Friday, May 25, 2007

Consider this when reading the news

Islam is not a religion.

It is a worldview with totalitarian domination as its goal, and with the forced subjugation of those who disagree with it as its by-product. If you do not adhere to Islam, you are dar al-Harb, potential victims of an Islamic war to force you into dar al-Islam, an all-encompassing Islamic rule.

Some adherents are more strident about it than others, but that is the essense of Islam--totalitarianism. Please keep that in mind as you peruse the news.

--Mike

234 comments:

1 – 200 of 234   Newer›   Newest»
bepatient said...

People still read the news?

I guess maybe on the internet....

Meredith, Matt and Al give me all the news I need to know. Today I learned about spas and bathing suits for every figure! ;)

Memphis said...

Mike, want to wish you a Happy Memorial Day!

lovecakes said...

This post is balogny--you can no more lump all of Islam together than I can all of Christendom, which has, in fundamentalist zeal, wrought much suffering and death upon humanity throughout history.

What is always the refrain from which ever particular zealot? "Yea, but they weren't the real thing; we are. We ain't affiliated with that"

But you'll take a complex issue like Jihad (which is a mutable term exploited, used and abused much like those plucked from the Bible to justify violence or subjegation) with historical and geopolitical underpinnings and damn all of Islam.

Are all Southern Baptist ministers and Catholic priests pedophiles?

What is ultimately sad is that we often damn the same in others which we will not percieve in ourselves. It is now indisputable that the Iraq danger was trumped and sold, yet most evangelicals still support the administration and the war. Why? This too, is a kind of fundamentalism, where strongly held truths won't be undermined by messy facts or massive casualties.

How many pro-life WASPs adopt little brown and black babies. Pesky statistics--the devil's abacus. I guess Jesus doesn't love them as much, eh?

Religion is too often the handmaiden of power and self-preservation. Just look at Bellevue.

If you believe that you follow the one true religion, and that the Iraq war is right no matter the facts, that it is the unfolding of prophesy or a holy war, then those folks over there are an extreme version of you.

Rigid dogma creates much suffering in the world. And it comes from nothing divine.

junk99mail said...

lovecakes,
Politics, religion, dogmatism, the Iraq war ... you must be on heaven... er, nirvana... er, whatever.

How many pro-life WASPs adopt little brown and black babies.

I know of quite a few, especially here in Memphis, but I don't know the statistics overall.

bepatient said...

Mike,

we miss you.

Mike Bratton said...

apologies for the e e cummings style, as this is the best i can coax my phone to do. back in a few days or less. --mike

Memphis said...

A new pastor was visiting in the homes of his parishioners. At one

house it seemed obvious that someone was at home, but no answer came

to his repeated knocks at the door. Therefore, he took out a business card

and wrote "Revelation 3:20" on the back of it and stuck it in the door.



When the offering was processed the following Sunday, he found that

his card had been returned. Added to it was this cryptic message,

"Genesis 3:10."



Reaching for his Bible to check out the situation, he broke up in

gales of laughter. Revelation 3:20 begins "Behold, I stand at the door and knock."



Genesis 3:10 reads, "I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid for I was naked."

Karen said...

memphis,

We agree on something - that joke was VERY funny! :)


karen

bepatient said...

Just a reminder to pray tomorrow and next week as BBC has VBS...

Pray for all the boys and girls...

but also pray for the teachers and workers, specifically that we don't collapse from exhaustion!!!

Mike Bratton said...

http://www.wnbc.com/news/13431721/detail.html?dl=mainclick

Again, something to keep in mind.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Ya,

This too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/diary-of-a-christian-terr_b_49167.html

Mike Bratton said...

HuffPo?

That's it?

Somehow, I expected more...

But, let me cover the basics.

Murder is antithetical to Christianity--a Christian has no faith-endorsed license to kill someone who supposedly "needed killing."

Islam, on the other hand, repeatedly encourages the termination of non-adherents, and with extreme prejudice.

Poor Max Blumenthal either didn't bother to do any research on the subject, or else didn't let the results of his research stand in the way of his anti-Christian bigotry.

And even though there's been no thoughtful response as of yet regarding my link to the article on the thwarted Muslim plot to attack JFK, let's submit something else for consideration:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBLA32653020070603?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Bratton,

First off, you may not like Blumethal's qualifiers in the story, but he does cite them; something of which you might direct more attention. The irony of this paragraph:

"Poor Max Blumenthal either didn't bother to do any research on the subject (qualifier?), or else didn't let the results of his research stand in the way of his anti-Christian bigotry (qualifier?)."

The story is well-researched--the events he cites specifically can be cross-documented by news accounts and other authors. You may not appreciate his editorial opinion, but to dismiss him in-hand is ridiculous. And I don't see any indication that he damns all of Christianity for this would-be terrorist, as you do all of Islam.

(Also, even though he is a well-known columnist, he doesn't place himself above the basic element of rhetoric and cogent argument.)

You and I both live amongst Muslims who love their families, contribute to their communities, abhor violence and needless killing, even serve their country in the military. Extremists of all stripes and religious compulsions also live amonst us.

I have nothing against Christians, but it is a gross simplification to marginalize an entire segment of humanity for the actions of extremists. Your statement obviously places you in the category of the Christian asserting, "Yea, but they weren't the real thing; we are. We ain't affiliated with that," you know, Ireland, Bosnia, the Salen witch trials, the KKK, the African diaspora, the Spanish Inqusition, the Crusades, or any suffering by individuals or groups due to strident and incompatable religious beliefs.

Students of history can percieve the greater impact of fundamentalism upon humanity. I suppose it is comfortable to partition ones own bias and double-standards (i.e. broad support for the administration and the Iraq war by pro-life evangelicals) when viewing the nationalism and religious furvor of another.

Mike Bratton said...

lovecakes said...
Bratton,

First off, you may not like Blumethal's qualifiers in the story, but he does cite them; something of which you might direct more attention. The irony of this paragraph:

"Poor Max Blumenthal either didn't bother to do any research on the subject (qualifier?), or else didn't let the results of his research stand in the way of his anti-Christian bigotry (qualifier?)."

The story is well-researched--the events he cites specifically can be cross-documented by news accounts and other authors.


I didn't suggest that the individual didn't do what Mr. Blumenthal said he did, so it is disingenuous to make the case that I'm saying it never happened. The point I made was that Mr. Blumenthal ignores, for whatever reason, what constitutes being a "devoted Christian" for the sake of continuing to push an anti-Christian and anti-Christianity agenda.

You may not appreciate his editorial opinion,

I don't appreciate lying. There's a difference, and Mr. Blumenthal is lying.

but to dismiss him in-hand is ridiculous.

I didn't dismiss him in hand.

I dismiss him out of hand. ;)

And I don't see any indication that he damns all of Christianity for this would-be terrorist, as you do all of Islam.

Mr. Blumenthal has a history of editorializing against Christianity as a whole, particularly when Christians stray too far afield and get involved in things such as (gasp!) the political process.

(Also, even though he is a well-known columnist, he doesn't place himself above the basic element of rhetoric and cogent argument.)

When he uses one, please e-mail me.

You and I both live amongst Muslims who love their families, contribute to their communities, abhor violence and needless killing, even serve their country in the military. Extremists of all stripes and religious compulsions also live amonst us.

And every adherent Muslim I've ever known embraces the inevitability of dar al-Islam. Some are more uncomfortable discussing it with someone who is a Christian, as I am, but I have never had a discussion with a Muslim who didn't agree that world domination was Islam's end goal. They may not use such stark terminology, but they believe it.

And how does being a family man or a community pillar mitigate one's belief in totalitarianism?

I have nothing against Christians, but it is a gross simplification to marginalize an entire segment of humanity for the actions of extremists. Your statement obviously places you in the category of the Christian asserting, "Yea, but they weren't the real thing; we are. We ain't affiliated with that," you know, Ireland, Bosnia, the Salen witch trials, the KKK, the African diaspora, the Spanish Inqusition, the Crusades, or any suffering by individuals or groups due to strident and incompatable religious beliefs.

Why, thank you for noticing.

Students of history can percieve the greater impact of fundamentalism upon humanity.

Fundamentalism, in and of itself, is no vice. What fundamentals are being practiced must be considered, as any competent historian or sociologist is quick to note. Islam is at odds not only with Christianity, but with democracy and freedom of choice in the sociopolitical realm, because its fundamentals are those of--again--totalitarianism.

You are quick to mention organizations and movements which attempt to borrow Christian principles as a cloak, though they themselves are not Christian groups. You mention the Crusades, but mention neither their political motivations nor the expansionism of Muslim caliphates. You mention the Inquisition and the African slave trade, yet ignore the expansionist wars that Islamic armies of the past fought against the eastern Roman Empire, the Visigoths in Spain, as well as in the Middle East and in North Africa.

I would suggest that intolerance has been far more deadly through the centuries than the exercise and expression of fundamentalist Christianity--you know, loving God with all that you are, and caring for your neighbor as you would care for your own self.

Islam, in its fundamentals, is both religiously and politically intolerant.

As is modern-day liberalism--particularly where Christians and Christianity are concerned.

I suppose it is comfortable to partition ones own bias and double-standards (i.e. broad support for the administration and the Iraq war by pro-life evangelicals) when viewing the nationalism and religious furvor of another.

I'd suggest you re-read your statement, except for your parenthetical qualifications, before continuing. Thank you in advance.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Bratton,

I do not infer anything other than what may be gathered, because you make assertions--Islam is not a religion, it universally promotes totalitarianism, Blumenthal is a liar, liberalism is intolerant, etc. I guess these are to be accepted a priori when uttered by the mighty Bratton, whoever he is and whatever authority he presumes.

All we have here are the words, and we should honor the beauty and flexibility, the refinement of rhetoric and counterpoint. How very little appetite there is here for such a thing, and that is truly a shame.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

"An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture."

