’s take on Rom 13 is… unique.
Doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, but it will have little historical support.
When we take another human life unnecessarily, we usurp God’s prerogative for that person’s eventual salvation or, if they are already saved, for that person’s future service for the Kingdom of God.”
Jean, a few verses of Scripture to support these “Biblical” claims might have helped, right?
If true, makes it hard to understand God’s support for the death penalty throughout the past – a point I brought up.
And if the history of the Church tells us anything, is that God is more than capable of using people for His glory even after they have been put to death. Jim Elliot comes to mind as a recent example, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs lists quite a few – or for that matter so does the evening news on occasion.
Frankly, since Olson is trying to say that his view is supported no matter the soteriological school one comes from, I am surprised that any Calvinist position, or a solid Arminian position like Olson takes when discussing soteriology, would include the idea that man can thwart God’s purposes…which seems to be suggested in the quote of Olson’s I paste that you said was the Biblical argument (sans verses of support of course)
And to be clear, I ONLY said the political argument begins when the death penalty issue moves from life imprisonment to parole issues. Unrelated to the Olson piece totally.
And yet, “opinionated loudmouth” is the response and the “amen”….as if this is not a place for opinions and as if anyone here is actually speaking when they make them. 🙂
While I disagree with Steve on the death penalty, I still don’t see what he said that was wrong in reference to this Olsen article?!?
Some people just looking for a reason to be mad, I guess.
Question. Is Olson against Christians serving in the military? I ask sincerely.
His quote hinges on the word, unnecessarily, as you will note. Is it necessary to kill the enemy in time of war? Ever? Because would not the same conundrum apply? Most wars are certainly inappropriate, just like most American death penalty sentences (from a Biblical standard)
Might it be necessary to execute justice to the fullest on certain people. just like sometimes it might be necessary to be the tool God uses to bring peace and deliverance to the innocent oppressed by evil?
Now, if Olson is 100% against military service for Christians, as some are, I may disagree but I can admire the consistency. If not, then the argument about taking life that he uses here about the possible elect and/or lost needing salvation would also apply to the enemy in wartime
emojis, Josh. I am too sparse on the use of emojis.
Emojis will bring peace to us all. If I had included one next to “nice work if you can get it” – this would have been a different thread.
Ah, THAT”S MLD’s secret! 🙂
“Doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, but it will have little historical support.”
Examples of Historical Support:
“In his treatise On Idolatry, Tertullian asks whether a Christian can be a government official. He responds by listing a large number of activities, including pagan sacrifices, which such a person must avoid. One of these includes ‘sitting in judgment on anyone’s life’ – that is, a Christian dare not participate in ordering capital punishment. Two chapters later, Tertullian asks whether a Christian can serve in the military even at a low rank, where ‘there is no necessity for taking part in [pagan] sacrificies or capital punishment.” Tertullian clearly means to say that a Christian dare not participate in either pagan worship or capital punishment.” [Tertullian, 155-240 A.D.] Ronald J. Sider ed., The Early Church on Killing: A Comprehensive sourcebook on War, Abortion, and Capital Punishment (p. 167)
“In his response to Celsus, Origen distinguishes sharply between the ‘constitution’ given to the Jews by Moses and that given to Christians by Christ. Under Moses’s law, the Jews could kill enemies and use capital punishment. But Christ’s gospel is different. Christians cannot ‘slay their enemies or condemn to be burned or stoned.’ Christians must not use capital punishment.” Id. [Origen, 184/185-253/254]
You are correct that there was some support for Christian pacifism in the early church.
I should have been more precise in speaking of actual exegesis of Romans 13, especially in the Reformation and beyond.
Luther and Calvin would have supported the place of the state in capital punishment.
Interestingly, government officials is not really the issue in America’s justice system. Not wholly.
Is the Tertullian argument that Christians then can’t serve on juries…or at least juries involving a capital case in a death penalty state?
God would want all such cases to be determined by the pagans then?
That’s always the rub when it comes to this unique stew known as the United States of America. Government of, by, and for, the people is so unique. Who knows what Tertullian might have written had he imagined the possibility of Christians having the influence they are allowed to have in a country like ours.
All of these professions that some argue Christians aren’t supposed to do, leave us with the conclusion that God would only have the atheists and pagans control some of the most important roles of civil society that determine things for millions of Americans.
