Open Blogging

Derek Thornton says:

Got some photos up…
http://ruminationsonlife.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/a-few-of-my-favorite-instagram-photos/

The weather is so dreary lately that it has not been conducive to taking pictures.
Plus, there are no pretty snow pictures to take here.
Just cold, rain and overcast.
I will be glad for the end of winter.

Steve Wright says:

Robert Davi is very active on Twitter. I wonder if this renewed attention by the actor is not related in some way to #FreeSaeed trending number one a week ago…Whatever the reason, it is good news and I hope he continues to make noise.

http://twitchy.com/2013/12/13/savesaeed-actor-robert-davi-calls-on-hollywood-to-speak-out-about-pastor-imprisoned-in-iran/

Derek Thornton says:

When I saw his picture, Steve, I was like “Oh, that’s the guy who always plays a mobster!”

Babylon's Dread says:

Is this error by Driscoll just now being discovered? It seems a massive error… I once made such an error in a teaching and embarrassingly had to correct myself. It was a good lesson on not doing basic work. How is this just coming to light

Xenia says:

Jason’s interview is great! It touched on my own journey in many particulars except wherever he says “Catholic” I would substitute “Orthodox.” His comments about Calvary Chapel (which were gentle, not harsh) and Calvinism hit all the right notes. And we can’t say that neither of these two gentlemen “really” understand Calvinism, as is often said of Calvinism’s critics, because these two men are both former Presbyterian ministers, graduates of Calvinist seminaries.

His remarks about works, Sola scriptura, and authority are very good, with again, my substitution of EO for RC. His understanding of Trinity as being the crux of the Christian life, not just something to say to Jehovah’s Witnesses, is exactly right.

Very reasonable, very calm, very charitable.

Derek Thornton says:

The good thing about #freesaeed is that the message is spreading.
More people know than knew before this started.
Lawmakers are feeling pressure to act.
The most disappointing thing about this has been the administration’s response, which aside from John Kerry trying to justify not bringing it up as a negotiation point, has been non-existent.
I really don’t know what to say about that.
You would think that with all the bad press they are getting from the ACA thing, that they would want to relieve it little.

I must admit, that I don’t have a clue where all this is going though.
But, it has been nice to see the Body coalescing around this issue.

Martin Luther's disciple says:

I liked Jason interview -he represented his journey very well …but he still misrepresents the position of sola scriptura. He said protestants use scripture as their ONLY authority and this is just not true. The solas – the onlys, do not mean only in that way.

What we say, or at least what I say, is that scripture is the only infallible authority. So, you can find ‘authority’ in many areas, and as long as they don’t conflict with scriptures or deny scriptures you can use them … but what happens when your other authority conflicts with scripture? There we say you choose the Bible.

Listening to others I get the feeling that something else could trump the scriptures. Jason called it the Magisterium of the Church

Derek Thornton says:

Steve,
I believe the Senate could, and indeed has already spoken on Saeed Abedini.
My statement was aimed at the Executive Branch, which seems to be conveniently ignoring this for the most part.
They know people are upset. They just seem to be choosing to ignore it.

I am just glad that, even if some people’s motives are wrong, and they are looking to enhance either fame or political power, that the message is heard.

Steve Wright says:

Derek, Yes, the Senate has passed a unanimous declaration, and I seek to acknowledge that when I write. However, the Senate also is not happy with the deal, and it is only their fealty to Obama that keeps them from completely embarrassing him by passing legislation to ignore the new deal – forcing Obama to have to veto something from his own party

My hope is to pressure the Democrats in the Senate to pressure Obama and Kerry by saying, “Look, unless you want us to pass sanctions on our own, you get Saeed out, because we are NOT going to go down with you on this and lose seats and thus lose our majority”

Ricky Bobby says:

Good to see the #freeSaeed and #saveSaeed stuff continuing to get more attention toward critical mass. Well, that’s one thing we can all agree on LOL.

I thought Stellman’s thing was good. I commented on FB that he is good at taking complex issues and dynamics and making them concise and putting the cookies on a lower shelf. He’s a good communicator and comes across as very thoughtful and intelligent.