Viewed objectively, certain foundational beliefs are asserted in fundamentalist religions and they may not be scrutinized by its adherrents; so all so-called "logical conclusions" must fall consistently with rigid doctrine or the authority of scripture. Thought and reason are viewed as insufficient, even counterproductive, to the aquisition of spiritual truth.

And you're right--it is as egregious for "muslims" to perpetuate suffering as all those "christians" throughout the ages.

Mike Bratton said...

I do not infer anything other than what may be gathered, because you make assertions--Islam is not a religion, it universally promotes totalitarianism, Blumenthal is a liar, liberalism is intolerant, etc. I guess these are to be accepted a priori when uttered by the mighty Bratton, whoever he is and whatever authority he presumes.

When misrepresentations and ad hom are the most involved parts of a response, it's always disappointing.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

And depending on the principles in play, fundamentalism can be either very good, or very bad. The fundamental principles of Christianity, centering in Christ Himself, are very good; the fundamental principles of Islam, centering in subjugation and domination, are very bad.

"An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture."

Viewed objectively, certain foundational beliefs are asserted in fundamentalist religions and they may not be scrutinized by its adherrents; so all so-called "logical conclusions" must fall consistently with rigid doctrine or the authority of scripture. Thought and reason are viewed as insufficient, even counterproductive, to the aquisition of spiritual truth.


"Viewed objectively"?

Heh heh heh...

And you're right--it is as egregious for "muslims" to perpetuate suffering as all those "christians" throughout the ages.

Organized Christianity disavows violence perpetrated in the name of Christ.

Organized Islam, on the other hand, cannot exactly be characterized as vigorous with regard to disavowing violence perpetrated under its banner.

If anyone would actually like to comment on the stories to which I've recently linked in this comment thread, please do so--even you, Mr. Cakes.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Well, don't let recorded history get in the way of your opinion.

"When misrepresentations and ad hom are the most involved parts of a response, it's always disappointing."

Yea, so why is that all you can tender.

"Heh, heh, heh"

I wish you would take the time to actually engage my points, rather than being cute. I know that my political and spiritual opinions differ greatly from most of y'all, and I am ok with that. But it is unfortunate that I, on this thread and many others, take the time to offer valid counterpoint, only to get the floor show from the mighty Bratton. I make no sweeping assertions about Christians, Muslims or otherwise (nor does Huffpo or Blumenthal--speaking of ad hom), I just ask that you defend your own.

But I forgot, this is not a forum to sharpen reason and generate exchange; it is rather a safe place where Bratton my pontificate and not have sloppy reason challenged.

I'm sorry I stank up the mutual admiration society.

"Viewed objectively, certain foundational beliefs are asserted in fundamentalist religions and they may not be scrutinized by its adherrents; so all so-called "logical conclusions" must fall consistently with rigid doctrine or the authority of scripture. Thought and reason are viewed as insufficient, even counterproductive, to the aquisition of spiritual truth."

Yes, viewed objectively, Islam and Christianity share the above in common--perhaps you'd like to parse the differences. Or, better yet, I will. The difference is Christians follow the one true God. Unfortunately, that's what the Muslims say too.

No one, truly can make this claim, and the perpetuation of it creates suffering.

Now, be cute Bratton, since that is obviously, besides your certitude, is all you've got. All I'm saying is that if you'll absolve Christianity of its less than palpable history as not representative of true Christian principles, then you must offer the same to Islam.

But I understand, as I grew up in church and witmessed many such double-standards. It is, alas, just a function of your own fundamentalist beliefs, where reason and scrutiny have no quarter.

Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate it.

Mike Bratton said...

Utterly fascinating.

I invite discussion and debate of issues and current events, and instead get...

the mighty Bratton

this is not a forum to sharpen reason and generate exchange; it is rather a safe place where Bratton my pontificate

be cute Bratton, since that is obviously, besides your certitude, is all you've got


...and the like as responses.

But, of course, I'm the one who is avoiding the issue--the one I raised in the first place.

When Christian church groups, Mr. Cakes, start using Google Earth to dial in the best places to set off bombs at airports, then you'll have something to talk about. When Christian church groups begin declaring their bloodthirsty desire to wipe Israel off the map, then you'll have a plank for your platform.

Brace yourself for a long wait, though.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

"When Christian church groups, Mr. Cakes, start using Google Earth to dial in the best places to set off bombs at airports, then you'll have something to talk about. When Christian church groups begin declaring their bloodthirsty desire to wipe Israel off the map, then you'll have a plank for your platform."

No, this is in no way has anything to do with my argument--this is an appeal to emotionalism. But it also demonstrates your funamentalist perspective regarding complex geopolitical events, mired in religious, nationalistic and tribal histories.

It is so ironic to see you partition your faith from the legasy of carnage and human suffering, yet paint Islam with a broad brush. You perpetuate the very mindset you condemn.

That is, and has been, the point I'm making. But go ahead, counter a point I haven't made; or, there's lot's of tags here ripe for one of your quips or a "heh heh heh."

By the way, are all Southern Baptist ministers pedophiles? Isn't that your logic?

bepatient said...

Here is what I've got so far...

Cakes says- Both Muslims and Christians have used religion to justify their bad actions.

Mike says- The difference it that it was "warped" fundamentals that used Christianity to justify what they were doing, whereas the basic tenets of Islam promote their bad actions.

Is that about the sum of it?

I think you guys are kinda arguing apples and oranges.

If you strip away history and the individual people who practice both forms of religion/faith/whatever you want to call it it boils down to the fact that Christianity practiced the way it is "supposed" to be practiced, does not support violence against another in the name of religion. Islam practiced the way it is "supposed" to be practiced does.

Mike Bratton said...

lovecakes said...
"When Christian church groups, Mr. Cakes, start using Google Earth to dial in the best places to set off bombs at airports, then you'll have something to talk about. When Christian church groups begin declaring their bloodthirsty desire to wipe Israel off the map, then you'll have a plank for your platform."

No, this is in no way has anything to do with my argument--this is an appeal to emotionalism.


Not in the slightest, and your refusal to deal with the facts presented to you is very disappointing.

But it also demonstrates your funamentalist perspective regarding complex geopolitical events, mired in religious, nationalistic and tribal histories.

Yet another dodge from dealing with the assertions of my original article and subsequent posts.

"Fundamentalists," according to you, are unable to sift through the complexities of current events?

Since you've yet to address either the JFK terror plot or Ahmadinejad's call to eradicate Israel, you really don't have a rhetorical leg upon which to stand.

It is so ironic to see you partition your faith from the legasy of carnage and human suffering, yet paint Islam with a broad brush. You perpetuate the very mindset you condemn.

Ah.

Encouraging carnage, am I?

Championing suffering, am I?

I've stated some facts, and you've studiously avoided refuting them.

That is, and has been, the point I'm making. But go ahead, counter a point I haven't made; or, there's lot's of tags here ripe for one of your quips or a "heh heh heh."

Mr. Cakes, you've yet to make a point. You've tossed yet more personal insults in amidst your disdain for Christians in general, but making a point is something you evidently are avoiding.

By the way, are all Southern Baptist ministers pedophiles? Isn't that your logic?

Of course not, and I'm confident you don't believe that it is.

bepatient said...

...

If you strip away history and the individual people who practice both forms of religion/faith/whatever you want to call it it boils down to the fact that Christianity practiced the way it is "supposed" to be practiced, does not support violence against another in the name of religion. Islam practiced the way it is "supposed" to be practiced does.


Marvelously succinct.

Thanks.

--Mike

junk99mail said...

lovecakes said...
The difference is Christians follow the one true God. Unfortunately, that's what the Muslims say too.
No one, truly can make this claim, and the perpetuation of it creates suffering.


Hmmm... I thought that all suffering is caused by desire. :)

Perhaps it isn't the perpetuation of the claim or believe that there is one true God that causes suffering, but the steadfast unwillingess of the vast majority of mankind to acknowledge the one true God.

lovecakes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bugsii said...

Here's a cute little piece....
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

lovecakes said...

So, Bepatient gets kudos for asserting the very notion to which I pointed earlier:

"What is always the refrain from which ever particular zealot? 'Yea, but they weren't the real thing; we are. We ain't affiliated with that'"

bepatient, do you support the Iraq war, and the scores of men women and children suffering and dying because of it? The point is that, no, the Bible's command to not kill will be nuanced to defend the war, and if the facts point to it being ill-concieved on circumspect evidence, then the facts be damned.

People have used the Bible to defend segregation as recently as a half-century ago; primitive Mormons believe polygamy is sactioned by God in the Bible. Muslim extremists believe a bevy of harem girls await them. It is pretty clear to me, that if you really want to, you can believe and justify just about anything you wish in the name of religion, even offer ones very life for it; because people do, and history is replete with their tragedies.

Don't infer equivalences on what I say about "mindset;" I never said Christians were becoming suicide bombers--just that fundamentalist of all stripes have let a mindset of self-righteousness and exclusivity perpetuate suffering, wars and needless death since time immemorial. And don't be foolish, evangelical Christians would never blindly villify Israel wholesale the way some do all of Islam (oops, more irony). They may, however, very well blindly cozy to Israel (because of their own fundamentalism--oops again, ha).

But the one is the good kind of fundamentalism and the other is the bad. How does the good fundamentalism win over the bad? How can you (ha) reason with them? I mean, honestly, reason has no appeal to a fundamentalist. They are right, period, and there is no where to go, thus communication is pointless, eh?

lovecakes said...

Junk99,

It is actually desire, aversion and ignorance--if you are refering to the three poisons. In that sense, yes, this dialogue applies, especially with regard to aversion and ignorance.

I was using suffering in its lesser, germane, sense. Yes, unyielding claims to God's truth does cause suffering. My very family is suffering and alienated from one another over religion. It is not worth it, and such enmity is not divine. But the are all bessedly assured that they are right. If I were God, I'd be pretty ticked about the things done in my name.