I’ve seen arguments over the years that would exclude Christians from being
non elected government officials
CIA or FBI
actors and musicians (outside the church walls)
I’m sure I am leaving some out but those all jump to mind.
Imagine if only the pagans ran all those things. If no salt or light was ever to influence any aspect there, and that because it was God’s will and command.
We may have a hard time applying NT historical context to the USA in some places, but I have a hard time thinking that if Christians have a chance to be an influence for the Lord in a position influencing another, that God would say that is never His will. It would also make quite problematic even the very existence of this nation in the first place where Christians while not entirely certainly, nonetheless certainly had a major role in the formation – from Plymouth to Philadelphia.
That’s where the extreme, yet logical conclusion ultimately plays itself out. That’s exaltation of the pagan over God’s people on this earth is a nonstarter for me. Why instead I speak of stewardship, this RARE stewardship we have been blessed with.
The blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. America, God shed His grace on thee.
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36 ESV)
Stewardship? Of the Gospel and God’s grace, or of someone’s civil religion?
Tertullian’s church grew exponentially during extraordinary opposition. The church in America is by some accounts dying. Stewardship?
“they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”” (John 8:4-7 ESV)
Something about old wine skins.
I am not opposed to the death penalty for reasons I’ve already noted before and I think are biblically based.
I am completely opposed to the system by which it is administered in this country.
#38- yeah – what MIchael said
i must ask as i read the thoughts here… Tertullian, Origen or even Olson… the focus seems to be on the economy of the Church and, if one is to follow their logic, are we, as Christians, to have no commerce in the secular world? i’m not sure how the Lord views keeping them alive until they die of old age in case they might see the light and repent… dunno
IMV – there are good reasons to oppose the death penalty as it is administered in today’s complicated world that are logic based, not faith based – it does seem acceptable and sensible to obey the laws of the land … i would have no problem voting the death penalty when there is NO SHADOW of a doubt that the person committed a premeditated or malicious murder (and that doesn’t mean that i think that the guy can’t be redeemed before his execution and go to heaven)
I have already expressed a couple of weeks ago when we discussed this my opposition to the death penalty because of how it is administered. I have been firmly against since the mid 90s when the Menendez brothers got off the hook.
Now, the real me would not bring back the electric chair – as my instrument of execution would be the electric grandstands and get everyone off death row in 2 weeks!! 🙂
the Lord’s point to the fellas who bought the adulteress woman to Him had nothing to do with the right to enforce a civil law… rather the focus was on the qualifications of these men to administer justice under religious law… if these men had come presenting a murderer to Jesus, declaring we caught this guy in the very act, would our Lord’s answer been the same? just asking – dunno
Church Realities….”Singles ministry is dead. As much as we might like to revive the glory days of singles ministry from the 1970s and ’80s..”
Oh, good grief. I’ve never seen a singles “ministry” that wasn’t dreadful! Treating singles as overgrown teenagers who need pizza parties, emphasizing that someday they too will grow up and get married, and in the mean time, be sure not to have sex. Lots of talk about sex and marriage, to people who aren’t married and aren’t supposed to have sex. Oh, sure, that is what all mature adults (who happen to be single) are thinking of every minute of their poor miserable waking lives.
Oh, and someday when you grow up and get married, we’ll even let you have a real leadership position in the church.
Seriously, I have never seen a decent singles ministry, ever. The whole concept is warped. Singles are adults. Just treat them like responsible adults who don’t need pity, sympathy, chaperones, or puritanical lessons on abstinence.
how am i going to get the picture of the electric grandstands out of my head? give them 20 minutes of evangelism and … zaaap?
Even if it could be done hypothetically, the sophists would never stand for a capital punishment system which met the standard of justice set up in the OT. First, under Moses, the Law had to be administered without partiality (Lev 24:22). No sane person would argue that under the American justice system the poor receive the same justice as the wealthy. How many death penalty supporters in this election cycle are campaigning on a promise to improve the justice system for the poor (outside of certain sentencing laws)?
Secondly, where two or three witnesses were required to convict someone of a crime, a false witness to a capital crime would himself receive the death penalty. (Deut 19:19) I can’t imagine America would ever establish such a sanction against bearing false witness. Is anyone up for that?