I disagree with Josh’s assessment. I think Stellman is a truth seeker and isn’t comfortable in a Box which has led to his transitions. I think he’ll end up more of an agnostic/liberal Christian in time.

Ricky Bobby says:

Sheepf***ing is on the horizon. Man and Sheep LOL. What happens on the farm is no one’s business….right Derek?

Derek Thornton says:

But, it seems you have to be constantly reminded of this.

Ricky Bobby says:

Facts about Luther

Luther as a Religious Reformer
from Chapter 9

The cesspool seems to have been the garden that furnished his choicest flowers of rhetoric. To be plainer still, “It is a fact,” Fr. Johnston says, “that Luther’s usual talk took its imagery most often from the privy. In this connection, perhaps, it is significant that Luther admitted that it was precisely in the privy of the monastery that he received from God the revelation of his famous doctrine about justification by faith alone. ‘By the grace of God, while thinking on one occasion in this tower over those words, “The just man lives by faith alone,” the Holy Ghost revealed the Scriptures to me in this tower.’ Protestant biographers have naively attempted to show that this place was not the monastery toilet; but there is no reasonable doubt.”

“This is significant,” the same learned writer continues, “for, as above noted, it is simply amazing how habitually Luther made use of the imagery suggested by such a place. When he wishes to vomit his wrath against the Pope or the Cardinals, his favorite word is that word which indicates the contents of a privy. I forbear from repeating it. This particular word (the common popular English word for evacuations) is constantly on his lips. Repeatedly he says that if the Pope should send him a command to appear before him: “I should … upon his summons.” The reader can find plenty of other instances of the use of this word in [Hartmann] Grisar Vol. III, 226, 232, 235, 298. Concommitant with the use of this filthy word is the use of another signifying that portion of the human body which functions the same. Those expressions I cannot repeat here. See for yourself Grisar, e.g. 111, 229, where he tells the devil to “kiss ——-“.

“The vomits of the human stomach are also a frequent word wherewith to express his rage against his enemies. For instance, he says that the Pope ‘vomits’ the Cardinals. Again the ‘monks’ are the ‘lice placed by the devil on God Almighty’s fur coat.’ ‘No sooner do I pass a motion but they smell it at Rome.’ Then note this specimen of stable boy’s wit apropos of the ‘Pope-ass’ mentioned before. ‘When I (the Pope-ass) bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith, i.e. Catholics.’ That other filthy word common to people who suit their language to privies was also constantly on his lips, employed in endless variations.”

“The most amazing aspect of this vulgarity is that Luther brings the very name of God into conjunction with just such coarse expressions. Thus in trying to explain how far God is or is not the author of evil, he says: ‘Semei wished to curse, and God immediately directed his curse against David. God says, “Curse him not and no one else.” Just as if a man wishes to relieve himself I cannot prevent him, but should he wish to do so on the table here, then I should object and tell him to betake himself to the corner.'”

The reader may consult Grisar’s monumental work on Luther if he is anxious to learn more about the filthy, scandalous, and indecent utterances of this vile man. To all who have hitherto known little of his actual obscenity and vulgarity of speech, the study suggested will be not only surprising, but illuminating. After such an inquiry, no honest man with any pretention to decency would be found in the ranks of those who trample on the truth and insist in spite of such glaring faults that this man was an “instrument of God” for the reformation of society.

It is appalling that men should take this filthy talker, whose hopelessly dirty language indicated the morally diseased state of his mind, as a guide to expound Eternal Law, and that they should hang upon his words, hold him up for imitation and entrust to him their salvation. It is pitiable but true that men have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not, they have hearts and feel not. Oh! that the eyes and the ears and the hearts of our separated brethren, if their faculties are not blunted, would come to recognize the unspeakable character of the heresiarch’s utterances, his obscene remarks, his vulgar jokes, his habitual nasty references to sexual matters, and discover in time that this open, brazen and shameless violator of all conventional decency could not in any sense have been raised up by the All-Holy to lead men to the Kingdom of Heaven.