Mike Bratton said...

And the beat goes on...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56009

CAIR is a terrorist front? I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you!

Well, not so much, actually. CAIR was founded over a decade ago as a terrorist front group.

--Mike

solomon said...

cakes said...
bepatient, do you support the Iraq war, and the scores of men women and children suffering and dying because of it? The point is that, no, the Bible's command to not kill will be nuanced to defend the war, and if the facts point to it being ill-concieved on circumspect evidence, then the facts be damned.


Quite true, the Bible's commands are often nuanced to justify violence. Most notably, when misguided men have tried to advance the gospel of Christ by using the very sword he forbid his followers to carry.

Islam is prone to the same distortion but for different reasons. One difference between Christianity and Islam is that our New Testament must be distorted to promote violence, while their Qur'an must be stretched to promote peace. Many clerics do in fact teach that Islam is a non-violent belief system, but their teaching is greatly complicated by passages such as Surah 9:5, which says "Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush"

Many peace loving Muslims have found this and similar passages to be a great difficulty to their efforts.

solomon said...

I also thought I'd mention that one of my best friends is a Muslim from Kuwait, and we've talked about our religious differences in depth.

He has never disputed that any Muslim who speaks out against terrorism has violated the Qur'an. However, he does not believe that the Qur'an is inerrant in the same way Christians believe the Bible is.

bepatient said...

Cakes, I won't engage you in a debate over the war. I believe the commandment says not to murder. And that holds true across the board, but not all killing is murder. But we are getting way off track-


Let's see if we can start back over with the basics. The central point of contention is whether or not the fundamental tenets of Islam are such that "It is a worldview with totalitarian domination as its goal"

You are getting way sidetracked into attacking Christianity but that is not really what this is about. Let's settle the matter at hand and then if you would like to debate about Christianity I am sure we would be happy to engage you. But let's not mix the two. They each have enough issues all on their own.

lovecakes said...

Solomon,

Thank you for the measured reaction to my points rather than the reactionary. It is established that I am not a Christian, that the point I dispute is the broad assertion that all of Islam is "not a religion" and has totalitarianism as its aim. It is not to be anti-Christian. The points made are simply to say fundamentalists, when laying it on thick with the broad brush, they should be careful not to paint themselves into a corner, intellectually speaking, especially when the double standard is, for lack of a better term, "under the blood."

No bepatient, evangelicals, by in large, still support the war, mainly because they support Bush. What about that commandment? Is it taken literally or not. You see, the meaning of scripture, what it justifies and what it forbids are in flux, in every sect, every tradition, across time.

Religious extremists justify terrorism--unyeilding loyalty to a belief system that defies reason and compassion. But Christians justify the Iraq war--upon what I do not know. How convenient that we may view the collateral damage in Iraq as a unavoidable, thus absolved, and the suicide bombers as willfully evil, but the innocent cannot tell a difference. You can't just blow that off, especially in hindsight.

This cuts to the heart of issue, in my opinion.

lovecakes said...

And Bratton,

Don't take anything I say here as personal or anti-Christian--I think I'd like you personally. You seem like a person who loves his family very much and takes his faith very seriously.

May you prosper.

lovecakes said...

Thou shalt not "kill," bepatient. The morally relevant nuance is an ammendment. But don't feel bad, all fundies do it.

And yes, you would have to stretch the New Testament, but the point is moot since the Old certainly justifies the sword. And I don't think many Muslims will parce the nuance. I mean the two come as a package, no?

Come on, with all the nuance you guys rely upon, share a little with Islam. What are you, stingy?

bepatient said...

There is plenty of dispute over the original translation and whether it says "kill" or "murder". Just because you and I learned it as "kill" in VBS 20 years ago doesn't mean that is the original meaning.

lovecakes said...

Whatever dude,

The point is established that Bratton will apply an erroneous syllogistic* argument to all of Islam, but eschews the exact same for the history of Christianity.

Enjoy y'all's nuances.

*Example of syllogism:
a.Here is an example of libruls doing x.
b. x is evil.
c. Thus, all libruls are evil.

lovecakes said...

Yet another:

a.Mike Bratton is a Christian.
b.Cakes disputes erroneous assertions by Bratton.
c.Ergo, Cakes is anti-Christian.

And:

a. x is a Pedophile.
b. x is also a Southern Baptist minister.
c. Thus, all Southern Baptist ministers are pedophiles.

Now, how do the good fundamentalists win over the bad fundamentalists?

lovecakes said...

bepatient,

So, if the commandment says murder, and you, stone-cold drunk, run a stop sign and kill someone unintentionally, then technically speaking, you've not broken the commandment.

This is just rhetorical--I know you don't believe that. Just pointing out the slippery slope you tread if you justify Bush's war by trying to parce the meaning of that commandment.

I'm not the Biblical literalist here, but I presumed most of you all were.

bepatient said...

well cakes,

I haven't actually said I support any wars.... and while I do respect the authority set before me (same as I did Bill Clinton and I didn't agree with all his choices either), I do think that war is not something we should set into lightly. I think the current war is an issue that is way too complex to just simply say I support it 100%.

We are there and it is too late to do anything about it, so we have to make the best of the circumstances we have.

I told you I would be happy to discuss all of this with you, but first I would like you to answer the original question. Because it seems to me you are more interested in pointing out the faults of Mike and Christians than focusing on the issue at hand, something you frequently lambasted us for back at the NBBCOF.

So, do the fundamental beliefs of Muslims include a worldview of totalitarian domination?

Arminius said...

Here's your answer.

lovecakes said.

Yeah,

I've cleared the room over at Bratton's challenging his lumping all of Islam together as out for world domination.

A timid bunch, they are.

lovecakes said...

bepatient,

No, I'm pointing out the double-standard. Since you are a Christian, you may insist that my purpose is anti-Christian, despite my repeated caveats.

Obviously, some Muslims do seek world domination by the fatwas of this or that Imam.

But the issues of the Middle are not a religious problem, only mired in the stew of a long and disputed history. The PLO wants Israel out of the occupied territories, Hezbollah wants Israel out of Lebanon, they both view the US as the enabler and supplier of Israel, not to mention the birthplace and backers of Zionism (yet another fundamentalist movement).

It is ridiculous to stand upon a soapbox and lump all of Islam together. There is no Pope, no universal belief system, reading of scripture and many Imams eschew violence or even a political interpretation of scripture.

Believing it is so is a reflection of fear, ignorance and, dare I say, one's own fundamentalist tendencies.

lovecakes said...

Arnimus,

Taddle, taddle.

Somehow, I expected more...

Psych! No, really, that's about par for the course here.

Thus, yes, timid, so very timid.

bepatient said...

We spent months pointing out the double standard over "there" and you weren't so supportive of that position back then.

So the post isn't "bologny" as much as perhaps it is just painting with a broad brush?

You are so quick to dismiss things in their entirety simply because you find fault with one part of it or the fact that it wasn't done "just right"....

lovecakes said...

"You are so quick to dismiss things in their entirety simply because you find fault with one part of it or the fact that it wasn't done "just right"...."

Are you talking about Islam? No, you're not--Christians always want to be the exception to their own rules.

What double-standard "over there?" The one where a rag-tag bunch of Bellevue members and friends alienated by the administration who have the pulpit, stage lights, deep pockets, a printing house, a bevy of lawyers, and enough sycophants to lambast people already deeply injured and hurting.

You're right, thanks for pointing that out.

bepatient said...

The fact is those guys would love you to believe that they have the market cornered on hurting- but they forget to mention all the people they have hurt along the way.

No, I am referring to all the issues at play here. Mike's statement about Islam is one of them. But you also dismiss Christianity because we don't get it all right either. Seeing as you spent some portion of your life as a Baptist, at some point you had to make a decision that the bad outweighed the good.

Same thing here. Even though you may agree with part of the statement you refuse to recognize the validity of ANY of it because of the part that you don't think is right.

lovecakes said...

Let me correct myself:

Some "christians;" I don't wish to infer a blanket dismissal of all of Christendom and come off as intolerant.

lovecakes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lovecakes said...

bepatient,

I would not spend so much of my time hanging out with Christians if I truly believed that you are all bad. I don't.

I could not continue to be a Christian, in the manner that I was brought up, because I could no longer hold to the belief that one faith is exclusive, superior, thus dismissing 3/4ths of the world's population, many of whom find Christianity--the doctrine of original sin, the virgin birth, and the tapestry of beliefs and conventions by its disparate traditions--as strange and even unbeneficial as you percieve their own.

I don't believe Christians have a corner on truth, nor any other group or tradition. I'm ok with the mystery, and it is a part of my faith to respect all faiths and eschew such blanket characterizations like the one half-argued by Bratton.

Sorry again to stink up the room.

Arminius said...

cakes said...

Psych! No, really, that's about par for the course here.


What do you mean 'here'? I post on the NBBCOF waaaaaaay more often than here. Why are you nice to me there but mean here?

;-)

lovecakes said...

May I add that, even if you do believe you have the corner on truth, and hold views about Muslims or people of other faiths that I feel are in error, I in no way presume that you are bad people. I have to believe, even if we part ways intellectually and spiritually, you are all precious human beings, living in a manner that you deem right and by the principles of your faith or ideology.

I can be unrelenting in debate, but don't take it personally. I have no anger or hatred for any of you, and have enjoyed the tussle.

Many respects,

David

lovecakes said...

Sorry Arnimus,

Have I mentioned what a wonderful person you are lately?

Why'd you taddle on me? Takes me back to the bugsii dayz, with evil-ole me linking to porn and all.

Many smootches

junk99mail said...

lovecakes,
Folks here should be grateful for your participation on this thread. It had all of two comments for 4 days (neither one really on topic) until you posted your disagreement. Now it has way more than most of Mike's previous topics. And all because of one li'l ole Boo-dyst!

lovecakes said...