“Secondly, where two or three witnesses were required to convict someone of a crime, a false witness to a capital crime would himself receive the death penalty. (Deut 19:19) I can’t imagine America would ever establish such a sanction against bearing false witness. Is anyone up for that?”
I’d vote for it…any false accusation should merit the penalty due the accusation.
I do agree that without system reform we should set it aside.
I don’t look to the OT to figure out how to administer God’s Law. That was for a different time and a completely different people and for a different purpose.
A new day dawned with the coming of Jesus. If we don’t look to OT laws on handling adultery, or disobedient kids why would we look to the OT for murder?
Come on, let’s think like Christians here … not nomadic Jews.
I’m opposed to the death penalty as it is handled these days, especially in my state (CA). I’m not as adamant as Olson, though. I thought he pushed it too far.
Another thought, I find it odd that on one hand we have claims that we cannot find any humane/ painless chemicals to use to kill the killer, while on the other hand we are approving assisted medical suicides as humane for the sufferer. What, don’t those suicide medicines work once inside the prison? Or is it because they don’t work fast enough for the state? Must the death row person die within an hour, as opposed to falling asleep and dying sometime over the next eight hours? Just wondering…
Pharmaceutical company will not sell drugs for lethal injection for administration of the death penalty. So, States that have lethal injection have to go to second tier sources called compounding pharmacies. There have been numerous problems with these products, as has been reported in the news.
I found the interview with Andy Stanley striking in his admittance that he doesn’t believe what he said about small churches. I can understand letting your mouth overload your ***, who hasn’t done so a time or too? What he said was wrong on so many levels, particularly marginalizing small congregations and their pastors. This typifies the arrogance so prevalent in mega churches as the charade themselves as the new norm of churchianity.
Apology accepted, but I think you shared what you really think, and you represent a churchiantiy that I want nothing to do with.
MLD @46 – There is a dispensational answer to your question. I know you reject it but the death penalty for only murderers was applied to the entire world after the Flood when they got off the boat – remember before the Flood the world was full of violence. Seems pretty clear God was establishing a new rule to deal with violent manslayers.
Different from the multiple capital crimes under the theocracy of Israel ruled by the Mosaic Law that you listed.
THAT is why one can certainly argue as a Christians and not say a single word about the Law….(and the 2/3 eyewitness thing is a NT principle as well)
“There is a dispensational answer to your question”
There is no Box that successfully pulls off the gymnastics to satisfy those questions.
Whatever it is…it’s a Mystery.
One thing I CAN guarantee….Steve Wright doesn’t have the 100% correct answers.
Papa Al has 97% of the answers!
“Papa Al has 97% of the answers!”
I have a couple answers I’m sure of, I’m not sure of 97%
1. God is.
2. Steve Wright and most Pastors Gurus are wrong a lot
I’m also quite sure of Gravity, and the consistent observations that Science observes and documents. Those are Universal Truths, at least for this Universe/Dimension.
I’m quite sure of Human Nature. You can count on it, about as much as Gravity….to manifest itself in a very predictable manner.
Don’t be coy, Papa Al. You are the Anointed Reverend! If you don’t have 97% of the answers, it’s at least 96.3% That’s the basement for your wisdom.
I’m quite sure Michael will threaten me with some sort of discipline soon for making several posts and accuse me of being contrary or divisive or something similar 🙂
You seem to have gotten around the moderation.
I’d ban you if I could.
I don’t do this for your trolling pleasure.
People like Michael are threatened by 97 percenters.
Hey! My new gravatar works.
That’s why I kept posting 🙂
Just expressing what I believe is the Truth.
Have a good day.
I can’t believe you have done away with the PhxP Hall of Fame trophy that was your gravatar!
Ha! Lost my domain name. Had to switch to a free gmail.
Still, we all know who the inaugural member to the Hall was. 🙂
Yeah, but I slaved for literally at least a whole minute (and maybe two) getting that trophy made. And you go and lose your domain name and toss the trophy out like last week’s trash. What appreciation! 😛
Hey man, when they repo your domain they take all the trophies attached to it. 🙂
Have you seen this? Truly pathetic.
Oops…..my bad. Sorry about that Michael. I see you were already a step ahead of me, as usual.