However outrageous to Christian feeling and abhorrent to Christian principle was his habitual filthy talk, it is far surpassed in vileness and obscenity when he treats of womanhood, a fertile theme for his dirty tongue and pen. On this subject he was quite at his ease and allowed himself singular license. In the Colloquia no fewer than a hundred pages are devoted to the fair sex. In this work he surpasses himself in vulgarity and shows his brutality in indecent references to women. No one could quote him in this respect without the blood rushing to his head. His warmest biographers are ashamed of his vulgar and unmanly references to women. The filthy expressions he recorded in his books were so habitual with him that he even used them in his own home before his companion and the children. “Certainly,” Fr. Johnston says, “no Protestant woman can read them without – I will not say utter shame and womanly horror – but without indignation that any man, above all a spiritual leader and cleric at that, could speak of her sex with such ordinary common familiarity and courseness and vulgarity and downright obscenity; that could joke at her sex in its most sacred and venerable moral and physical aspects, taking a stable boy’s unclean delight at rude witticisms over poor woman’s physical differentiation from man; that could make her very body the inspiration of jokes – all evincing a cynical and vulgar contempt for woman as such; that could even have the vulgarity to lift the covers of the nuptial bed and disclose its sacred secrets to the gaze of others. Had any Catholic writer dared to utter a fraction of what Luther thus wrote and said, he would be an eternal and shameful reproach to the Church he so unworthily represented.”

To give any idea, even the faintest, of this man’s filthy and loathsome language would be impossible unless one is willing to descend into the gutter and wade in obscenity. The original sources are extant, and anyone who wishes to consult them may do so if he is prepared for the shock of his life. Then he will discover that even the Bullingers and Zwinglis of his own time were weak indeed in their description of Luther’s language when they upbraided him for its “doggishness, dirtiness and lasciviousness.” It is so downright disgusting and hopelessly obscene that no one can excuse or condone it. As his friend, the Protestant Kostlin, puts it, “his was a vehement, vulcanlike nature.” Just so: but these vehement, vulcanlike natures are the very ones the Vice Purity Committees find in plenty in certain quarters of our modern cities.

Fr. Johnston says: “From a standpoint of morality, Luther’s teachings and practical advice and example in conversation were infinitely below the moral standard hitherto held by the very Church he reviled and constantly below even the standard now generally accepted by the Protestants themselves. His claims, therefore, to ‘reforming’ the Church are pathetically weak. Instead of teaching a purer morality, he taught a lower. There is nothing in his teaching, by either pen or word of mouth, that is calculated to increase the love of purity, or of even conjugal fidelity, which in the Catholic Church has developed the fairest blossoms of maidenly chastity and conjugal love. A man or woman who is sexually weak will look to him in vain for advice wherewith to increase his or her strength in resisting the great passion — rather they will find in his word the opposite. This is no time to mince words. Therefore, I say deliberately that from his own words Martin Luther must be held responsible for bringing into the world the lowest standard of morality ever advocated by a leader amongst Christians – so low that I defy a Protestant to read him, though I would advice no Protestant woman to do so if she be not ready to read with moral safety. Both will feel considerably befouled by the reading.”

But Luther’s partisans persist in forcing him upon public attention; and they have only themselves to blame if, under the limelight of actual quotations, his true words and doctrines and character are exposed to thinking minds, who by the thousands will come to see him in all his ugliness and deformity, and be forced to admit on grounds of modern historical research that he could not have been directly or indirectly called by God to reform His Church.

In our heart of hearts, we pity the man, regret his abuse of divine grace and deplore his lifelong antagonism to divine and human law; but when those who are ignorant of the facts resurrect and force this man on public notice in the role of a “reformer,” “a liberator of humanity,” “a model of domestic life” and “an instrument of God for the uplift of society,” the interests of truth demand that such misrepresentation ought not to go unchallenged, and that the real portrait of the man as he actually was, ought to be given to the people.