Yeah Junk99,

And Bratton, may I wish you a belated Happy Memorial Day!

unmemphis said...

Mike and others
Check the orgins of the Southern Baptist Church. It was formed to endorse and support slavery.

lovecakes said...

Unmemphis,

Oh no! There goes the neighborhood.

unmemphis said...

The Southern Baptist Convention of 1995 voted June 20 to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery. The racism resolution marked the denomination's first formal acknowledgment that racism played a role in its founding.

unmemphis said...

Lovecakes
let me give you bratton's reply to this news.

well they weren't real southern baptist

lovecakes said...

Yeah,

But they weren't truly Southern Baptists back then, it was just a cloak; no authentic Southern Baptist actually existed until after the resolution in 1995.

lovecakes said...

Hey, we had a mind-meld.

(opps, that will be what Bratton leaps upon.)

solomon said...

arminius wrote...
Why are you nice to me there but mean here?


Arminius/John Mark/JD/etc,

In the spirit of this thread, maybe cakes is practicing the Muslim tradition of honoring the mentally disabled when he's nice to you on the NBBCOF.

lovecakes said...

Solomon,

Your picture is awesome.

unmemphis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unmemphis said...

unmemphis said...
lovecakes said...
Hey, we had a mind-meld.

I'm not a vulcan I'm a Klingon. Who hates child molesting priest and ministers, and wonder about their supporters who call themselves God fearing people and True Christians.

8:02 PM, June 05, 2007

Arminius said...

Sol, that was completely uncalled for. You could learn a few things from Mr. Habib yourself.

lovecakes said...

Amen brother unmemphis,

I'm with you there.

You can stop furrowing your brow now.

bepatient said...

I don't recall anyone saying they weren't grateful for cakes' participation, but whatever....

I just wanted to stay on topic.

The thing is, you are making the assumption that all of "us" over here hold identical beliefs when in actuality, I think we vary widely on the "non-essentials".

unmemphis said...

okey-dokey
hipocritters cause me to furrow

faithnhope said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
4545 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unmemphis said...

4545 what do you think of your church's beginning beliefs about African Americans?

lovecakes said...

I'm not. >;^}>

But I'm also da boo-dhist in da room.

Arn, you must be a looker. Whoo-we, romance on the internets.

lovecakes said...

4545,

Actually, wow, sad, Shakespeare.

WatchingHISstory said...

"You, sir, are a first class nut!"
posters say, I am an insane idiot, demon possessed, need to be sent to Bolivar.

I am banned from posting on NBBC Open Forum.

I wear this ban as a memorial to truth.

Reading these blogs from NBBCOF on Mike's blog makes being called a first class nut a real joke!!!

How can any of you be taken seriously?

I greatly anticipate your response. I need humor in my life!!!

unmemphis said...

Well lovecakes , I guess bratton will delete us when we leave the building. Since he ran away I will leave him with this thought.
Mikey, there are good and bad people in every church,community,race,and religion.
judge each one on an individual basis .

lovecakes said...

Well, you've got a knee-slapper right under your nose:

"I wear this ban as a memorial to truth."

solomon said...

Just to clear up any possible confusion, the posts by faithnhope and 4545 were both made by arminius.

Just do a mouse over on the name and you'll see his trademark profile that ends with 85939.


Arminius,
I don't know what your game is. Maybe you think you're doing some good (I can't imagine what), or maybe there's just not much else to do in Wooley Springs, Alabama. I've seen your posts under various names on the NBBCOF trying to bait me into the discussions but I'm not biting.

If you've not read your Bible lately, you might want to study Hebrews 4:13,
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

If you are a Christian, then you're going to have a lot of explaining to do. Why don't you send me a coherent email and we'll talk.

KS

lovecakes said...

UnMemphis,

I like the sentiment expressed, but Bratton doesn't censor or ban individuals, at least to my knowledge.

bepatient said...

I think if we are going to discount all of Southern Baptistry ? for it's history then we are going to have to get rid of a lot of things in this world....

lovecakes said...

"I think if we are going to discount all of Southern Baptistry ? for it's history then we are going to have to get rid of a lot of things in this world...."

Yea, like hay rides, certs and cheap suits.

oc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
unmemphis said...

bepatient said...
I think if we are going to discount all of Southern Baptistry ? for it's history then we are going to have to get rid of a lot of things in this world....

9:02 PM, June 05, 2007

Same for Islamics,Catholics,Mormons and all those that Southern Baptist consider evil because of their religious beliefs.

unmemphis said...

Forgot to add Buddist's sorry Lovecakes

bepatient said...

All Southern Baptists think Muslims are evil? Who is making broad judgments now?

unmemphis said...

well what is this thread all about??????
and I speak thusly so"duh"

unmemphis said...

Tell me bepatient ,is the Catholic church a Christian church ???

bepatient said...

lets see we don't agree about religion, abortion, war, politics...

hmmm... what else have we got Cakes?

Perhaps we can try to figure out why "religious" folks tend to be okay with Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and the like, but not Harry Potter?

unmemphis said...

bepatient said...
All Southern Baptists think Muslims are evil? Who is making broad judgments now?

9:10 PM, June 05, 2007

bepatient you refusal to answer this question proves my point. thanks

junk99mail said...

bepatient said...
I don't recall anyone saying they weren't grateful for cakes' participation, but whatever....

I don't recall anyone saying they weren't grateful either, nor anyone implying that anyone else wasn't grateful.

The thing is, you are making the assumption that all of "us" over here hold identical beliefs when in actuality, I think we vary widely on the "non-essentials".

Not sure who the "you" here is, me or lovecakes, or someone else. I can't speak for what lovecakes or anyone else assumes, but then neither can you.

Also not sure where "over here" is, unless you are intending to define this blog's raison d'ĂȘtre as the "anti-so-called-anti-BBC" blog. I doubt Mike would agree.

bepatient said...

I don't know what I consider the Catholic Church to be. I have very little experience with what exactly they believe. Besides, people have differing opinions on what the word even means, so I would have to know what you think it means to be able to tell you if I think the Catholics fall under that umbrella

solomon said...

unmemphis,

This is a discussion thread. Mike has his own opinions (as do you), and he has posted them here for us to bat them around.

There's no need to be angry or feel frustrated. Mike does not delete posts unless they contain offensive language.

Your point seems to be that since the Southern Baptist convention was created out of a disagreement over slavery then it is tainted. I disagree. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, but through their sin his prophecy that Israel would be slaves in a foreign land was fulfilled. What they meant for evil God used for good.

If you're looking for a perfect expression of goodness from perfect motives in this world, you're in for a long hard search. If you're looking for a perfect Lord who can redeem any and every situation, then you're already there.

junk99mail said...

lovecakes said...
Yea, like hay rides, certs and cheap suits.

Certs? As in "two, two, two mints in one"? Where does that fit in? Some sort of official Southern Baptist or fundamentalist breath freshener??

bepatient said...

junk99mail said...

lovecakes,
Folks here should be grateful for your participation on this thread.


Perhaps I misunderstood, but it would imply to me that we are not grateful.


and the second part was not directed at you, sorry for not making that clear.

junk99mail said...

solomon said...
If you're looking for a perfect expression of goodness from perfect motives in this world, you're in for a long hard search. If you're looking for a perfect Lord who can redeem any and every situation, then you're already there.

Very well said, bro. Keith!

unmemphis said...

bepatient said
"so I would have to know what you think it means to be able to tell you if I think the Catholics fall under that umbrella "

come on with a real answer this is very dishonest I guess you would say the same about Mormons,
guess you fall under that umbrella

unmemphis said...

If you're looking for a perfect expression of goodness from perfect motives in this world, you're in for a long hard search. If you're looking for a perfect Lord who can redeem any and every situation, then you're already there.

Well you guys in the SBC and Catholics who hide child molesters and then defend those creeps show your true colors

bepatient said...

huh?

junk99mail said...

bepatient said...
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it would imply to me that we are not grateful.

I knew that's what you meant; I was just responding to your indirect statement in kind. Perhaps I was unclear, but it was not my intent to imply a lack of gratitude, only to say that gratitude to 'cakes for spicing things up a bit was in order. (You know, like when the Bible tells us to rejoice; it isn't necessarily saying we weren't already.)

lovecakes said...

"Forgot to add Buddist's sorry Lovecakes."

No, no exception taken; you are right.

junk99mail said...

Look! Mike's got his very own troll tonight!! He should be beaming with pride to be so blessed! (Not to imply he isn't already beaming.)

lovecakes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
solomon said...

unmemphis said...
Well you guys in the SBC and Catholics who hide child molesters and then defend those creeps show your true colors


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sure looks like you're branding us, unmemphis. How can we carry on an honest conversation with you?

solomon said...

cakes said...
Solomon,

Your picture is awesome.


Why, thank you! Yours is, well, certainly distinctive...

lovecakes said...

There are my-way-or-the-highway Buddhist all over this world.

Then there's freelancers like me. ;)

bepatient said...

I'm going to bed. This has all made me very tired. Well, maybe that was a long morning of wrangling 4th graders, but either way I need my beauty sleep....


cakes, thanks for the conversation. Email me if you think about it- I have an unrelated question for you and I am too lazy to go look and see if you have your email address linked.

lovecakes said...

bepatient,

Sleep well, friend; I'm not a hater.

Mike Bratton said...

My, my...

I spend some time elsewhere and look what blossoms! :)

David, feel free to e-mail me. You already know I think you have one of the coolest jobs in history, and I have no doubt that you and I would get along famously--and that we already do.

And "unmemphis," whatever that means and whoever you are, let me give you a few pointers:

1) I don't ban, unless you make a habit of using expletives. I don't even delete posts, unless you use expletives.

2) This is a place to discuss issues of faith, family, and culture. Feel free to engage in the discussion.

