Wednesday, November 28, 2007

If you don't have a catchphrase, let me suggest one

"Live for nothing, or die for something. Your call."

As a Christian, such a statement has a very specific connotation to me, but it's certainly a conversation-starter at the very least. You might have to Google the source (other than the Biblical overtones, obviously), and when you find it, you'll know one movie you might want to go see in January.

--Mike

543 comments:

1 – 200 of 543   Newer›   Newest»
sickofthelies said...

Jessica Babb wrote...

"I do not read or post on the other blog, so no I will not be speaking to Stephanie about it."

SOTL's reply: No problem, Jessica.

John Mark said...

Stephanie Haake wrote...
Jessica Babb wrote...

"I do not read or post on the other blog, so no I will not be speaking to Stephanie about it."

SOTL's reply: No problem, Jessica.


Well, SOTL, glad you could join us. Have you come to share with us about Mrs. Rogers' song? I have no clue what WHS is talking about, so you could help clear that up. She's a member of Faith Baptist, so it must have occurred there.

Granted that it's out of character for you to resolve disputes instead of elevating them, but maybe just this once...

Jessica said...

I wasn't insulting you Stephanie, just pointing out that what Charles said is what needed to be dealt with instead of him worrying about whether or not I was "dealing" with you.

I don't read the other blog, and I have not had any conversation with you- I have decided to take my own words to heart and not rebuke people I have no relationship with. I am sorry if it came off any other way.

John Mark said...

Jess,

You have nothing to apologize for to that person. She was miffed because her name was mentioned, so she went poking around your blog to find out your last name and post it here, as if you've ever kept it hidden.

The funny thing is that she verified what has been said about her. (Irony can be ironic sometimes.) Her standard of right and wrong is whatever makes her feel good. She really thinks she's accomplished something by 'outing' someone (even though they weren't hidden to begin with).

It's a little creepy having these people poking around spying on Bellevue members. Makes me glad I don't go there!

The photos of the carnival, the taped conversations... Do you remember the time they got hold of Steve Gaines tax form and posted it to disclose his address? And then accused HIM of dishonesty because he lived on the north end of the street instead of the south? And the phone number was wrong? And the obsession about what his house is worth?

I wonder how 'sickofherownlies' would feel if someone went to the property assessor's site to find out where she lives and how much her house is worth and posted it for all the world to see?

Less than excited, I'd wager!

John Mark said...

Now this is interesting from the other blog!!!

sickofthelies said...
CROSS-BLOG post:

It was deleted on the "other" blog, so I will post it here:


JESSICA BABB wrote...

"I do not read or post on the other blog, so no I will not be speaking to Stephanie about it."

SOTL's reply: No problem, Jessica.

5:22 PM, November 28, 2007


JM says...

HUH? What was deleted? From which blog? If these are the powers of observation that are being used to incriminate SG, I think we have a case for dismissal of all charges!!

larry said...

John Mark,

In your observations of the NBBCOF, you seem to have overlooked a post from this evening. I'm sure NASS won't mind my posting it here, and even though it's not short it's worth your time to read it.

New BBC Open Forum said...
With all the recent postings of articles by Paul Proctor (whom I'd never heard of until someone here mentioned him a few months ago), I went to his archive and read some of his articles. I have to say I pretty much agree with most of what I've read so far, although I've read only about 15-20 of them.

However, this one I must take exception to. It concerns the young Texas pastor, Kyle Lake, who was electrocuted in a freak baptismal accident a couple of years ago. In it Proctor states this was the judgment of God for Lake's emergent church activities. While I'm no fan of the emergent church or PDL, I'm not going to ever go so far as to say that the death of someone, be it Kyle Lake, Rick Warren, or anyone else, is God's judgment. I'm not God and neither is Paul Proctor.

There are laws of physics that, when violated, can result in injury or death. Standing in a pool of water and grabbing an electrically charged microphone (which shouldn't have been, but it was) is one of those laws. I guess you could say it's God's "judgment" for being careless, but beyond that, we simply don't know. What Paul Proctor said, even if he does believe it to be the truth, was cruel to the man's family, loved ones, and the members of his congregation. I will continue to read more of his articles as time permits, but after this one, I will find it difficult to read them with the same objectivity.

5:43 PM, November 28, 2007


NASS seems to share your offense at this particular article. This is a very real rebuke to Paul Proctor, and is sure to affect watchman's posts in the future.

Do you have any thoughts about this post, John?

John Mark said...

Hmmph.

Maybe nass has a heart after all.

I don't see her offering much correction to her own people, though.

Jessica said...

JM,

I know what you mean, but my comment really wasn't about her- it was about Charles keeping the focus on himself and not other people. Several people posted her full name just above that so I don't know why she seemed to take it personally that I posted her first name.

I wouldn't have used her to make my point if I had known she was going to get bent out of shape.

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike, I receive effective counseling every day from a competent counselor, the best!

He guides me into truth. I could not repay the debt I owe Him.

I will tell you how to contact Him if you want to talk with Him about me for your verification.

Charles

8:21 PM, November 28, 2007


I believe Mike was referring to someone with a Ph.D. at the end of their name :)

Mike Bratton said...

John Mark said...
Now this is interesting from the other blog!!!

sickofthelies said...
CROSS-BLOG post:

It was deleted on the "other" blog, so I will post it here:

JESSICA BABB wrote...

"I do not read or post on the other blog, so no I will not be speaking to Stephanie about it."

SOTL's reply: No problem, Jessica.

5:22 PM, November 28, 2007

JM says...

HUH? What was deleted? From which blog?


Why, the first post of this thread, obviously. Scroll up and read it--can't you see I deleted it already? :)

If these are the powers of observation that are being used to incriminate SG, I think we have a case for dismissal of all charges!!

I'm sorry, but I must laugh the hearty laugh. More than once, folks have let me know that the Forumites and their kin refer to this part of the Internet as something along the lines of "The Blog Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken."

Guess it's easier than actually attempting to defend their own bad behavior, hmm?

Oh, and Lynn, it doesn't necessarily have to be a Ph.D., as an M.Div., an M.D., or even an S.C.M. (School of Christian Maturity) would do.

God doesn't tell Charles to publish filth, to lie, to make clueless pronouncements about who is and who isn't saved, or to engage in any other pursuits antithetical to a healthy, maturing Christian walk. Jesus Himself gave us information regarding how the Holy Spirit would guide us:

John 16

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The second Person of the Trinity is the authority for how the third Person of the Trinity will behave. From what we've been exposed to, Charles' assertion is at odds with Jesus' description. My prayer is that a competent counselor, in one-on-one counseling, will be able to help Charles understand this dichotomy.

--Mike

P.S.: So, no one's interested in the new catchphrase??

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike,
I changed my post from "Why Mike bans me" to "Why Mike deletes me"

Is that a step forward? Will you forgive me for that? It was a lie that was inexcusable. At the time I thought that it was cute and provocative.

Charles

ezekiel said...

Watching, your comments ......

"It was a lie that was inexcusable. At the time I thought that it was cute and provocative."

Lying, being cute, provoking?

3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.


Mark 7: And he called the people to him again and said to them, Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.

Jon L. Estes said...

Anonymity exposed...

I personally find it sad that SVH would care who knows her name or what she has said and supported being said.

In the end, God not only knows her name, her face but her very heart. This should be each of our deepest concerns when it comes to what we say and how we behave.

Since I am banned on the other blog and that's OK, I can let them know through this blog that I am committed to pray for SVH by name. I will also pray for DRH at the same time.

John Mark said...

Jon,

The sad thing is that sotl wasn't even outed like ACE was. Someone observed her disgusting behavior on the NBBCOF, observed her behavior at Bellevue (especially the time she almost poked David Coombs eye out with her finger), and was able to put two and two together.

The same thing happened to WHS, too. After he revealed his vision, someone asked if his initials were CP.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with people like that. At least they're consistent. Sure, their behavior needs a major overhaul, but at least they aren't acting one way in secret and another in public.

It might not be pretty, but at least you know what you're getting with them.

John Mark said...

I like this one!!!

watchman said...
NBBCOF..

As to your statements regarding Paul Proctor and the article you highlighted...I read it.