The most scientific Lutheran historians now no longer make an attempt to deny his many and flagrant personal shortcomings. It is only those who are ignorant of the facts – that he proclaimed to the world that chastity is impossible and a delusion, that licentiousness is permissible, and that the gratification of the flesh is the aim of man – or those who, knowing them, deliberately close their eyes to his sinful teaching and abominable immoralities, who persist in believing that this moral leper and father of divorce and polygamy was a man of God chosen to “reform” the Church of Christ. Such men are not in a frame of mind to accept the verdict of Luther’s contemporaries, nor are they willing to accept the results of the best historical research supplied by Lutheran authorities, which overwhelmingly testify to their hero’s immorality of speech and teaching. In their ignoble course they are unfortunately not so intent on spreading the truth as they are in strengthening the Lutheran people in their errors.

Luther himself, be it remembered, felt keenly the vulnerability of his character, as is evident from the following significant words: “This is what you must say: whether Luther is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his, but Christ’s. Leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge the doctrine.” No. We cannot do this. We cannot leave you out of the matter and accept your doctrine till you give proof that you are a “saint” and not a “scamp”. Your Kostlins and other partisans may obey your orders, and hold that your “vehement and vulcanlike nature,” as they describe you, was not incompatible with your role of a religious reformer. We cannot separate you from your utterances and actions. Your character must be taken into the count, and as you posed in the role of a reformer, we expect, in all decency, to find you a “saint” and not a “scamp.” Which of these designations fits you the better? If you had been a man raised up by God to preach His doctrine and had led a life such as to prevent the finger of scorn from being raised against you, why did you complain so bitterly about the lamentable results of the teaching you wished acknowledged? As the life of a man is, so is his teaching and its results. Listen to your own confession. “God knows,” you said,

“how painful it is for us to acknowledge that before the advent of the gospel everything was peaceful and quietude. Now all things are in ferment, the whole world agitated and thrown upside down. When the worldling hears it, he is scandalized at the disobedience of subjects against the government, rebellion, war, pestilence, the destruction of kingdoms and countries, untold unhappiness as the result of the doctrine of the gospel.” (Walch 7, 2556).

Just so. You preached a gospel of your own manufacture and ignored that of Christ. What could you expect from your pride and rebellion but the spread of indifference to religion and an increase of immorality? Had you been loyal to the Church of your fathers and had you been actuated by her saving principles of reform, the results of your life work would not have been revolution, rebellion and war, but rather contentment, peace and true happiness such as ever follows in the wake of the saints of God.

Three hundred years go by. It is a long time. What Luther said of his work in his day, others, who were loyal to him and acquainted with the lamentable facts, confirmed and amplified. Hear this wail of distress from no less a man than the Lutheran theologian who, in the early part of the last century, compiled the Reformer’s works in five large volumes. De Wette says:

“The dissolution of the Protestant church is inevitable; her framework is so thoroughly rotten that no further patching will avail. The whole structure of evangelical religion is shattered, and few look with sympathy on its tottering fall. Within the compass of a square mile you hear four, five, six different gospels. The people, believe me, mark it will; they speak most contemptuously of their teachers, whom they regard either as blockheads or knaves, in teaching these opposite doctrines…growing immorality, a consequence of contempt for religion, concurs also as a cause to its deeper downfall. …Oh Protestantism! has it, then, at last come to this with thee, that thy disciples protest against all religion? Facts, which are before the eyes of the whole world, declare aloud that this signification of thy name is no idle play upon words.”

Ricky Bobby says:

The father of both of your belief systems is Martin Luther. Martin Luther’s language was notoriously foul, crude, obnoxious, offensive, cussing, making sexual references, etc etc.

Why no beef with Luther? Do you dismiss his rantings and theses due to his style and use of language?

WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

The bit about Driscoll on Arminius and Calvin … wow … wondered what page that was but R. Scott Clark seems to have that covered.

link ahead

http://heidelblog.net/2013/12/the-ninth-commandment-and-the-new-media/

Steve Wright says:

WTH – Clark’s article is spot on. Multi-faceted applications too. I just wrote someone the same thing. Thanks for the good link. .

brian says:

A few comments, I frankly could careless about “curse” words that are not directed at a person with intent to wound. I come from the old usenet days and what goes on here is extremely mild, I mean very mild compared to there and on some of the snark forums. I, personally do not use them, because I dont wish to offend. An aside on several occasions atheists have actually complimented me on my online desire to not offend. On the Christian side, I was weak, and not dedicated to Christ because I did not wish to confront people of other faiths forcefully. I will admit I use awful language at times, inside my mind when I mess up because of my dyslexia, I am so deeply ashamed of this personal failing that it utterly infuriates me. Because any weakness is a sign of the fall and our utter depravity as a person. I dont intellectually believe such nonsense any more but in my heart of hearts it is seared into every single cell of my being. I had a “revelation” today as clear as day. This is the reason I struggle so much with showing grief.

Any emotion is a sign of the fall and is utterly deplorable and an affront to a Holy God. Again, intellectually I know this is utterly psychotic but deep down but it was just shoved down my throat so much. Think Paul Washer type rhetoric concerning our utter depravity. Why I bring this up I believe the book RB quoted from was one sided concerning Luther. I was trying to research a rebuttal to the Luther swearing and being a nutcase. I could not find it but the author, if I remember correctly refuted some that was in this book. Luther, in my opinion, struggled with a mental illness of some type. My guess he was manic depressive or clinically depressed. Back when supernaturalism in such events held sway such people were made saints or burned at the stake or both. Thank God we moved passed that. I E the understanding of mental illness and other physiological issues. I am not denying the supernatural realm, just pointing out where most denominations are at now.

It was not Luther’s privy humor / rhetoric, which I find funny, like an snl skit or a south park episode, it was his treatises on the Jews and the peasants when they revolted. In my opinion they were taking luther’s ideas to their logical conclusions in the secular realm. Of course he did a driscoll and covered his tracks. His life and “reformation” needed the secular sword in some form, like every single “reformation” did before and always will. What he wrote concerning those issues are pure Pornography of the worst kind.

Many Popes and prelates did the same though they may not have “cussed” it was still pure Pornography and vile filth when one human demeans another human in the name of God. I mean is that not why this blog was started, why so many do not struggle? I wonder what they would have done if they had blogs back then, I do know what they would have done if they had nuclear weapons, they would have utterly obliterated the earth under a mushroom cloud, thinking they were doing God’s will. That should give all of us pause.

Luther stood up to a huge system and, given the issues he struggled with, did what he could, but he is not a hero. None of us are, only Christ is our hero it would be good to remember that.

brian says:

You know Jason I envy you, at 19 my mother came to me and said will you help, I took a 1/2 an hour to decide and I said yes. So from that point and for say well until now I helped with my nephew. We took care of him when his mother and father could not. I stuck it out, buried both of his parents and I was there, every single time I was there. Helped out with my father when he got sick and moved back in to help out, I actually just want to know him. I wont speak as to what my Christian family told me about my natural family, which I trust far more, and if my natural family burn, burn me as well, they were always there. Always. My Christian family, well not so much, they had far more important issues. I get that.

You talked about Chuck Smith, I know Mr. Smith is in heaven because I actually believe what Jesus said, just like the last three Popes of your faith, all will be restored. But Smith did great damage to people, if I was him I would have yanked the dove from some folks and called the police, I would not have called down judgement on a son. My father would be an very angry person at times, but never would he have done that. On his death bed he sought to reconcile with his kids and apologize. As far as I am concerned my father understood far more about God and grace that some of the “true believers”.

You know Jason from day one I thought most of the ideas people were pushing were well basically nutz, and some of the hyper nutz. Jason you are a smart guy but you have to admit that Trent, Vatican One and Vatican two basically contradict each other, they just do admit it I have read them in the original English :). Why I am glad you became a Catholic, first the Catholic faith acknowledges the validity of the Theory of Evolution and an Old Earth Creation narrative. I mean the Vatican actually hold seminars where evolution is actually discussed and there is not some nutter from AIG or other such groups who do handstands to well basically well never mind.