3) One of the motivating factors of the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention was its advocacy of slavery. It's nothing new, but it is nevertheless shameful. You bringing it into the discussion out of left field, however, doesn't advance things. Please stay focused.

4) Around here, there's no such thing as a "troll," becuase of the fact that I don't care to label individuals. I'm here to discuss and debate ideas--sometimes that's a novelty.

5) The Bible tells us that we, as human beings, are all fallen, all bad, that there's nothing we can do to earn our way to heaven, and that what we consider to be our best tricks are nothing but filthy rags in the sight of a holy God. Islam lies to people when it suggests they can work their way into heaven, which is another reason--besides its goal of totalitarianism--to avoid it.

Hope that helps you, and others reading and writing along. Apologies for not being here so much, but life away from the Internet has been particularly fun lately.

Now, where were we?

--Mike

NBBCOF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
oc said...

Arminius.

Quit posting as me,punk.

junk99mail said...

Mike Bratton said...
1) I don't ban, unless you make a habit of using expletives. I don't even delete posts, unless you use expletives.

It's your blog, of course, so you set the rules -- but it seems to me that allowing posts to remain when someone has used somone else's well-known screen name is a bad idea and potentially encourages a form of identity theft. (cyber-pseudonym theft?)

4) Around here, there's no such thing as a "troll," becuase of the fact that I don't care to label individuals. I'm here to discuss and debate ideas--sometimes that's a novelty.

Aww, Mike, c'mon ... you know a troll when you see one. Just cuz some (including yourself) have been mislabelled trolls at times doesn't mean real trolls don't exist.

lovecakes said...

Thanks, Mike.

Blessed be.

junk99mail said...

lovecakes said...
Blessed be.

Experimenting with Wicca now, 'cakes? Or just avoiding those boo-dhyst greetings?

Ever watch Lost? When I saw an episode with a sign that said "Namaste" to people joining the Dharma Initiative, I thought about ya.

lovecakes said...

Is that a Wicca thing? Sorry, no offense--my Grandmother perhaps had a secret Wiccan past, cause she said it all the time.

junk99mail said...

No offense taken. I doubt Wiccans have the corner on it, but it is one of their common phrases.

But what about Lost?

Mike Bratton said...

David, the sentiment is appreciated. But what's this about room-clearing and, um, timidity? ;)

And folks, if a post ever looks askew to you, just click the screen name of the author, rendered in that lovely shade of blue. Regardless of how someone represents himself or herself in a post, the name attached to the account used to make the post is always easy to find.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

It was pretty dead in here for a while. Pot shots here and there. Your interludes keep things moving along at a faster clip, generally.

But I completely understand--one has to turn the computer off from time-to-time for sanity's sake.

Glad you got the most from your break.

lovecakes said...

Speaking of which, it's beddy-bye time for the beddy-boodhist.

lovecakes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Bratton said...

After a request, and careful consideration, I've deleted the 9:05 p.m. post which was intentionally misattributed.

This means I've added a new condition for the deletion of posts: When you presume to usurp someone else's online identity, the posts you make while doing that will disappear.

Scripture says to let your yes be yes, and your no be no; trying to borrow someone else's name, particularly to make remarks which put that person in a bad light, don't meet that Biblical standard, so I'll not let them fly here.

--Mike

oc said...

Thanks Mike.





oc.

WatchingHISstory said...

The NBBCOF devotees to Adrian Rogers and his emphases in ministry leave him a final chapter in his legacy that will be less than complimentary!

Inspite of that Christ will still be glorified.

WatchingHISstory said...

junk99mail

"cyber-pseudonym theft"

we are learning the high cost of identity theft

taking from John Spragens' title, we could call it "rape of cyber-pseudonym" Afterall we are all victims of sorts.

So Mike who believes in an open forum rather than a closed forum will not tolerate identity theft.

solomon said...

Great news about our troll, everyone!

Usually when Arminius emails me he hides the return address 'spam style'. Last night he forgot to do that, though, and it had his real name all over it. I was able to find his name with a web search right down to the street address.

I told him to stop stirring up trouble or I'd go NASS on him (ace-style).

bepatient said...

Cakes, I thought of you as well when I saw that episode of Lost...

lovecakes said...

"Cakes, I thought of you as well when I saw that episode of Lost..."

Well, I guess from y'all's perspective, how apropos--haha.

Hey, did you have a dream last night where you found out that an elipsis has only three consecutive periods?

Somebody's looking out for you.

lovecakes said...

Oi,

I grew a beard trying to get through word verification--it seems with some fancy fonts, distinquishing between the u and v is impossible, and often the letters are so distorted and jumbled, I cannot make out jack.

bepatient said...

yes.... I am a big big big fan of the dots...........................

always have been. I try to hold back but I can't help it... I just love them.

Also, you or someone else mentioned it once before so now I just do it so that no one will think I am a cyber identity thief and to drive people like you crazy....

and etc. ;)

lovecakes said...

bepatient,

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

(the last one is actually a period.)

junk99mail said...

Mike Bratton said...
This means I've added a new condition for the deletion of posts: When you presume to usurp someone else's online identity, the posts you make while doing that will disappear.

Cool...I think that was a good call.

junk99mail said...

lovecakes said...
"Cakes, I thought of you as well when I saw that episode of Lost..."

Well, I guess from y'all's perspective, how apropos--haha.


Well, of course ... but do you have some reason for not wanting to say whether you watch the show or not? Don't tell me ... you are one of those fundamentalist boo-dhysts who shuns all TV as being of Mara??

lovecakes said...

Honestly,

I don't know the show, and don't watch a lot of TV. I often wish I could afford cable, but by the end of house-sitting last weekend, I was pretty sick of the lame choices on Comcast and I just don't have time for a lot of watching.

I do love a good program though. If I have cable, it's always on C-Span, especially Book TV--I discovered a lot of great authors that way--William Least Heat Moon was a real eye-opener. Shelby Foote was always great.

I never have followed network television shows (save Star Trek and Sanford & Son reruns) and find most of it whittled into mediocrity. But I have no staunch stand on what people watch and enjoy; perhaps you might tell me about the program Lost.

junk99mail said...

lovecakes said...
I don't know the show, and don't watch a lot of TV.

I knew it! A closet fundie!!!

It's about a group of people who's plane crash landed on an island. Kinda Survivor meets Castaway meets X-Files. Entertaining and not as vapid as a lot of shows. You'd have to see it from the start to appreciate what's going on, but you'd probably like it.

bepatient said...

Lost is a fantastic show! I am re-watching all the old episodes during the break, and it is so just so thoughtfully made and I think that is what I appreciate most. The attention to detail.

I gotta agree about Comcast, the only reason I pay for TV is so I can have the DVR- and endless repeats of Futurama to keep my husband happy.

The only thing I have taped recently that was any good was the Star Wars stuff they just had on the history channel. Quite fascinating.

I love TV, even with all it's faults. And I can predict with frightening accuracy which shows will make it and which one just based on the early descriptions- if the networks would just hire me they would save themselves about a bazillion dollars. The only one I missed was stupid "Prison Break". I don't get why people like that show but whatever.


If you are going to watch anything on TV though, I recommend (in addition to Lost of course)is Ugly Betty.

It is funny and well done although a bit sappy at times. Might be offensive to some sensibilities, seeing as they have homosexual and trans-gendered characters though.
I just the campy throw backs to the Spanish soap operas!

That being said- I am not all shallow, I also read about 75 books a year.

bepatient said...

Sorry for the terrible mistakes in that last post. I think you can still figure it out. I am trying to do too much at once and the baby is pulling on my ponytail while I type.

junk99mail said...

bepatient said...
if the networks would just hire me they would save themselves about a bazillion dollars.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently (one that 'cakes will probably like)...

The president is receiving his daily briefing on the Iraq war. He is told, "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

WatchingHISstory said...

David Brown

The cycle of abuse should stop but usually doesn't.

Matthew 5:22 (Contemporary English Version)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society
22But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, you will have to stand trial. If you call someone a fool, you will be taken to court. And if you say that someone is worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell.

The Living Bible paraphrases 'worthless' as 'idiot' The KJV reads 'thou fool'

You called me an 'insane idiot'.

According to Christ, you have raped me of my identity and personhood. I forgive you, the perpetrator, and am going to get on with my life. I pray that you will do the same. This should be a private matter handled by e-mail or on the phone but I was raped on line before all the bloggers. So everyone should hear our exchange. I am not going to be a victim of this. I am breaking the cycle. I will struggle with the temptation to ever refer to anyone as idiot, stupid, crazy, nut, or any such word that would do harm to anyones' identity.

I may need counseling!!

lovecakes said...

"I may need counseling!!"

You do, my friend, just not for any virtual rape by David Brown.

Get help.

bugsii said...

WatchingHISstory....Do you see a pattern on these blogs where people seem to keep thinking you have a mental problem? Do you by chance think that it just a few wierdos that think that? In my history bouncing between these blogs, you are the first person I've seen that has been told to get counseling by someone on each side of the fence. And I agree.

I engaged you once until you stopped making sense. I do not know you and I wish the best for you but I strongly urge you to seek help.

If you are not currently being counseled or under a doctor's care, do not deceive yourself into thinking you don't need it.

The only other option is that you are intentionally acting mentally disturbed. If that's the case, you have been very effective.

junk99mail said...

I'm trying out new profile photos ...

junk99mail said...

This one works pretty good ...

bugsii said...

I can't believe the responses to Larry Ray's expected/suspected/whatever pastorate on NBBCOF. A few semi-positive remarks toward Larry and then they start the swing to pick Evangel Baptist apart(reformed Baptist and preaching elders). They're like swarming locusts. Everything's evil. Wait...I do believe that is an appropriate response on that site.

WatchingHISstory said...

bugsii

I have been under excellent counseling for over one and a half year. He is one of the best and I would be a fool if I thought that I didn't need it.