I will also admit to some uneasiness as I read the article, however, in light of your post, I beleive this now needs to be stated....Though I also wish to say that I am not a conscripted defender of Paul Proctor..he can do that very well on his own...and needs none of my aid.

blah blah blah blah blah, etc...


I don't think I've ever seen WHS talk about himself in the third person.

I think all those hours in his unabomber-style shack reading about Rick Warren are starting to take a toll!

Jon L. Estes said...

John Mark,

I agree but I do not know if all those speaking ugly words are acting them out away from the keyboard. I personally doubt it.

As I stated in an earlier thread, one of those anonymous blogger participants called the church I pastor to complain about me posting. They would not leave their name but with our caller ID, I know the number and their place of employment.

Sadly a man who works hard to stay anonymous calls my church to complain and knew how to because I showed my identity from day 1.

Sad, very sad.

I wonder if SVH's husband DRH works for the company whose phone was used to call me from the Memphis area.

Brady said...

You know all these childism games of hiding your identities and then saying whatever you want would be over if you just had the courage to post your real names. I don't know of any pastor who gives any credibility to an anonymous poster and writer.

Its time to grow up folks and own up to what you say.

John Mark said...

I agree but I do not know if all those speaking ugly words are acting them out away from the keyboard. I personally doubt it.

The answer to that is a resounding NO!!! Some of the worst comments have come from bloggers who are still attending Bellevue. There's no way they'd say things on Sunday morning like they've written on Monday night.

Mike's catchphrase holds no appeal for them. Who'd die for something they won't even associate your name with?

Memphis said...

Live for nothing, or die for something. Your call.



RAMBO

David said...

"The second Person of the Trinity is the authority for how the third Person of the Trinity will behave”

That’s deep, Mike. (I’m serious)

And, Brady is correct, in my case at least. I do not read unsigned mail with the exception of visitors first impressions; which I ask for. Credibility rests with identity.

maybejustmaybe said...

Live for nothing, or die for something. Your call.

This Ramboism reminds me of a magnet on my refrigerator -- something my granddaddy used to say:

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

David said...

Mike,

I don't get it. Why would you live for nothing?

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

Well,

It's so good to know everyone here is above the fray of the NBBCOF--those evil haters. Gee, no one in the country would think a pastor--who sat on his hands for 6 months while a pedophile served as minister--would destroy his credibility as any kind of spiritual leader. Right? This action and the contrivances to mitigate acoountability--the narrow scope of BBCIR, the so-called business meeting, loyalty oaths, etc.) don't help matters.

You cannot, Mike, call that slap on the hand, once, as some kind of retort to an argument about accountability, because accountability is not derived from any tender rebuke you tender on your blog.

If you never broach the issue, but rather focus on the unrepentant bloggers, I can rightly presume that you find a greater sin in those posts on NBBCOF, than say, letting a pedophile walk for 6 months. Because for you the issue--since you've got it off your chest--is fini. So, if I suggest that you don't appear to care about accountability, please put a stop to contantly pointing back to your gentle chiding to the honorable Dr. Gaines. I only wish I could get that kind of deference when you rebuke me, only I don't make #600,000, run a mega or belong to the church. Membership has its privelidges--haha! That's a joke people--don't get your back up.

The truth is that this is "single issue" to you, not the clumsy series of bad choices, mis-steps and face-saving gestures. Those commercials especially take the cake. "Bellevue Loves Memphis?" Then why the heck did y'all move to Cordova?

And the anonynimity thing again. This whole coward argument is just dandy for those in the comfortable position of defending the status quo--you'all are a bunch of keyboard=pecking Wyatt Earps, aren't you? Some people like myself have legitimate reasons to remain anonymous--I am not afraid of anyone, and I attended the last BR blog meeting at Huey's, in good faith that whatever differences between us, that one side doesn't have to villify the other. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I am not ashamed, nor is it a manifestation of so-called" victim mentality; it is simply because I can speak with some authority on the matter--and whether you admit it or not, the subject is relevant to the unfinished business at Bellevue.

But you'll forgive me if I don't think I owe it to every relative, friend and co-worker a conversation about what I choose to reveal in anonymity; nor do I owe it to you. These kinds of matters should not have to be spelled out for you.

Thus, I must say, Jessica, please don't pretend like you didn't know that you were messing with SOTL. Doing it in the first place is below the pale and I hope you repent of it to Whomever. Playing all innocent and deferring the revelation to some prior blogger (who remains anonymous--tehe. Do spill the beans, won't you? I could not locate him or her) just makes you look worse.

For anyone else, you don't know what people have been through, the experiences they've had, and if you insist upon labeling others, like SOTL, as cowards, or seek to out them, then you too are petty and hateful. I will be happy to come to the next blog lunch, if anyone here would like to call me a coward to my face.

Arnie, how's it go'in?

The Pastry

Cakes said...

How about live for something, die to the ego.

Sorry for being so Eastern up in here.

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike,
I changed my post from "Why Mike bans me" to "Why Mike deletes me"

Is that a step forward? Will you forgive me for that? It was a lie that was inexcusable. At the time I thought that it was cute and provocative.

Charles


Let me get this straight.

You want to be forgiven because you changed the title of a post filled with bile and detritus?

You publish pornography, lie about people, and absolutely refuse to repent of your online lifestyle, but changing a single word is supposed to illustrate contrition?

Not quite.

David, thank you for your kind words.

And Mempho, I'm telling you that, from what I've seen, it'll be an impressive motion picture--perhaps even more compelling than "Rocky Balboa," which was a fine piece of cinematic art.

And to David the Cakes, didn't you forget to slip a Celine Dion witticism in your post?

Seriously, though, I've heard the "he sat on his hands" junk more than such insubstantial statements warrant being heard. The fact of the matter is that you don't know what went on behind the scenes, only what you saw as a well-removed spectator.

Please don't speak to those of us who are Christians about the concepts of either sin or forgiveness, since you don't believe in either the notion of sin or the need for forgiveness and contrition. It rings hollow, and that's beneath you.

--Mike

Cakes said...

All I need to make that determination is the BBCIR which decribed Dr. Gaines as incurious. Furthermore, don't use the patronizing tone that, somehow, I am not able to glean as much information as you can.

And it is always the Christian who would presume to label the morals and ethics, or lack thereof, of someone who is not. Yes, I believe in sin, ethics, and matters of the spirit. They're just not ones you share.

No, how about not diverting the issue, and addressing my points for once. No charge for actually having something to say on your forum. Now, do you want to villify me or debate my points, big guy?

Why don't you engage the issues and let Arnie take care of the comic relief.

John Mark said...

Arnie, how's it go'in?

The Pastry


Well bless my soul! The blogger who has bid us adieu time and again!!

Things are going great, thanks for asking. This week I've been privileged to accompany counselors from Life Choices as they met with two teenage girls who tried to take theirs lives after having abortions. It seems they feel like a pathetic case like me might be able to help others realize that their predicaments aren't so bad. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or insulted, though. I suppose I should have expected these sort of demands when I rejoined the human race, though.

So how're thing with you? Been doing anything worthwhile, other than trying to make a sweetie like Jessica into a villain?

John Mark said...

This is sick:

imarestistor said...
The Bible tells us to expose false prophets. This is what Paul Proctor does…he sounds the trumpet; he exposes false teaching. He has been providing this ministry to people for years. Why should he have avoided this story? It is a sad thing that so many witnessed this execution. It is a sad thing that his family probably witnessed this execution. It is a sad thing that false prophets are teaching a false gospel that is leading men, women and children to hell. I pray that this man did not die in vain, but that through the story many have come to a new understanding of what truth is. I pray that many have renewed their minds to a new and more thorough understanding of what it means to fear God. Now…did Paul Proctor overstep his bounds by publishing this story as he saw it? I don’t think so.


Execution? EXECUTION??? Good Lord! What a twisted, perverted mind!

Let's be very clear about this: Paul Proctor and 'watchman' are the same person. He lives in isolation from the rest of humanity out in the woods. He hypes his own articles on the NBBCOF to build his own image. He's a dark, sinister man.