Another side, your communion believes we are only wounded by original sin not that we become Jeffrey Dahmer wantabe’s looking for the next victim we can kill to fulfil our calling. Of course that is stupid, let me translate THAT IS STUPID. Jason I am just some poor sinner who wants to see me and mine saved, I could careless if I am saved that is irrelevant but I want to see mine (mainly those I work with) saved. Apparently Dahmer accepted Jesus, I hope so, but he did not commit the worst sins, he was not gay, a liberal, an atheist, a JW, a mormon etc. Do people get my point. We got our priorities blank backwards. I dont get it, never have.

brian says:

I wanted to share this, granted it is anecdotal so I may be possessed by being moved by it as it is emotional. I went out for a ride on my bike, I try to get at least 20 miles a day, I fail at times but it has been my salvation. I am on a Christmas lights jihad, but it is not a holy war I seek but a holy peace. I will admit, as pathetic as it is because it is emotional, I love the nativity narrative where the Divine touched Earth and dwelt among us. I understand that outside of the apologetic issues such belief is nonsense as it is utterly emotional and thus, by definition pathetic. It is either way to Catholic or way to consumerism.

So its 1 Am and I go out for another ride, stop by the store for somethings and see this guy talking to his paper brown bag. That late at night in my neighborhood that is not uncommon. I have become a bit familiar with the homeless and late night riff raff. I forced myself because I was a self righteous blank out of decorum I will not even **** it. But I was, I judged the homeless in my heart and I spoke ill of them on many occasions in my heart, I was / am a hypocrite and I am ashamed of myself and I repent in ashes and sackcloth. I was wrong God and I beg your forgiveness. The brian is not so pure, he is a self righteous so and so and he has even paraded his “good works” around to gain some type of ground.

OK thats out of the way and I am glad. This guy with the grocery bag, I walked by him and said have a good night, I do that alot, along with holding doors open. I started to pedal away and this “voice” said go back, a confession I get that “voice” alot. Of course after the strange fire conference such voices are always of Satan but that is another post. I rode back, took out five bucks and went back. And this Jesus, and he was said no I dont need it brother the fact that you said have a nice evening was far more important. All the hairs on the back of my neck stood up and I began to cry as I rode away. You see fine people I have these exchanges on a regular basis but I am alway so afraid to share them as they are antidotal and emotional. But I was blessed by that young man that did not have a place to stay, trust me I know, and I do. And I whine and snivel at my perceived hurts. I was hurt but not like these people and that person was able to show me the face of Christ on a bike ride. Off course there is a God, He is real and I am in awe of Him. I always have been.

brian says:

RB if this means anything, I am truly sorry for what was done to you, we have walked on similar sand. RB God is real and can heal, I believe that to my very soul. I wish I could speak to your step father’s soul. I Know I did my father’s soul and he really went through hell. He saw and liberated the camps. All the claptrap does not mean much. My father saw hell, and my “heathen” father forgave his son that did not make it in the service and never did my father attack me. He may have said many hurtful things and I grant him grace on that but my father would have died for me. In a way he did.

He hated the evangelical religion good on him, he loathed cheap rhetoric good on him again. RB you are worth it, let it go, you may never receive healing this side of the grave. I am sure the evangelical corporation will not offer it, and be thankful for that as that would come with a cost your very soul. Trust me I have walked that ground. RB I think me and you have had a subtle connection and since I have sort of slipped my identity online. All I want for you my brother is your healing, you may not get that via your father but you can gain that via your children. You are not your father and you have broken the cycle. If that is not grace I dont know what is. Offered for what it is worth.

Derek Thornton says:

Go ahead and copy paste some more stuff to justify yourself, RB.
That seems to be what you are good at.

As for me, I posted this picture yesterday on Instagram from some Bible notes.

http://ruminationsonlife.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/note-in-my-bible-from-ephesians-429-and-ephesians-54/

I wrote this note in my Bible last year after reading the meditation called “Prison Profanity: Where Does It Come From? ” by John Piper in his book “Taste and See: Savoring the Supremacy of God In All of Life.