Thanks for your concern.

solomon said...

bugsii,

I'm waiting for certain people to starting slamming Charles Stanley because of his divorce.

Who do you think will start the ball rolling? 10 to 1 it'll be arminius under one of his new names.

bugsii said...

Solomon, I'm afraid that Charles Stanley's divorce was to clean cut(compared to most I quess). There's not enought meat there for them to tear him apart. Not that that is beyond them. I just don't get it! It is so much of the mold of the Pharisees demanding holiness from everyone else but not showing any mercy or grace. I have not posted too often on these sites but read them as much as time allows. It has been a very interesting learning experience.

Watchinghistory, it relieves me to hear you say that. My heart goes out to you. I had a close relative with similar issues. It breaks my heart. I will pray for you.

bugsii

WatchingHISstory said...

bugsii

This was a Christ-following counselor. He led me through John 15 verse by verse.

He uncovered an abusive situation in my life when I was 12 years old. It was an extremely embrassassing situation that left me fearful of what people thought of me.

I carried this fear in my heart for over 45 years. He led me into boldness to speak up and not be afraid of what others would think.

He showed me how that the world had hated Christ and that the world would hate me as well. He said, "if they persecuted Christ don't be surprised if they persecute you."

My counselor keeps me focused on Christ and guides me to be bold.

I hope that your relative has found as good a counselor.

Keep praying for me.

solomon said...

bugsii,

I've heard it said that you really can't give grace away until you receive it. Sometimes when I read the posts I honestly have to wonder about the person behind the keyboard.

But don't forget the troublemakers. Certain people seem to enjoy elevating an already emotional situation, and I have to wonder about them as well. I understand why Satan wants to lead Christians into sin, but a person?

solomon said...

Off the topic, but has anyone heard from springerspaniel lately?

Karen said...

bugs,

Were you offended by my joke on the BBC blog? I'm sorry if you were because it wasn't meant to offend. I made the comment about "flying Elvises" because I thought it was funny. I in now way disparaged Larry nor Evangel Baptist - I was exclusively referring to the "preaching elders" comment of the email I received. Was what I said wrong? Can we not joke at all anymore?

Solomon, you emailed me that you wouldn't be blogging - nice to see you in action. :)

karen

solomon said...

karen,

I'm not going to run out on everyone just yet. I am going to limit myself, though.

While we were down in Florida over the holiday me and my wife witnessed a drowning from the balcony of our condo. Our girls were on the beach when it happened, and I've never been more horrified in my life not knowing where they were. I mean, it was the sickest feeling I've ever had. The experience gave us (me especially) a timely reminder to keep the first things first. Jesus never intended for His church to divide families. I've spent far too many evenings blogging when I could have been enjoying the wonderful wife and children God has blessed me with by His grace. I think He tried to send me a message when that child fainted on Easter Sunday, but I heard it loud and clear this time.

I'm planning on checking in once or twice a week to keep up, but if you see me any more than that please call me out! (Although, as fleshly as it might be, it felt REALLY GOOD to bust arminius!!! I have this almost irresistable urge to drive to his house and say hello. Or maybe I'll let Mike do it. Hazel Green is only 2 hours north of B'ham...)

Anyway, the last I remember, springerspaniel had asked for prayer for his sister. I haven't seen any posts from him since, and I hope he knows we haven't forgotten about him.

bugsii said...

Solomon, Charles Stanley was immediately brought up over on the other side. Prophet!! Adam wins the price...he may have been baiting but it didn't last long.

Karen, I was not offended at your joke. I made no mention of flying anything. You can joke all you want but I'm wondering why you chuckle that Evangel would have a link to Truthseekers? I'm also wondering why you decided to post an email from a friend about preaching elders and Evangel being reformed Baptist?

You did refer to the preaching elder comment but you said your friend "asked to share this - don't shred me."
Why did your friend want you to share it? To stir up the shredders?

Godly man accepting God's call to a little church. I'm not offended, just amazed that any appearance of evil could be found in that. Of course it's all in context of NBBCnotOF so maybe I'm just a little too sensitive.

I would have addressed it on the other site but I am banned I guess. The last time I tried to post I complimented cakes in a statement he made and my comment was not allowed. I guess I'm troll-ish. Good night.

lovecakes said...

Bugsii,

There is perhaps a little more sensitivity to some kinds of speech at the NBBCOF to the flock that it is meant to foster.

I respect Mike's principle of not banning or deleting comments, and thank him for his patience and measured tolerance for a certain Boo-dhist in the room.

I've come to the place in my heart where I don't have to find enmity with people who rightly or often wrongly, live in a manner and hold to values that I do not. I have the view that our beliefs and rationales should muster debate, and that if they cannot, then he or she must not be too proud or principled to acknowledge error. Otherwise, it is just blind faith that is not accessible through reason or analysis, rendering rhetoric superfluous and a waste of time.

But by in large, for whatever reason, this forum is host to the apologists for the BBC leadership, the can-we-move-on-alreadys, the let-he-is-without-sin-cast-the-first-stone folk, etc. I mean, your milieu is largely that of the church itself, exterminated of its critics.

People are raw and hurting over at NBBCOF, some are done with church, and it has been, since its inception, attacked and berated by minions of the leadership, every kind of threat and bafoonery have been directed at NBBCOF regulars by immature troublemakers, and otherwise, a pretty steady stream of incursions by Bellevue apologists often show up to argue. If the moderator of that forum feels the need to stem that, then I support it. A blog is not a democracy, people forget; it is the perview of its creator and moderator.

I find that NASS is very tolerant and measured, unless you go postal--as many have done. In all occasions where my screen name was too blue, or I strayed too far from topic, I was politely directed, and I replied likewise; I am still welcome among my new friends there.

You still wish to lump all of them "over there" en mass. That blog is not a monolith (nor is this one); it is the meeting place of individuals impacted by the hamfisted handling of a sensitive matter, and what appears to be a stagemanaged PR campaign as a response.

In the absence of Bellevue's obvious dillusion of not providing a forum, to poo-poo all of the NBBCOF, even with its excesses, is like damning the sky because it's blue. At least preserve a little of that contempt for your crackerjack leadership.

Haven't y'all yet learned the danger of lumping together?

bepatient said...

Cakes, I hear what you have to say, but please remember that they are using the outlet for their hurt to turn around and hurt others. I will never be okay with that. Also, no offense, but it is really easy to stay neutral and only see one side of things when you aren't living in it on a daily basis and it is not your friends and family you see being attacked for the world to see.

bugsii said...

Cakes, just so you'll understand where I am with my crackerjack leadership, I am visiting other churches and will positively move my membership from Bellevue soon. I don't have to state why but I can tell you it's a decision that was not made lightly. My children have grown up at Bellevue and that's the only church they've known.

It has nothing to do with Bellevue or anti-Bellevue sentiments. My hope has only been in God and He is always faithful and He's the one that has brought me to this point.

I have never been a Bellevue apologist. I have given the ministers involved in the recent controversies the benefit of the doubt since I do not know all the details of every infraction. I believe that they should suffer the consequences of any and all inappropriate behavior. However, I have solely trusted that God will work that out and maybe that's happening now...the Bellevue sanctuary is more hollow every week regardless of what the numbers say.

In Matthew, Jesus had just got through trashing out the hypocrits who ran the temple when the disciples pointed out the beauty of the temple buildings. Christ declared to them that not one stone would be left standing on another. It ain't about the place at 2000 Appling Road. Maybe that huddle needs to break?

I'd be curious if Karen will respond to my questions. But I don't care anymore.

lovecakes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lovecakes said...

Bugsii,

Well, my advice is to not walk quietly into that dark night...

Unless you think that is the Godly thing to do.

lovecakes said...

Limited to the infractions listed in the BBCPCIR, those are enough to have grave misgivings about the leadership's capabilities, and there has seemed to be no accountablity.

Again, this from the "personal responsibility" crowd. Mistakes, of the head and heart alike, have consequences (the poor are told). At least the truthseekers know that they cannot hold up such a principle and not apply the same to one of their own. Hopefully, we're past the point of offering priests and padres free throws.

But, seemingly, not at Bellevue.

oc said...

Bugsi said,

I can't believe the responses to Larry Ray's expected/suspected/whatever pastorate on NBBCOF. A few semi-positive remarks toward Larry and then they start the swing to pick Evangel Baptist apart(reformed Baptist and preaching elders). They're like swarming locusts. Everything's evil. Wait...I do believe that is an appropriate response on that site.

oc says:
Bugsi, if you really think it is evil, flee from it, don't go seeking it. And, if you really think it is evil, then apparently you like dabbling in evil. What does that say about you?

WatchingHISstory said...

I keep asking myself over and over, "what was going on 17 years ago?"

Bellevue was built on Appling Road.
The kingmakers were masterminding the conservative resurgence and what else was going on?

solomon said...

cakes said...
I've come to the place in my heart where I don't have to find enmity with people who rightly or often wrongly, live in a manner and hold to values that I do not.


I don't get it.

Ever since the dam burst, I seen professing Christians at each other's throats, calling each other names, questioning the salvation of other Christians, and even hoping God would strike the pastor dead. I don't recall Jesus doing any of those things.

Now, here's a self described 'back slidden Buddhist' preaching a message of grace, exhorting others to treat their neighbor with respect.

Shouldn't the Christians be doing that too?

bugsii said...

oc,
I didn't say it was evil nor was I seeking evil. I said that the people on that site tend to think everything is evil. But I will retract that statement and not lump together.

You on the other hand are the individual that was basically threatening another poster on the other site and calling them idiots. I remember you well.

You want to meet me outside the church too??

Cakes, I do not consider it a dark night but I do plan on walking quietly. I do think that is the Godly thing to do. I am excited about the path in front of me and my family.

solomon said...