Okay. Kyle Lake was a 33 year old man who truly loved others. I don't know much about his theology, but based on the testimony of many people he was one helluva good guy. One HELLUVA good guy!

His friends and family were devastated by the shocking death of this young man in a baptistry during a worship service in their church. What kind of people could go to bed at night after thanking God for killing a friend and father who was loved by so many?

Imaresistor needs help, as well as anyone who celebrates this death. I can't help but wonder if 'ima' isn't really watchman as well. Who's met her in real life?

It's psychos like this that give Christians a bad name. Cakes, would you like to defend your blog friend? Sure, she's against pedophiles, but only as long as they prefer contemporary worship. If they enjoy conventional worship, well, they must be okay!

Execution? That's about as perverted as it gets, folks.

To the Lake family, many people are touched by the loss of Kyle. He won't soon be forgotten. His short life was spent serving the Lord as best he knew how.

To Ima, well, may the Lord keep guitars out of your church. That seems to be more important than human life to you.

Cakes said...

WHS,

You make the issue more complicated than it is--people who are invested in Bellevue don't wish to think of the pedophile scandal period, and rather move on, hoping it goes away. This is not limited to churches, but is a common response to trauma on an individual, group or organization.

It's called denial. No Strongs Exhaustive Concordance needed. Rather than break from what is comfortable, familiar, socially or financially remunerative, many are too invested, timid or apathetic to take a good, hard look at what just transpired.

It is especially convoluted when a sex sacandal take place in a religious institution, because it is an assault on the very values and ethics we supposedly endear. Religious leaders wear the imprimitur of holiness or ordination of God, deserving of a special indulgence from accountability for a moral failing for which us regular civies get tongue-lashings from the pulpit or ashram (diversity).

Regarding the former pastor, it has been established that no one knows whether he knew about the pedophile, and that the sin (sorry Mike) is often a secret for many years. Also, it is preposterous to presume that he should have recieved some revelation otherwise. So please let the dear man rest in peace, whatever theological deferences you keep expounding upon. It is disrespectful to him and the family that survives him.

Cakes said...

Arnie,

No, I think the idea is preposterous, but I'm not a person who believes in a God who operates like that. Otherwise, I've taken issue with folks on NBBCOF along the way, I just don't damn the bunch of them for what one of them blurts from time to time.

No, Jessica indicted herself by her behavior--besides, you'all are too busy plucking from the other blog to point it out. Just trying to help.

Cakes said...

Arnie,

One of the best ways to deaal with our own suffering and trials, is to seek to help others in worse circumstances. I commend you for your work.

John Mark said...

Hmmmm...

Exactly what did Jess do to incur SOTL's wrath? Could you pluck enough from this blog to clarify that? It seems to me that she was vicimized for my mentioning the Haake name.

And seriously, I'm relieved to hear you don't approve of that execution lunacy. It serves no one but the person who uttered it.

Cakes said...

I'll put it this way: when I break up a fight amongst my 4th graders, the first statement I hear every single time is "(s)he hit me first."

John Mark said...

Just out of curiosity, what do you do if you find out who really did throw the first punch?

Lynn said...

Cakes said...

I'll put it this way: when I break up a fight amongst my 4th graders, the first statement I hear every single time is "(s)he hit me first."

9:17 PM, November 29, 2007

Hey Cakes,

How has teaching been going for you? :)

Cakes said...

Arnie,

You're missing the point--it doesn't matter who threw the first punch. It is immature to lash out in anger--we all do it yet we only recognize it in another.

Cakes said...

Lynn,

It's the toughest thing I've ever done--while also trying to finish a masters degree.

Thanks for inquiring, dear!

Mike Bratton said...

Cakes said...
All I need to make that determination is the BBCIR which decribed Dr. Gaines as incurious. Furthermore, don't use the patronizing tone that, somehow, I am not able to glean as much information as you can.


"Tone."

What an easy response. Come on, David.

You're not even in the ball park, you don't have a radio, but you know what's going on inside the players' minds?

No. You don't. And it isn't patronizing to observe facts, thanks.

And it is always the Christian who would presume to label the morals and ethics, or lack thereof, of someone who is not. Yes, I believe in sin, ethics, and matters of the spirit. They're just not ones you share.

No, actually you don't. If you believed in sin, you'd believe it has consequences, and be convicted of it. If you believed in an objective ethical standard outside your own self, you'd believe your subjectivity would run a poor second to it.

The proof, as Bill Cosby might say, is in the pudding.

No, how about not diverting the issue, and addressing my points for once. No charge for actually having something to say on your forum. Now, do you want to villify me or debate my points, big guy?

Did Bellevue fumble the Williams debacle? Yes--asked and answered a long time ago. Was it mishandled because of villainy or other nefarious intent? Quite to the contrary. Now, what is there to debate?

--Mike

Lynn said...

John Mark,

In reference to the pastor in texas who was electrocuted, I do agree with you that referring it as an execution was out of line. As much as I dislike PDL and Emerging Church, I cannot think of anything that is worth celebrating the death of. In fact, its insulting to the family of the victim. All it was was a tragic freak accident. I'm no psychologist, but I'm pretty sure if any kids was in the crowd when it happened, they are probably traumatized for life as a result.


You and I may not agree on much, but I do agree with you on this.

Memphis said...

MikeB, I thought the last Rocky movie was a perfect way to end that series, and yes I am looking forward to the last Rambo!!!


And all this ranting about accountability, I think there is something missing in the argument. Gaines and BBC DID admit that they meesed and did apologize (I know some do not think it was sincere....) but others spouting off on the blogs have not admitted or even think they are doing anything wrong.

Big difference to me.

Cakes said...

Speaking of consequences, what were the consequences of the debacle you navigate in your response. You say little on the issue of consequences for Gaines and the other parties' failures in leadership because there's so little to say.

Such terse-ness sounds exasperated from this end of the conversation and dare I say dismissive. Sir, this is a pattern occuring in religious institutions all over the globe.

You are asking people to believe a scenario regarding the pastor's actions (not) that are in direct contradiction to Bellevue's own investigation in the matter. I believe you believe it, but it is too bad that you cannot concede the notion of those who genuinely love their church enough to resist poor leadership or its percieved peril--based upon their acquisition of the evidence. That you cannot is why you seem arrogant and aggressive to some.

Yet, everyone who is exiled from Bellevue are the ones with the problem. Every refugee blogging is out to destroy Bellevue, or just hates Gaines, and his failure in the pedophile scandal is just a convenient excuse to get rid of him. Thus, we cannot let the haters win.

Isn't that the apologia, roughly? I don't honestly know since you'all seem to never get around to using qualifiers, and rather, stick to declarative statements, because substantiating assertions is for sissies. (Like reinforcing my statement of Gaines inaction by citing the BBCIR--that's a qualifier. Qualifiers are great for not asking folks to merely accept the authority of ones opinion alone. Paging Mike.)

Why can't you just look at these folks for who they are, admit to yourself that good people have ample cause to take issue with their leadership? You don't exhibit the best if you poo-poo everyone who isn't loyal to current leadership.

You may find just cause for loyalty, but you cannot find just cause to marginalize every outspoken individual seeking accountability and consequences because they don't share your presumption of Gaines' actions during that six months.

The BBCIR is his coup de grace, for not only did he not do anything, he was incurious. Was that investigation in error, Mike? What an outrage that the pastor was on the ball, yet painted as asleep at the wheel--by his own team, no less.

Cakes said...

"Gaines and BBC DID admit that they meesed and did apologize..."

You know, death row inmates often apologize to their victims and the families at the gallows. They still kill them anyway. What gives?

Accountability and apology are not interchangeble concepts. I never got out of a speeding ticket because I said I was sorry. Everybody says they're sorry when they're caught. What, now you want to give them a medal because they apologized after they got caught? Should trust be restored because they apologized? Couldn't Nixon just have apologized and stayed President?

Gee, i owe a bunch of kids an apology, since they got sent to ISS long after apologizing for bad behavior.

Memphis said...

Then apologize to them......

Tim Greer said...

WHS wrote:
From a far distance is there any noticable difference between Joel Osteen and Adrian Rogers?

Well, for starters, Joel Osteen is a false teacher, and Adrian Rogers was not.