Here are the notes for those who don’t wish to click through but it fits me well for when I do that. Seems to fit the culprit here also:

Eph 4:29- alternative to “foul talk” is not “clean talk”, but talk that gives grace or love.
Eph 5:4- alternative to “crude joking” is not “clean joking”, but thanksgiving.
Both from bragging.

Here is a link to the article the meditation was originally from:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/prison-profanity-and-the-meaning-of-advent

Derek Thornton says:

Hey Jim,
I thought of you when I saw this.

http://cheezburger.com/7952116992

Xenia says:

Nonnie, I can’t speak for the Roman Catholics but for the Orthodox, the western idea of the atonement (God sacrificing His Son to appease [satisfy] His wrathful anger) is not considered to be an adequate explanation for Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection. However, I think this idea did originate with the Catholics (Anselm) so I don’t know quite what they do believe other than Jason did mention that our obedience to God has an effect on our ultimate salvation, something I also believe.

Nonnie says:

Xenia, what would an EO definition of “The Gospel” be? (A sincere and respectful question)

Ricky Bobby says:

“I have asked that the profanity be kept off my media.”

Yes, of course. That is unless you author it.

Ricky Bobby says:

Can I still quote the bible? Or is the bible too crude?

Judges 19: 21 The old man brought them into his house and fed their donkeys. Then he and his guests washed their feet[e] and began eating and drinking. 22 They were having a good time, when some worthless men of that town surrounded the house and started banging on the door and shouting, “A man came to your house tonight. Send him out, so we can have sex with him!”

23 The old man went outside and said, “My friends, please don’t commit such a horrible crime against a man who is a guest in my house. 24 Let me send out my daughter instead. She’s a virgin. And I’ll even send out the man’s wife.[f] You can rape them or do whatever else you want, but please don’t do such a horrible thing to this man.”

25 The men refused to listen, so the Levite grabbed his wife and shoved her outside. The men raped her and abused her all night long. Finally, they let her go just before sunrise, 26 and it was almost daybreak when she went back to the house where her husband[g] was staying. She collapsed at the door and lay there until sunrise.

27 About that time, her husband woke up and got ready to leave. He opened the door and went outside, where he found his wife lying at the door with her hands on the doorstep. 28 “Get up!” he said. “It’s time to leave.”

But his wife didn’t move.[h]

He lifted her body onto his donkey and left. 29 When he got home, he took a butcher knife and cut her body into twelve pieces. Then he told some messengers, “Take one piece to each tribe of Israel 30 and ask everyone if anything like this has ever happened since Israel left Egypt. Tell them to think about it, talk it over, and tell us what should be done.”

Everyone who saw a piece of the body said, “This is horrible! Nothing like this has ever happened since the day Israel left Egypt.”[i]

Derek Thornton says:

Oh and here is what comes up from google.

https://www.google.com/#q=martin+luther+crude+language&safe=off

Follow the first link and compare to #29.

Derek Thornton says:

Both from bragging.

Sound familiar anyone?

Derek Thornton says:

My last statement on this subject.
Follow the link in my #59 and you will see the source of RB.

As Darth Vader says “All too easy.”

Ricky Bobby says:

Derek, you have also presented what’s called a Red Herring. You have changed the focus from the original argument.

The original argument was regards to my use of crude language in my rhetoric being “bad” and my assertion that the Father of your Belief System was more crude than I am, yet you accept his doctrine, theses, positions etc and ignore his style and crudeness.

You then created a Straw Man and a Red Herring: “RB uses search engines to support his point!”

Classic Jr. High mistakes and completely fallacious.

Back to the argument: Luther, the Father of your Belief System was crude, obnoxious, vulgar, offensive….and you still accept his doctrines, correctness, philosophy, legitimacy, Godliness, Holy Spirit-inspired-ness etc…yet you disqualify me for the same behavior.

Do you deny that Luther was vulgar, crude, obscene and offensive in his rhetoric and public language?