17 years ago,

Bellevue was built on Appling Road.
The kingmakers were masterminding the conservative resurgence and what else was going on?


Watching! How did you know that Sunday is my anniversary? Wow, it's hard to believe it's been 17 years already!

1990 - what a great year!!!

lovecakes said...

Bugsii,

Follow what you think is right in your heart, and find it in your heart to allow others to do likewise.

One of the things a friend told me while I was going through a painful divorce was that you'll never regret doing what is right and honorable.

bugsii said...

Man, I have to get this off my chest or I'll go crazy. Please someone tell this isn't just crazy!! I actually learned something from the Paris Hilton show today. Yes, that's right, Bible-toting Paris -yes it's true she is carrying a Bible. If you haven't seen the pic's of her and her Bible do a Google. I warn you that in one confusing pic she is carrying a Bible but obviously not wearing a bra. You have to QUICKLY find the Bible in the picture.

Anyway, I was listening to the story today about her wailing and crying for mommy in court when they sent her back to "prison" to finish out her 45 day sentence. I thought "man she's acting like she's getting life sentence". I think most people would say that they would just shut up and get their 45 days over with.

Anyway it occurred to me that Paris lives life so large that 45 days may indeed seem like a life sentence to her. Then I realized that my reaction would be a far cry from Paris'. I was thinking that while my family was screaming and crying about my 45 days, I'd secretly be excited about getting a lot of books read, catching up on some major sleep, and lifting weights so my kids can't beat me up anymore. How horrible! I want to shake and tremble like Paris at the thought of missing 45 days or even 1 day of my life - the gift of a life of mystery and excitement that God provides.

This is something that can only happen if we live our lives totally devoted to enjoying God in every aspect of our life. I think I need a little life rehab Lord.

Anyway, I guess I'll have to add Paris to my celeb prayer list. She's in good company with Ozzy Osbourne.

WatchingHISstory said...

17 years ago it wasn't conservative but emergent resurgence!

It was sealing of the doom of the SBC. In 1925 the God centered theology of "salvation is wholly of grace" was replaced in 1963 with a man centered evangelism of "salvation is for the whole man".

In 1989 the kingmakers were meeting in closed door sessions to seal the doom of the SBC as an emergent denomination.

The common root of all this is found in the same Church Growth institution that produced Rick Warren's purpose driven ministries.

Who was the leader of this SBC movement and where did he pastor and when did the pedophile come on the scene?

bugsii said...

I noticed as I performed my brain dump before going to bed last night I used "anyway" too much. It's was a bad combination of sleepiness and A.D.D.. My apologies.

I see that Watching followed up with a much more sober post. Can't salvation be wholly of grace and for the whole man?

I'm not familiar with the differences in those theologies.

junk99mail said...

WatchingHISstory said...
17 years ago it wasn't conservative but emergent resurgence!

It was sealing of the doom of the SBC. In 1925 the God centered theology of "salvation is wholly of grace" was replaced in 1963 with a man centered evangelism of "salvation is for the whole man".

In 1989 the kingmakers were meeting in closed door sessions to seal the doom of the SBC as an emergent denomination.

The common root of all this is found in the same Church Growth institution that produced Rick Warren's purpose driven ministries.

Who was the leader of this SBC movement and where did he pastor and when did the pedophile come on the scene?


The facts regarding the SBC conservative resurgence have been presented to you previously but they carry no weight with you. You do not know what you're talking about. It is obvious by your misuse of terms, your lack of historical knowledge, and your unwillingness to receive correction.

God has not given you any knowledge or revelation about this matter. For someone who claims to be a Calvinist, you have an amazing lack of understanding of the human capacity for self-deception.

You are wrong in almost everything you said in this post. It is as simple as that.

oc said...

oc,
I didn't say it was evil nor was I seeking evil. I said that the people on that site tend to think everything is evil. But I will retract that statement and not lump together.

You on the other hand are the individual that was basically threatening another poster on the other site and calling them idiots. I remember you well.

You want to meet me outside the church too??

oc replies:
I didn't threaten anyone. I did call some of them idiots. They were acting like idiots. It is what it is. And if challenged, I will meet the challenge.

Are you now threatening me to meet outside the church? Hmmm.

By the way, I saw nothing of that kind in my post to you. You seem to be dragging that along with you. Even though I have never addressed you in those ways,and therefore do not require your forgiveness, you are not the forgiving kind, are you? Well, at least I don't pretend to be righteous.
And, you don't seem able to answer the post without deflecting to cast aspersions on my character. Why is that, you who are so righteous?

bugsii said...

Did you not ask "What does that say about you?". Weren't you casting aspersions? I thought I completely answered your post. However my comment about meeting me outside the church was a sarcastic remark based on your statements to Watching some time back.

He was questioning whether the pedophile could have been part of God's plan and he was playing devil's advocate and not being hateful which is why I didn't like your responses. Here's your little series of posts from the other site. I tried to post and call you on the carpet but I'm a troll and not allowed on that site...

OC said...
If you think for one minute that God wants any child molested for any reason, then you are one sick puppy and you and I need to meet in person. I mean it.
8:17 PM, May 11, 2007

Therefore, shut up about saying that molesting kids is God's plan, and if you can't stop saying it, then meet me face to face. My email is available. Use it. PLEASE.
8:32 PM, May 11, 2007

Reply: Well, maybe you should take the advice. Shut up then. And as far as my mother goes, she told me not to put up with punks. Now what?
8:48 PM, May 11, 2007


That's sounds sort of like you were inviting that person to meet you in the schoolyard, outside the church, in the alley, etc...

And a few of your own comments testifying about yourself...

OK. Yes, I can be rather abrasive at times. Obnoxious even. And I have had to delete my own comments, realizing that I am in the wrong.
2:17 PM, May 28, 2007

Reply: Whoa. For the last couple of days you have been a vindictive wench. You have been nothing but mean to Karen. Now all of the sudden you get humility and gentleness. I guess you got your meds adjusted. Congratulations.
6:38 PM, May 30, 2007

I got caught up in it, and got called on because of my bad behavior by bepatient, and had to explain,kinda, and even had to apologize, kinda. This is what was said.


And don't forget this promise...

Anyway, I'm not going over there anymore. I get in enough trouble here, and you guys love me. Just sayin',
8:07 PM, June 01, 2007


As for casting aspersions, how am I not the forgiving type?? I never pretended to be righteous, I just drew a conclusion based on a pattern I saw in your posts on the other site. Hey, at least your consistent and open about your sin.

I will tell you that if I was allowed to post on that site you would see a consistent pattern in my posts I GUARANTEE !!

JUST SAYIN

lovecakes said...

Children, please!

oc said...

bugsi,

Guess what? You are right. You win. Feel good?

WatchingHISstory said...

junk said:

"God has not given you any knowledge or revelation about this matter."

If someone gets some special information from God they should surely check with you first!!

God has not given me any revelation because you have said he hasn't. I forgot to check with you first, my mistake.

I apologize.

oc said...

JUST SAYIN'.

junk99mail said...

WatchingHISstory said...
I apologize.

You're still wrong.

WatchingHISstory said...

The SBC started to be emergent in 1963 with the change in the salvation statement of the BF&M.
Then fron 1979 t0 2000 the SBC won the battle for evangelistic emergence under the umbrella of conservatism.

When you study the changes to the 1925, 1963 and 2000 statements for Scripture there is very little change in wording. 1963 "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." was changed to 2000: "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation"

Only a theologian (from the closed door sessions) could understand the need for this change. Liberals nor conservatives probally don't know exactly what is meant, including me. I'm sure Junk knows!! I have opinions.

But it seems to me that the fight to protect the innerancy of scripture was a red herring to draw attention from a bigger issue.

The bigger issue was evangelism and theology took back seat to "preaching of the gospel to all nations"

New emergent styles of reaching and discipling the nation through moving masses of people and governments was the bigger issue.

This was transitioning from an inhibiting orthodoxy to a seeker friendly environment. They were making the uncomfortable sinner comfortable so as to exercise his own determination in salvation and
making it easier for the evangelist to be a soul winner.

It is all hidden in the three BF&M statements from 1925-2000.

lovecakes said...

May I recommend some books by Robert Anton Wilson.

WatchingHISstory said...

cakes

some quick research

Ironically, considering Wilson long lampooned and criticized new age beliefs, his books can often be found in bookstores specializing in new age material. He was a well-known author in occult and Neo-Pagan circles; he wrote about Aleister Crowley and his ideas, and used him as a main character in his novel Masks of the Illuminati. Elements of H. P. Lovecraft's work are also found in his novels. He claimed to have perceived encounters with magical "entities," and when asked whether these entities were "real", he answered they were "real enough," although "not as real as the IRS" since they were "easier to get rid of."[citation needed] He warned against beginners using occult practice, since to rush into such practices and the resulting "energies" they unleash can lead people to go "quite nuts."[citation needed] Instead, he recommends beginners start with general semantics, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Zen Buddhism, basic meditation, etc.

WatchingHISstory said...

So why was the pedophile at Bellevue 17 years ago?

Arminius A. Troll said...

Watching,

Even trolls have a method to their madness. What's your point? The pedophile was hired at BBC in 1972, not 1989. The victim was molested by his father, not his pastor. No child has been abused at I-40 and Appling Road.

The emergent church is a backlash against the PDC, not an extension of it. Every church movement in history has been the result of the one that preceeded it, and 25 years from now we'll be lamenting the liberal deviants leading us away from our traditional emergent doctrines.

Steve Gaines and Adrian Rogers have both clearly proclaimed the Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of sin, and if that's a seeker-friendly gospel then sign me up.

You should take a long, careful look around you and see how many allies you have in your camp. Christians all share the same Spirit, and if you're alone you should ask yourself (and your counselor) why that might be.

bugsii said...

oc said...
bugsi,

Guess what? You are right. You win. Feel good?