By way of explanation, here's a football analogy:

Let's say we go on the road to play football and the other team hits the sideline armed with pads, helmets, hockey sticks, baseball bats with spikes on them, chainsaws, and other items not usually associated with football. We could then say , "These guys intend to play an unorthodox game of football." Unorthodox meaning, not within the boundaries of right belief. They are playing some new kind of game and calling it "football." But it ain't football.

Now, some hyper-Calvinists might say Dr. Rogers was unorthodox in his teachings. I strongly disagree. I also disagreed with some of Dr. Rogers' teachings, but these were questions along the lines of "I think we should be lining up in the power I formation, and Rogers keeps running the wishbone." This would be within the boundaries of what has historically and traditionally been defined as football. We could vigorously debate these questions and argue for our preference and convictions, but in the end, we don't have to break fellowship over it.

So, while I think Dr. Rogers didn't always run our offense right, he was still a great coach with a lot of wins, and Joel Osteen is playing that other weird game and calling it "football."

Cakes said...

WHS,

The first fact is not a fact, it's a belief. A fact is substantiated by evidence.

The second fact, that the pastor should have known about the pedophile, outside of being told by the perpetrator or victim, is also a disputable belief.

The third fact is also just your belief.

Here's a real fact--you don't have to believe everything you think.

John Mark said...

From a far distance is there any noticable difference between Joel Osteen and Adrian Rogers?

Do you mean as far as your reasoning is from reality?

Cakes said...

"Then apologize to them......"

Not to be a pedant, but an elipsis at the end of a sentence has three consecutive periods, so let up on the keyboard, dude.

You haven't been around much, Mempho. How have you been?

Is that the long and short of the "missing" argument? When do we let inmates out of prison inmates who've apologized for their crimes?

Whether or not Gaines was nefarious in his impotency as pastor or simply dumb is no defense of his continued leadership. The engineer who accidently runs the train off the tracks--no matter how sorry he is--is still accountable to his mistake, mainly because he doesn't enjoy the opportunity to claim some special annointing of God, and thus above consequences.

I'm sure you guys heard of sins of both commission and omission. For folks who don't like Bill Clinton, y'all sure do embroider a lot of Clintonian excuses for Gaines.

David said...

Cakes,
“The first fact is not a fact, it's a belief. A fact is substantiated by evidence.”

I stand with Charles on that one. It is a FACT that the Sovereign God is in control, not just a belief. It is a fact supported by evidence. It is a fact I happen to believe. My believing it does not move it out of the realm of fact. That some men poke out their eyes and declare there is no sun doesn’t mean there is no evidence of the sun.

Cakes said...

"FACT: The sovereign God sets boundaries for Satan to work. Satan cannot do anything outside the limits God determines."

There is no empirical evidence that either Satan or the Christian God exists--I didn't say they don't, only that there is no empirical evidence to support the belief. That is why it is called faith.

The Bible says that faith is hope in what is not seen but believed, does it not? Therefore your scripture places great emphasis on faith. If it was plain as the sun in the sky that the Christian God is a fact, then what good is faith and why so much parting of the ways in religion?

Faith, whether ultimately proven to be true or not, is a subjective acquisition, not a universal, agreed upon truth.

I already know of the fundementalists' unbending, absolute belief in their Gods. No reason to constantly reiterate that.

Cakes said...

"It is a fact supported by evidence."

Guess you didn't get the memo about qualifiers, or should I just take your word for it?

The Muslim says the same thing to me regarding their particular rubric--should I take their word for it?

David said...

The Muslims don't have a dead man who came back from the grave. That's pretty good evidence.

You get confused about faith and "blind" faith. We are not asked to have blind faith. We build our faith on fact.

Fact: if Christ raised from the dead, then he can also raise me from the dead.

Fact: if Christ raised from the dead, he is who he said he was.

Buy a copy of The Case for Christ or The Case for the Real Jesus. email me, I'll send you a copy.

Cakes said...

Faith too is sometimes unyeilding to the evidence. It is faith that says Gaines is a good and responsible pastor, warranting trust in his integrity, despite the facts to the contrary.

But I guess once some folks make that leap of faith, they'll continue to leap.

Ever read Soren Kierkigaard, David?

David said...

You lump all faith together. Instead of looking at evidence, you assume anything spiritual has no solid foundation.

Cakes said...

"The Muslims don't have a dead man who came back from the grave."

Neither do I, but a dead man coming back to life is not important to everyones spiritual rubric. It is not empirical evidence to everyone, only those who accept it sight unseen already, thus it is neither pretty good or compelling.

People who don't believe they come into the world already damned by the actions of Adam and Eve don't need to believe in a sacrifitial lamb, and might even think the concept is harmful or harkens back to the animal sacifices of our ancient ancestors.

But I'm always amused when people tell me Buddha didn't rise from the dead, as if it matters. Buddhists don't believe we are born damed, thus the concept is incoherent to our path.

Again, you don't have empirical evidence to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, you believe it is true. It very well might be true, but none of us were around to witness it. People will die and even kill for their religious beliefs, but such unyeilding faith is not evidence.

Cakes said...

Still waiting for the so-called evidence.

I mean no disrespect to your faith, David, yet I am addressing the matter and others here in as measured a way as possible. Yes I find fundementalism of any religion very similar, in that they hold fast to the absolute truthfulness of their own Gods, with no quarter for an alternative; and call beliefs facts.

If we all express our feelings honestly here, then I should be able to express that thought without apology, even if I prove to be wrong.

Cakes said...

I know that Christian fundementalists like to think their faith is the exception, since they follow the "true God." But this is very similar to fundementalists of any other stripe, since they too insist upon the very same exception.

David said...

I wish you would spend as much time studying what you rant about.

This is pretty simple: If a dead man came back to life it has implications for every living person. (well, every dead person, too).

Since you insist on lumping all faiths together without examination of any evidence, you shut the door to logical discussion.

Cakes said...

No David,

By insisting that a belief is emperical evidence, you never broach a logical discussion. But that's your call.

Did you see Christ rise from the dead? Then in what way is this evidence or empirical?

You don't have the stomach to have a discussion with someone who doesn't share your pretext. I've had Christians tell me they can prove that Christ is real, because the Bible says so. They've learned that the Bible is the word of God, thus they never consider that those of us who don't think it is will not be compelled by such so-called evidence.

Your evidence is actually beliefs you've already accepted as true, so you don't make a distinction between evidence and belief.

I have sought to be polite while engaging the issue you brought up; no you want to take your toys and go home.

That's cool, but you're the one shutting down, friend. That's fine too. Shutting down real debate, in favor of villifying others, is what this blog does best.

Cakes said...

"This is pretty simple: If a dead man came back to life it has implications for every living person. (well, every dead person, too)."

Yes, but in what way does this statement produce evidence? If I walk outside and everything is wet, evidently it has rained. If I observe a glass of water, I can find evidence of capillary action at the water's surface. If I get bonked in the head by a falling limb, this is evidence of gravity.

What you are proposing is not observable or provable beyond the individual beliefs that you already accept as fact. I ask again, what is your evidence you keep ranting about?

Cakes said...

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

Gee, I'd wish he'd studied what he rants about too. And don't get me started on Bertrand Russell.

And this one for Mike, and his arrogant presumptions about what I do or don't believe:

"We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."

- Following the Equator

Sorry, Twain obvious didn't hear about that as yet anonymous (tehe) "evidence" David keeps ranting about, but cannot or will not articulate.

ALF said...

cakes,
I usually don't post here, but after hearing you were taking on the hard core lot, I decided to read up on your posts.
You asked "I ask again, what is your evidence you keep ranting about?"
Response:
My life that is changed from the inside out. Peace that passes all understanding and an immeasurable joy that nothing on this earth can take away. I am not the person I was before I met Jesus. I know in my "knower" and it is a supernatural knowledge. You can see it happen if you are ever close enough to someone when they accept Christ as their Savior. It's one of those "you have to be there" moments.
By the way, even thru your doubts and resistance to what I know to be true, I still think you are ahead of the game on this particular blog!

Jon L. Estes said...