Why do you hold me to a different standard?

Derek Thornton says:

Dude, there was no original argument.
Anyone can look back and see that in the thread.

Admit it, you made a “haha funny” dirty joke and then got mad when someone called you on it.
Obviously, it isn’t as simple as that with you.
You must always be right.
You are the one who tried to make it into something else.
This is laughable and not worth the time to argue about it.

I just hope Michael hasn’t lost another reader, because of your bragging and pride.

Derek Thornton says:

Well, judging from the silence, I guess you are proved right there RB.

Obviously, I was wrong to call you out on your crude language.
Obviously, your superior intelligence has proved that the Bible and Martin Luther are crude and so you can be crude as you want to be.

So many Christians on here, and only three say something. So, obviously, the “consensus” has spoken through their silence.

Joke and google on, buddy.

Rough Edged Bob says:

Derek:

No not silence at all, frustration (and maybe that’s not it either). RB can’t seem to change his spots so it’s time to not engage with him.

He hasn’t “won” anything at all.

Derek Thornton says:

If his theorem is so valid, let him do the research and publish it.
Let it stand to the light of critique by Christian scholars.
Now those reviews, I would love to see.

Andy says:

Driscoll could say anything, and most of his followers would attack you for simply questioning the validity of Driscoll’s statements. His is the perfect example of the cult of personality concept.

Derek Thornton says:

I posted it on FB and my brother commented on the temps in the Black Hills.
I don’t miss those.
Do actually sort of miss the snow, it was pretty.

Xenia says:

Hi Nonnie, the basic Gospel message is that Christ came to earth to defeat sin, death, and the devil by His Incarnation, death, and resurrection. If we follow Him, we will have everlasting life. So far we probably all agree, but the rub comes with the question, “What is meant by following Christ?” What does Christ Himself have to say about this? He talks a lot about obedience and following His commandments.

Repentant Bob says:

Derek:

“It always comes to blaming right meaning Christians for every ill of the world and for dragging Christ’s name through the mud.
It is an endless bashing and really shows no way of ever advancing any further.
It is detrimental to the blog author and almost shows that RB wishes to sabotage him, by making sure to do things like this all the time.”

“If his theorem is so valid, let him do the research and publish it.”

I agree with your ideas.

RB is really like most of us, he has a little knowledge, a set of shaded glasses and really wants validation without the process. Basically I really don’t care so much about what he says he believes in because his manners reveal much more.

Now as far as Driscoll goes, I was reading the blog where they are debating the meaning of “begotten,” All I could think of is, “this is why people really think church is full of hot air.” Where’s the life in Jesus the Messiah and Lord?

I guess like the RCC right believing (confessing) is more important than what one actually believes and lives out.

Moving on…

Josh the Baptist says:

This place is toxic.

Derek Thornton says:

You know, today my wife saw a plant in the yard, a Nandina bush, also known as Heavenly Bamboo.
It is actually an evergreen shrub that has bright red berries that really stand out at this time of the year when everything else is dead.
My wife grew up being told that the berries are poisonous. I was told the same thing.
I decided to look it up.
Turns out all parts of the plant have hydrocyanic acid. It is bad for birds and grazing animals who might eat a substantial amount.
It can be eaten by humans though. It falls under toxicity category 4. Which says it is practically non-toxic and not an irritant.
However, people that actually try these things say that it gives you a mildly upset stomach if you eat it.

I seem to keep eating the berries and getting that upset stomach on a regular basis.
I think I would still call that toxic.
I just don’t think it is the place, but the steady diet given by one in particular.

Bob says:

MLD different debate entirely

stu says:

The video won’t play. God did me a favor, as I get very upset at lies such as I was subjected to as a dumb kid. Thank you, Jesus.

idontgetit says:

Ug

Martin Luther's disciple says:

erunner,
The pre school and schools are the main outreach arm in the Lutheran churches. Most of our new membership comes from school families.

Our school is 1/4 Lutheran – 1/4 you other guys – and 1/2 unchurched

E, we’re coming after you! 😉