I don't feel good right now. I read your post earlier and have been thinking about it throughout the day. "I didn't set out to win. But he says I won.". "Is this a trap?" I'm a little uncomfortable with you throwing in the towel like that. Can I get a ruling please lovecakes? Did I really win something?

junk99mail said...

arminius,
You are wasting efforts to attempt to educate watchinghisstory about the SBC, and the distinctions between PDC and emergent. His mind is made up based on a false belief in a relevation he believes was from God but which the evidence shows was not.

watching,
You continue to make untrue assertions without basis in fact or reality. I know by now that it does no good to debate or argue with you or attempt to provide correct information (such as the reason for the changes in wording of the versions of the BFM), so all I can stay is ... you are still wrong.

lovecakes said...

Yeah,

RAW is out there.

WatchingHISstory said...

What is the difference in PDC and Emergent churches? The SBC is a PDC and Emergent denomination.

How is the following criticism of Warrenism not applicable to the SBC as well as many other denominations?

A contemporary-styled "Seeker Service" aimed at drawing in the unsaved and the unchurched from the community must replace the traditional Sunday worship service. To do this successfully, the church service must be non-threatening, familiar and comfortable to the "seeker" (the unsaved visitor).

The message must be only positive. We consider this to be the most flagrant flaw. Yes, the saved and unsaved alike can feel better about themselves after a message that often mixes psychology and an uplifting Scripture text. Such topics as dealing with guilt, self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, mood enhancement or motivation for success will encourage the worldly, weary individual.

Doctrinal instruction is not given to the church as a whole on the Lord's Day. Despite the fact that the early church clearly sets forth the example that doctrine is to be taught on Sunday to all the church body, at Saddleback, doctrine is only taught to sub-groups of the congregation apart from the regular church services. Warren emphasized Saddleback's strategy of moving new members "around the bases" by having interested Christians take special classes to prepare them for service. Although Bible study groups also meet together, our question is this: Why is not the pulpit used to proclaim the "whole counsel of God" to the whole congregation assembled before it on the Lord's Day (Acts 20:20-31)?

WatchingHISstory said...

Arminius said

The emergent church is a backlash against the PDC, not an extension of it.

The emergent church came out of the Church Growth Movement of the late fifties and early sixties at fuller Theological Seminary and the PDC Movement was an extension of it. The SBC laid the foundation for it in 1963 with the changes to the BF&M statement.

" 25 years from now we'll be lamenting the liberal deviants leading us away from our traditional emergent doctrines."

You mean to tell me that liberal deviants haven't already led you into traditional emergent doctrines.

What will you have to lament 25 years from now?

"You should take a long, careful look around you and see how many allies you have in your camp. Christians all share the same Spirit, and if you're alone you should ask yourself (and your counselor) why that might be."

My counselor is the Holy Spirit. And thank you He has done a good job!

Though all Christians are unified around one 'spirit' and I stand alone, looking around me and there are no allies in my camp, I still have my counselor and advocate directing me. I would not be the first to stand alone and will not be the last. Majority don't rule in God's sight.

Arminius the Friendly Troll said...

What will you have to lament 25 years from now?

For one, thanks to Adrian Rogers, inerrancy of scripture.

I would not be the first to stand alone and will not be the last. Majority don't rule in God's sight.

"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice."

Just sayin!

WatchingHISstory said...

Romans 10:14
Parallel Translations

NASB: How then will they call on Him in whom they have NOT believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have NOT heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (NASB ©1995)

GWT: But how can people call on him if they have NOT believed in him? How can they believe in him if they have NOT heard his message? How can they hear if no one tells [the Good News]? (GOD'S WORD®)

KJV: How then shall they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

ASV: How then shall they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

BBE: But how will they give worship to him in whom they have NO faith? and how will they have faith in him of whom they have NOT had news? and how will they have news without a preacher?

DBY: How then shall they call upon him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe on him of whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without one who preaches?

WEY: But how are they to call on One in whom they have NOT believed? And how are they to believe in One whose voice they have NEVER heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?

WBS: How then shall they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

WEB: How then will they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? How will they believe in him whom they have NOT heard? How will they hear without a preacher?

YLT: How then shall they call upon [him] in whom they did NOT believe? and how shall they believe [on him] of whom they did NOT hear? and how shall they hear apart from one preaching?

Living Bible (paraphrased) But how shall they ask him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear unless someone tells them?

To be consistent with the other translations the paraphrase should read: "But how shall they ask him to save them if they have NOT believed in him."

The fallacy of the Living Bible in this verse is false cause (Post Hoc) The fact that A preceeds B does not make A the cause of B. The basic error is that of infering a causal relationship without sufficient grounds. An example would be "mary said, when I knock on wood, then I never become ill; therefore knocking on wood prevents illness."

Paul is saying, one who is not saved is not going to call on the Lord becaused he doesn't believe.
He doesn't believe because he has not heard and the reason he has not heard is because no one has preached to him.

Paul is clearly saying that the cause of salvation is that God sends a preacher.

The Living Bible implies that the sinner believes and is the cause of God sending a preacher so he can hear and believe. But if the sinner calls on the Lord because he believes then what is the purpose of preaching and why should God send the preacher?

If a sinner responds to a typical altar call such as Steve Gaines gave today, why even preach a sermon? Why should a sinner even go to church. He could just stand out in a field by himself and a loving god would save him as he calls on his name. "I want to be saved like Paul!

Steve Gaines used another fallacy in his appeal to another greater preacher than himself to add prestige to his premise. The Bible doesn't have to be proved if an appeal is made to a person held in high esteem for his Bible knowledge.

The problem is that his preacher friend follows the reasoning of the Living Bible's fallacy. His friend said that if a man was standing out in a field all by himself and wanted to be saved that God would send a soulwinner parachuting from a plane.
The sinner is the cause of God taking drastic measures to reach the sinner, pleading for God to save him.

Paul is saying if a sinner is standing out in a field by himself he is not going to call on the Lord because he doesn't believe.
If he is going to get saved it will be because God sends a preacher.

Even if that sinner has a Bible opened to Isaiah and he is reading for himself he is not going to get saved unless God sends him a preacher. God not the sinner is the cause of salvation. The sinner does not exercise any belief to call on God.

bugsii said...

I prefer Parkay over butter myself. Oops, wrong blog.

WatchingHISstory said...

Romans 10:14 Jehovah's Witness, New World Translation

14 However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? (consistent with the Living Bible paraphrase)

This translation better expresses Steve Gaines and his preacher friend's presentation of the gospel presentation today at Bellevue.

junk99mail said...

In Romans 10 Paul is saying that the Word of God is an instrumental means to our salvation, in that God uses His Word as a causal agency for the creation of faith, and faith is essential to salvation. The normative (but not exclusibe) means for the communication of the Word of God is one sent by God to proclaim and explain His word.

Arminius the Friendly Troll said...

Well, I was predestined for salvation.

I was watching TV one night, and WHAMMO!! I got zapped by 'irresistable grace'. Had no choice in the matter. Been a perfect christian ever since!

junk99mail said...

arminius,
Well, good for you!

Arminius the Friendly Troll said...

I'm just glad that god didn't know the bad things I'd do when he elected me!

junk99mail said...

arminius,
You mean bad things like mocking God's salvation on a blog? :)

Arminius the Troll said...

Gosh, I hope that doesn't mean I've lost it!!

junk99mail said...

Sorry, arminius, you can't lose it here; this blog is run by a Southern Baptist.

WatchingHISstory said...

Arminius

What will you have to lament 25 years from now?

For one, thanks to Adrian Rogers, inerrancy of the Koran.

WatchingHISstory said...

Solomon

Gongrats on your anniversary!

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WatchingHISstory said...

Did Dr Rogers hire Paul Williams or was Paul already at Bellevue?

WatchingHISstory said...

.... and Dr Rogers didn't have a clue that a pedophile was on his staff for 17 years. This fact amazes me.

There was an aura about him that kept him distant from the real world. He was surrounded by multitudes who were 'awed' by his presence. He was a father figure by so many people. He was a perfect husband and father. Three time leader of the SBC and pastor of the flagship Church of the SBC.

And one flaw mars his image a pedophile was left to bring down Steve Gaines. And on the other blog 'Stevie boy' gets all the blame.

And I am an 'insane idiot' who will not receive correction or listen to reason.

bugsii said...

Watching, what is your obsession with the pedophile on staff(an all the related arguments)? All your arguements go back to that point on this site and the other site(before you were banned).

What is it that you want out of these discussions? Do you just want to point out that Dr. Rogers left him for Pastor Steve? Or are do you just want to say that the pedophile is in some way God's judgement on Bellevue?

You said you still have your "counselor and advocate" directing you. Were you talking about the Holy Spirit, or your Christian counselor and your lawyer?

If it's the Holy Spirit guiding you in the conversations...tell us what message are you trying to get across??(in less than 200 words).

Jesus, the Apostles after him and the prophets before Him had specific messages.


thx

Arminius the Troll said...

Watching's beef with Adrian Rogers is best summed up by this description of his theology from 'Wikipedia'

Rogers' theology is best described as conservative and evangelical. He believed in Biblical inerrancy, dispensationalism, and eternal security of the believer. Rogers opposed Reformed theology and Calvinism.

Conservative - no tongues or visions.
Evangelical - including invitations.
Dispensational - literal interpretation.
Not reformed - God's grace is for everyone.

Shoot, that's opposite of everything Watching believes!

WatchingHISstory said...

armininius

liberal (neo-orthodox) - no tongues or visions.
emergent- including invitations.
Dispensational - literal interpretation. (Which parts of the Bible are literal?)
universalist - God's grace is for everyone. (God's wrath is for everyone, saints don't descend from the first Adam!)

How can you believe in a literal interpretation and forbid someone to speak in tongues without doing some alteration to the written Word of God.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 234   Newer› Newest»