Cakes,

It is not our role in life, as believers, to make you believe. You have been presented with the truth of the gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ) and it will be your choice what you do with this information. Debating what we believe is not the answer. Comparing what we believe to what others believe is not the answer.

The whole matter is a matter of faith.

Hebrews 11:1 (NASB)Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

If you want to discover the "fact" prior to putting your faith in it, then there really is no faith.

What Christians have is a relationship with the very Son of God (Jesus Christ). This relationship was offered to us by "grace" and is a free gift of love, eternally. Faith is your response to His free gift.

No other belief system this fallen world offers if free. They all have a cost. Christianity is different. It is free and it sets those who come to know the truth, free.

John 8:32 (NASB)and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

It is not the truth alone which sets us free it is the knowing this truth. Not knowing of but knowing the truth.

Truth, watch this, is a person. His name is Jesus.

Again, it is not my job to convince you, you have heard. It is my joy, now, to lift you up in prayer to the one who loves you enough to send His only Son to die in your place. I commit to do this.

If you would like to talk further, let me know. If you want to debate, I have nothing to debate, you are now being lifted before the throne of grace and I pray you will listen to His still small voice and meet the Jesus who sets mankind free.

Cakes said...

Alf,

I appreciate the kind words in this particular sandlot. What you describe is what I've been saying all along--a personal, subjective experience of a transformative nature; I wish neither to demean that faith nor challenge your belief in Christ. Rely on your path friend, as i rely on mine.

Yet you did not come to that sense of truth by the accumulation and understanding of empirical data. I have not once said that Christianity is bunk, only that one does not come to faith through logic, but is an intangeble understanding. Neither have I said that truth is only acquired through logic and reason nor discount such experiences in the acquisition of truth.

But I do take issue with someone trying to tell me I'm being illogical because I don't see the (as yet) unnamed evidence that Christ rose from the grave. Has anybody informed Scientific American?

Now Mike will collude the above to assert that I have denigrated Christians and Christ, when I am actually indifferent to what anyone else believes. But if one insists to me that an article of faith is a piece of evidence, I'll challenge it. If someone who's met me once, presumes to represent what i believe then I'll challenge it. But I didn't raise these issues--what I'm really doing here is defending my NBBCOF friends (who follow the same Christ as these folks, supposedly), enjoying hanging around these knucklehead friends (reminds me of 5th grade angst), and deflating already low-pressure arguments. Well, at this point I'm bored.

Arnie, isn't it time to launch one?

Cakes said...

Why, thank you, Jon. I accept your kindness with the grace and compassion that it is offered.

Om mani Peme Hum

John Mark said...

Arnie, isn't it time to launch one?

Well, I'm at a loss. Fortunately, Paul Proctor made an EXCELLENT discussion suggestion on the other blog:

watchman said...
I would like to suggest a new thread; ....

Since reaching back in time to pull out perceived past insensitivities of men has proven itself to be such an apparently "useful " mission and tool in promoting Koinania and Truth and faithful witness on this blog.

8:22 AM, November 30, 2007


That's just something we don't talk about enough in religious circles, "....".

Four dots, hmmm. Kind of like an elipsis at the end of a sentence with the period included.

So who decided an elipsis should be 3 dots anyway? I agree with watchman, that shows a lot of insensitivity to those of us who prefer the 4 dot format. And what about that fringe group (lot's of them on the blogs) who prefer 2 dots? But, I've always been a little wary of prime numbers. I have to confess a strong preference for 4.

Thanks for an outstanding discussion starter, Paul. Really gets the mind racing with possibilities. Of course, as usual, NASS rained on everyone's parade and squelched this opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortal coexistence with dots:

New BBC Open Forum said...
watchman,

I would consider it... if I had a clue what you're talking about, but I don't. E-mail me with the particulars, please.

8:39 AM, November 30, 2007


Boy, what a stick in the mud. Content to maintain the status quo, and use 3 dots for the rest of her life.

At least Ima sees the great value in watchman's suggestion:

imaresistor said...
Watchman...

Sounds interesting...

2:29 PM, November 30, 2007


And despite her interest, she makes an outrageously fascist statement by using "..." twice! Is approaching such a groundbeaking concept as "...." with a close-minded "..." really fair? I don't like where this is headed at all.

It's a great idea, Paul, but maybe it's too soon to spring "...." on the public just yet. Let's wait for the tempers to cool down, and maybe introduce it to New York Post first. They'll know what to do with it!

John Mark said...

alf said....
You can see it happen if you are ever close enough to someone when they accept Christ as their Savior. It's one of those "you have to be there" moments.
By the way, even thru your doubts and resistance to what I know to be true, I still think you are ahead of the game on this particular blog!


Say what now? Are you suggesting Cakes is closer to salvation than anyone else here? Ouch!

No wonder NBC cancelled your show....

John Mark said...

alf,

Your remark makes me think of a statement C.S. Lewis made. Most Christians (including me) look up to Lewis as a great thinker and theologian, but most are shocked to find out that he held inclusivist beliefs, that a person did not have to hear the gospel to be saved.

“Of course it should be pointed out that, though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life. And it should (at least in my judgment) be made clear that we are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected” (C. S. Lewis, God In The Dock)

There's a good discussion topic. Lewis believed that by being the best Muslim a Muslim could be, he would be saved through Christ's sacrifice. Same for Buddhists, Hindus, and any other religion.

All religions are made perfect in Christ. Nice thought. Nice theology?

Jessica said...

Cakes,

I responded directly to something WHS posted, it was totally in context with the previous conversation. The comments were likely stricken from the record.

If you perceive that I did her some injustice, I assume the earlier post of "I am sorry if it came off any other way." That should have covered it. And quite frankly, she doesn't need you to fight her battles.

I hope all of the rest of you are doing well (I have been out of town and have finished all my Christmas shopping!!)- I hope you won't disown me for saying I have never seen Rocky or Rambo.

Jessica said...

grr. sorry about my terrible half-sentence up there. I am too tired to fix them so I will just apologize instead.

Cakes said...

Arnie,

Good show, bubb....

WHS,

I accept your good wishes with which they are so kindly expressed.

May you all prosper and enjoy good health....you too, big guy.

Cakes said...

Jessica,

The conversation to which you responded refererred to the screen name, and you responded by addressing the real name. It's not how you "came off," it's what you said. Since when did WHS's post become measure for responsible behavior? If he jumped off a bridge would you do that too? Just kidding.

I cannot fathom that your concience didn't intervene or that you didn't know this would raise blood pressures, especially given the militant tone of this thread regarding anonymity so close in proximity to the outting.

I accept your sort-of apology and wish you bountiful blessings and discernment.

Cakes said...

There is empirical evidence that rigid religious dogma does create suffering in the world, so I just gained a ton of respect for C.S. Lewis.

Thanks Arnie.

solomon said...

John Mark,

Wow. I've never heard that before. I've heard conservative Baptists quote Lewis inside and out, but never anything like that.

I'll definitely have to read more of Lewis' writings to learn how he arrived at this conclusion. Any suggestions as to where I might start?

Thanks for sharing.

Memphis said...

Cakes said...
"Then apologize to them......"

Not to be a pedant, but an elipsis at the end of a sentence has three consecutive periods, so let up on the keyboard, dude.

10:39 AM November 30

Cakes said...
Arnie,

Good show, bubb....

9:33 PM Novemeber 30

How many periods does an elipsis have again? :)

Sorry Cakes, could not resist! And you are right, I have not been posting much lately, but I do read THIS blog.

And I believe that while Gaines may not face the criminal charges that many seem to want, I believe that he has suffered consequences for his actions.

Merry Christmas,
Memphis

P.S. I never really dug the nickname Mempho!

David said...

Cakes: “I have sought to be polite while engaging the issue you brought up; no you want to take your toys and go home.”

?... well, I am home. But I never threatened to take my toys and go home. Did want to play? You didn't indicate you did. I did go to walmart with my wife and didn’t sit anxiously awaiting your next post. Sorry if you felt unloved.

Cakes: “What you are proposing is not observable or provable”

What I propose was observed, proved and died for. 12 men saw the risen Christ and walked one by one to their graves proclaiming that simple truth: He is alive.

Again, if you want The Case For Christ, I'll send you a copy. Are you serious about your study or just a talking head?

Cakes said...

Sorry David,

It wasn't the trip to walmart, it was saying that if I did not accept your "evidence" then a "logical discussion" was unlikely. I took that to mean you were finished with me.

Sorry if I "came off" as needy.

Cakes said...

Have you read the Buddhist books in my library, or are you serious about your study?

What kind challenge is that? Why do I have to read your book to be serious about my study.

You guys may have the notion that I'm missing something, some of you might even be genuinely concerned. But I'm not of the mind of needing any of the spiritual insight on view in this place. This is like a 24 hour reminder of why I'm not a Christian.

If you ever want to know about a path that promotes compassion over dogma....you may pick up a book at the library. Or are you sceered?

Memphis said...

Cakes said,
If you ever want to know about a path that promotes compassion over dogma....



Not to be a pedant, but an elipsis at the end of a sentence has three consecutive periods.

David said...

I already own The Book.

David said...

Cakes: "it was saying that if I did not accept your "evidence" then a "logical discussion" was unlikely. I took that to mean you were finished with me.

It's that you are seemingly unwilling to look at the evidence that makes discussion difficult. You've made a decision already.

Jessica said...

Cakes,

Oh lets just admit that she probably would have been upset regardless of whether or not I used her screen name or her real name. There were about 5 postings about that with her first and last night, so it was clearly only the fact that I mentioned it that got her upset. I guess I should have known better.

I try not to get Charles all riled up because originally I had also added the sentence "I do not........about it. I am speaking to you so lets deal with that and let the people over there deal with her. Get over what she did"

I took it out because I didn't want to seem to harsh but I guess it would have come off more the way I intended if I had just left it there. But one thing I learned from the other blog is that I do want to speak more kindly to people and with a softer tone, and I was trying to do that with Charles.

The posts before mine seem like much more to get upset about but clearly I just bother her.

So don't worry, I intend to never let those letters come across my keyboard unless I am directly speaking to her...


Also, I tried to give in to your pedantic ways but I am glad to know that it is open season on .................................................. again.

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

John Mark said:

Well bless my soul! The blogger who has bid us adieu time and again!!

Things are going great, thanks for asking. This week I've been privileged to accompany counselors from Life Choices as they met with two teenage girls who tried to take theirs lives after having abortions. It seems they feel like a pathetic case like me might be able to help others realize that their predicaments aren't so bad. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or insulted, though. I suppose I should have expected these sort of demands when I rejoined the human race, though.


oc says:
Very interesting, since I know for a fact that Life Choices never, I mean NEVER, uses men to counsel young ladies. I believe then that you are justified in feeling insulted, just as you suggested, not because you may be a woman, but that apparently no one could determine that. And pathetic? Justified in that too, if you keep trying to convince everyone that this ever happened.

Hope Patterson said...

John Mark,

I don't believe Paul Proctor is watchman. Maybe he is, but I don't think so. His email has always been 'watchman', and anyone could have claimed the blog name.

When I stopped posting on the NBBCOF, there was a very inflammatory person who called himself 'don' who has evolved into watchman. He had a charming saying which I'm sure Mike remembers, 'never dialogue with the devil'. It's a curious motto, since watchman never really dialogues with anyone.

You can go back to the March time frame and verify that 'don' and 'watchman' have the same profile id.

John Mark said...

Hey OC,

There are two things I hate, admitting I'm wrong and admitting you're right.

What I was referring to earlier is an outreach that the church I'm visiting does in midtown on a regular basis. It's a ministry to people most churches wouldn't touch. I didn't pay much attention to the details of the trip, I just signed up to talk to some people who are struggling with drug addictions.

This particular visit was with the girls I mentioned earlier. I was a fifth wheel on the trip, and just shared that life can go on after mistakes and tragedy.

I called some people so that I could prove you wrong, but alas what I found out was that the girls we spoke to had counseled with Life Choices during their pregnancies years ago, and the counselors who led the trip are not affiliated with them at all. I just heard 'counselors' and 'Life Choices' and made a wrong conclusion.

It makes sense, when you think about it. Since Life Choices' focus is preventing abortions and helping women in crisis pregnancy situations, a ministry to women in this situation isn't under their umbrella.

Anyway, OC, don't get used to being right instead of me so enjoy it while you can. I've read posts that implied you are some kind of counselor yourself, and if you work with Life Choices I might have to start being a little nicer to you.

John Mark said...

Hey Hope,

Look, I've already admitted one mistake. Based on watchman's referring to Proctor as a 'mighty watchman on the wall' and his reaction when the NBBCOF disapproved of the Kyle Lake article, I'm going to keep believing that watchman is Proctor.

Just because watchman is dooper don doesn't mean he isn't PP.

oc said...

John Mark,
Thank you for the clarification.
I am not a counselor for Life Choices, as I already told you that they don't employ men in that capacity.


PS. Another fact:
Watchman is not Proctor.

Junkster said...

In a recent post on his blog, Wade Burleson quoted an article written in 1990 by Mike Huckabee (Southern Baptist minister, former pastor, former President of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, former Arkansas Governor, and current candidate for the President of the United States). I thought Huckbee's words were worth sharing here:

“The ‘L’ word that may characterize our greatest threat is not liberalism but legalism. If all the liberals in Arkansas Baptist churches held a meeting, they could meet in the corner booth of a Waffle House and still have room for guests.

Legalism is the reduction of the whole of the Bible to a rather limited system of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ that the one espousing already lives. By carefully limiting ‘right and wrong’ to those beliefs or practices one already adheres to, the legalist is able to always be right and never wrong. Convenient system to be sure. It requires no struggle of conscience, no agonizing soul-searching, no brokenness. Others aren’t judged by the character of Christ, but by the behavior of the legalist.

Legalism is not limited to the theological camp of the conservatives, moderates or anyone in between or beyond. Like a worthless weed, it grows in whatever soil it is planted and is capable of choking out anything that gets in its way without ever producing fruit of value.

Biblical faith is sure about God, but never so sure about self. Legalistic faith is sure of self, and may or may not be as sure of God and His Word. A legalist questions everyone else’s motives and mission, but never sees a need to question his own. A strong Christian is not only interested in believing right, but living right. A strong Christian should want others to be more like Jesus, not more ‘like me.’

We do not live under ‘Lord Law,’ ‘Lord Tradition,’ ‘Lord Religion’ or even ‘Lord Belief.’ We are saved when we confess ‘Lord Jesus.’ When He is Lord, we learn a new ‘L’ word – love. Jesus said that the world would know we belonged to Him not because we worship the same, believe the same or even live the same, but because we love one another.”

oc said...

Junkster,
Excellent post brother.

Just sayin'.

oc.

Cakes said...

Junkster,

Here, here; I like what Larry Norman used to say--curb your dogma.

Cakes said...

David,

I'm serious--what is the evidence? Perhaps we have a difference in how we define "fact" and "evidence." Is this evidence that is or would have been clearly obvious to Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, Ghandi, the Dalia Lama, etc? These are not stupid men who pluck out their eyes to deny the Son (hey, that's good). They are also good people and curious thinkers. You insult the intelligences of anyone who is not a Christian to infer that an unbeliever's view of the world, as opposed to yours, is for a lack of reason or will to resist.

I'm a truthseeker too, and maybe you might consider that you cannot browbeat anyone into accepting a unqualified declaration. You don't get to sidestep the responsible and efficacious parts of rhetoric because you're a Christian. If you say that there is evidence, then you owe it to the substance of the conversation at hand to not just limit your words to the mere pronouncement. It might too be a good idea to become familiar with the common usage of both "fact" and "evidence," as opposed to your rather peculiar adoption, dipped in sanctimony.

Also, if you really believe it is plain as day, I defer to my comment on "what good is faith then?" (wouldn't that make it superfluous?)

Good evening, David.

John Mark said...

Okay, twice in one day...

After a bit of googling, I've decided 'watchman' is not Paul Proctor. Although I don't distinguish between their judgemental, condescending viewpoints, I now believe they are different people.

I found a blog on which Proctor actually conversed with someone. Watchman has never treated a fellow blogger with respect or esteem, so I'm willing to concede that their behaviors are different enough to say they are not the same person.

Perhaps I was a little bit too eager to condemn PP as that close-minded buffoon who pollutes the NBBCOF, but no apologies will be forthcoming. They are cut out of the same mold even if they aren't the same person, and anyone who tries to exploit the death of a pastor in his own baptistry needs help.

Cakes said...

Ends justify the means. Two wrongs, in fact, do make a right.

And of what cloth are you cut, Arnie. Any lessons learned, or will you let it fly next time around too?

Mistaken identity happens a lot over here, given how eager y'all are to gang up and pour it on.

oc said...

John Mark says:

Perhaps I was a little bit too eager to condemn PP as that close-minded buffoon who pollutes the NBBCOF, but no apologies will be forthcoming.

oc says:
Hmmm. Wrong again. But you won't repent. You still live in defiance. "No apologies will be forthcoming."
That is flat out defiance.
Condemn someone, if it makes you feel big. But see Matthew 5-7. Sermon on the Mount. See especially chapter 7.

Then talk to the One who made you.
Just sayin'.
oc.

John Mark said...

cakes, if you're defending watchman just because he posts on the NBBCOF, you've just lost a lot of points with me. He's one of the reasons the blog is condemned. In case you haven't noticed, he's a blight on your 'truthseekers'. They'd be as happy to see him leave as I would. Maybe you can talk it over with him at the bowling party. Oh, but wait. He won't be there, because he cares nothing about anyone but himself.

If you're offering me correction because I wanted to believe something that wasn't true I have no choice but to accept it. But if two wrongs don't make a right, how do PP and watchman?

Are you prepared to justify their stance? And if you are, I'm equally prepared to attack that stance using the very distaste for fundamentalism you espouse.

John Mark said...

oc,

I admitted I was wrong, but I will not approve of the young pastor's death. I will never accept that God executed Kyle Lake to make him pay for his theology. I would much rather for him to have survived and continued to be a good husband, father, and friend than for his life to have been cut short by such a tragic accident. Men typically grow in grace throughout their lives, and Lake could no doubt have been used in great ways regardless of his preference in worship music.

Watchman and Proctor both believe that God ended the young man's life to prove a point. I don't believe that.

Do you?

Cakes said...

"Are you prepared to justify their stance? And if you are, I'm equally prepared to attack that stance using the very distaste for fundamentalism you espouse."

Prepared maybe, but not equally. Bet you'll make a better argument than David, though.

John Mark said...

imaresistor said...
According to the news story, this pastor was head of an eight hundred member congregation…which is/was an emergent church. This bit of information tells us that this is an apostate church.


So because a news story said that the church was 'emergent' they are apostate, and therefore the pastor's death was desirable.

Look, I don't want to become a fanatic like WHS, but a Christian should never lust for the death of anyone, even if they take the organs out of your church and replace them with synthesizers.

The OT prescribed the talionic law, don't harm anyone more than they've harmed you. Jesus elevated that to say that his followers should bless those who hurt them.

So who taught that anyone who messes with our Sunday mornings needs to die?

I think I missed that one.

John Mark said...

cakes,

Go back and find me a few of watchman's posts you approve of and we'll talk.

In case you haven't noticed, he's largely ignored except by Ima.

Maybe you'd like to research this one:

watchman said...
Mysticism and Polotics Converge at Saddleback Church Summitt.

Mysticism and Polotics converge at Saddleback Church

8:40 AM, December 01, 2007


(you'll have to visit over there for the link)

The gist is that since it's Rick Warren and Hillary, it must be evil. Solid logic (to some), but I disagree.

The Register article capsulizes the focus: "AIDS can be defeated by leadership. That is the resounding message of Pastor Rick Warren and his wife Kay." In fact, leadership is a resounding message throughout the ecumenical, contemplative, emerging communities of Christianity today. In essence, the leadership message says that if we can develop strong leaders, then the world's ills will be solved because these strong leaders will keep all the followers (the rest of humanity) in place. The masses will be controlled by these top-notch Purpose Driven, mystically influenced leaders. Such an indictment may sound harsh to some. After all, Rick Warren is doing so many good works, right? But if the leaders he is training are driven and motivated by an energy that is New Age and occultic (as we will show below), then how can this be truly godly leadership. And how can such leadership defeat AIDS and the five global giants that Rick Warren talks about in his global P.E.A.C.E. Plan?

So therefore, since Rick Warren does not believe as they believe, his efforts need to be put down. Never mind that his programs teach third world inhabitants how to avoid the Aids virus, or that thousands of children are fed, clothed, and innoculated through his efforts. Forget the fact that his church really is making a difference, if he doesn't preach Christian fundamentalism (circa 1920) he's a heretic. He's fueled by the devil, so his humanitarian efforts must be stopped and the many people he has targeted for aid must be left to their just punishment.

That's what watchman and Proctor believe, cakes. If you speak out for these men, you are speaking against one of the most noteworthy efforts to relieve human suffering in the history of the church.

I noticed that your profile says that although you're not gay, you don't think there's anything wrong with it. Why don't you run that by watchman or PP and see what they say?

They'll probably start asking God to kill you.

John Mark said...

Wow, it got quiet in here...

Lynn said...

John Mark said,

The gist is that since it's Rick Warren and Hillary, it must be evil. Solid logic (to some), but I disagree.


Lynn's Response: In this case, I think its more of an issue with Hillary, who truely is evil in my opinion than it is Warren. But that is just my opinion

John Mark said...

All right, lynn, I'll give you that one. Seeing as how Hillary's number one cause is Hillary....

swatchman said...

More purpose driven garbage about how we should love sinners! What hope do these wretches have until they learn how much God hates them and longs for their damnation unless they turn to Christian fundamentalism?

Jesus hates Brittany.!

Jessica said...

from the Britney Spears article:
"but fake Christian love tells the sinner what they want to hear to feel good about themselves and look good saying it."

One thing I have noticed more and more by those who disavow the emergent/seeker/whatever church is that they often discount anything that makes people "feel good". Well, I hate to be the one to break it to them, but parts of Christianity do feel good. Parts of it don't. It isn't one-size fits all. Sure, I think some people carry it to far- you can't just totally discount the fact that God is a God of judgment and wrath and that there is a hell.

Some people will struggle with their faith and some will take to it like a fish to water. That doesn't mean that one is better than another or more "right" with God. Who is this man to say that a gesture done in kindness to Britney Spears couldn't be the one thing that spoke to her?

What they are proposing to do is not sinful or selfish and while none of those words may have ever reached her, perhaps they may have reached someone else.

swatchman said...

Who is this man to say that a gesture done in kindness to Britney Spears couldn't be the one thing that spoke to her?

Why, ME of course!!! If it doesn't meet with my approval, how can it meet with God's?

Case closed.

David said...

Cakes,

"you say that there is evidence, then you owe it to the substance of the conversation at hand to not just limit your words to the mere pronouncement."

There is more evidence than this blog wold allow. I told you, email me and I'll sned you a copy of the Case for Christ.

Christianity rests on 2 pillars: The Creation and the Resurrection.

God not only created the world, he revealed himself to the creation.

The Resurrection is proven by:

1. The systematic murder of the Apostles. One by one they went to their graves holding to the conviction that they had indeed seen the risen Christ. There wasn't a one who recanted. Not one. They were not simply passionate, they were in a position to know Jesus had risen or not. (This distinguishes them from a muslim ready to die for his beliefs. While he may be passionate, he is not in a position to know if his faith is true or not.)

2. The empty tomb. All the Romans or Jews ever had to do was produce the body of Jesus.

3. The conversion of Paul. What event would be powerful enough to cause a man from persecuting Christians to joining them? He personally cited his change as the result of a personal encounter with Jesus.

4. Jesus' family. Would you believe your brother was the Son of God? Neither did James or Judas. But after the Resurrection they converted. Why? So the could be murdered, too? What benefit was their in it for them? None. Except that Paul tells us Jesus appeared also to James.

5. The early "creeds" of the Church. 1 Corinthians recites creeds written within only a few years or months of Jesus' resurrection. This is during the life time of living witnesses. So the event was not "legend" as some might claim, since living witnesses would have acted as a corrector. If Jesus had not risen, people would have stepped forward and said: "No, this isn't true."

6. Eyewitnesses saw him alive. It is important to note WHO saw him: Women. In their culture women had no value. So if the Apostles were making up the story, they would have never had women as the source. Why did they say women saw him alive? Because women really saw him alive.

7. Variations in the accounts. The fact that the accounts do not perfectly aline is evidence the writers did not get together and plan their story.

There is more evidence than the Resurrection, though that is the Christians foundation. For instance:

1. The fulfilled prophecies of Jesus. Before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, Jesus foretold its destruction in detail. This was recorded before the temple was destroyed in the Gospel of Mark. Jesus' other prophecy... that he would rise again.

2. The nation of Israel returned as the prophets foretold.

... need I go on? Or are you forming objections as you read this, Cakes? Are you a serious seeker? Because there is more. Much more.

Cakes said...

OK David,

So you call second-hand, recorded accounts as evidence, notwithstanding the two millinia that stand between you and the "facts." Your "facts," to the objective viewer, are nothing more than really ancient accounts that you take at face value--you do because you believe in the literal word of God. A non-Christian has not made this leap of faith, thus your "facts" are disputable at best, fairy tales at worse.

St. Issa, in the Koran and other accounts, is the historical Jesus--who supposedly took the silk road to India, and died there. That is why the Beatitudes sound exactly like the wheel of Karma of the Hindus, according to some. There are all kinds of artifacts pointed by the authors and historians who believe this account.

I would project that the above is disgusting to you, since it is counter to your beliefs. To you, these accounts are in dispute, since they didn't come from The Book. Again, I defer to the Twain quote.

I don't happen to take the Bible as fact, therefore I don't take you facts from the Bible as evidence. I don't happen to take a second-hand account recorded two thousand years ago as evidence. I know about the history of Christianity, and that one would have to believe that God coddled that Book throughout all the bloodletting, inquisitions and bigoted actions of those so-called followers of Christ. The "fact" you cite are even disputed amongst Christians. The content of the Bible has been in flux throughout history so "The Books" would be a more factual signifier.

If you see God's hand in Zionism and the formation of Israel after WW2, then so be it, but I just as compellingly assert that what is happening in Palestine is nothing divine.

Again, I can locate hard evidence of gravity, and I can triangulate accounts for the existence of Andrew Jackson during the 19th century, I may even find evidence of a man named Jesus 2000 years ago. But I won't find empirical evidence of God or Satan. That is where faith comes in--you have faith in those ancient accounts because you have faith in the Bible, I do not.

Have a nice Lord's day, David.

David said...

You make it sound like I gave you evidence based solely on the Scripture. I started with the death of the Apostles and their claims.

Would you die for something you knew was a lie?

Instead of dealing with the facts, you relabel them and declare it all murky faith.

The difference between Isalms labeling of Jesus and the N.T. is the time between the accounts. The N.T. accounts appear within a few years (or months) of Jesus resurrection. Other accounts, false Gospels, appear in the second century. The N.T. was written within the life time of living witnesses.

Cakes said...

That reply doesn't address my argument--which regards the credibility of the record and the credibility of the authors. I don't place such confidence as you, whether or not the account is 2000 years old or 1900 years old.

I'm familiar with the methods of folks like Josh McDowell to weave some kind of evidence to demand a verdict, but as Josh learned, the verdict is still in dispute. I can locate artifacts that prop passages of the Bible, the Koran, the accounts of Padmasambhava in Tibet, but that doesn't make them holy writ.

I can find the same in Shakespeare, and he didn't claim divinity.

Cakes said...

David,

Google "Proof of Islam," and look at how mwny authors forward so-called facts, scientific and historical, to support the divinity of the Koran.

Some of them use the very same arguments as Christians to attack evolution, interestingly.

Cakes said...

David,

You trying to give me that book, The Case for Christ, has given me an idea for one of my own.

The Case for Buddha: A Cremitory Urn--HA.

Cakes said...

David,

I can tell you believe your faith from the depths of your heart, and wish to share it with me. I appreciate the concern, and in no way am motivated to dissuade you or anyone from their precious gift. Only to honestly engage the dialogue as it proceeds.

I'm sure we're all mature enough to lay it on the line. But I try to make it a practice not to engage the soul-winner on the blogs, because I know if I don't make a confession of faith, I'll end up looking bad--reputed as anti-Christian, resistant, lacking morals and ethics, etc.--when all I'm seeking to do is address what is directed to me.

Again, Godspeed in your spiritual walk, kind friend.

ezekiel said...

"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

???????????

John 10:7So Jesus again said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Charles,

Bad idea, bad theology. One way, the only way.......Jesus......and we will know.....

ezekiel said...

"I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me."
Romans 10:20; Isa. 65:1"

In context, this refers to the salvation coming to the Gentiles. And it still is. An event that Paul discusses in Romans 11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

Lynn said...

Watching said...


"We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again."


Lynn's response:

Thats a false doctrine?

Cakes said...

Uh oh WHS,

You just upped the ante on your declasse status praising SOTL.

Would you please respect her wish of moniker?

David said...

Cakes,
I wasn’t giving you soul winning talk, I was stating that our faith is indeed rooted in fact.

I might remind you that you are the one who lit into us with the accusation that our faith is not rooted in fact. When presented with facts supported by evidence, your response: Well, I don’t talk religion. Okay, then don’t talk religion. But don’t take cheap shots at a faith you’re not willing to seriously investigate.

Cakes said...

Well,

There are no cheap shots in what I wrote, but your reaction to what was a polite, if direct, disagreement about what constitutes a "fact" is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think I articulate my thoughts plainly, carefully and without ill will, but you make assertions, like Mike, that you--a stranger--have no way of knowing. Who says I haven't taken a good look at Christianity?

Sorry you are so angry at a kindness, sir.

Cakes said...

"I might remind you that you are the one who lit into us with the accusation that our faith is not rooted in fact. When presented with facts supported by evidence, your response: Well, I don’t talk religion."


I didn't light into anyone, I said that there's no factual, empirical evidence of God or the Devil. And I stand by that and you produced no evidence to the contrary, just the accounts of people who were dead a couple of millinia ago.

And I didn't see any evidence or duck out on a discussion of religion--we've been talking about religion for two days. I was just stating I usually don't for exactly the reasons you demonstrate.

David said...

Cakes: "And I didn't see any evidence"

Well, neither did the Simpson Jury.

David said...

Cakes: "Sorry you are so angry at a kindness, sir."

No anger, Cakes. Did I say I was angry with you? I asked you to look at the evidence.

Perhaps you can answer: Why would 12 men die for something they knew was a lie?

Cakes said...

WHS,

Kindness never takes the place of an argument. I believe that in the course of a disagreement, one should use all the tropes of rhetoric that are at your disposal--including sarcasm. The problem here, is that sarcasm is generally and merely the argument--like that Simpson quip. I should be able to challenge assertions that are put on the table, but I don't have to make it personal. But faced with someone who has a better handle on rhetoric, certain broken records over here just shut down and go for the throat (in Christian love, of course).

Belief in God, original sin, the virgin birth and others are not in keeping with empirical evidence. It is not to say they didn't happen, only that it takes faith, belief sight unseen, instead of the digestion of empirical data. So too with 2000 year old accounts of miracles.

Sure, the Christian will put me in league with the Simpson jury, or call me anti Christian, but I've already offered a short list of thinkers and seekers who didn't accept David's so-called facts, but like most of my points, they never got touched.

I think some Christians think Grace extends to never having to qualify merely declarative statements, and if you challenge them, then you must be motivated by evil or at least, distain for Christians.

There are a lot of real Christians in my life, and they do not find me antagonistic. It is the one with the weak argument that has to divert the issue and make it personal (in Christian love, of course).

I'm amused at discovering all the moral and intellectual indulgences upon which some Christians insist because they've got grace.

ezekiel said...

Watching,

"Ezekial, I have no ideal what your interpretation of the Word you typed.
My guess is that you are relying on Dispensationalism, one of many theories of salvation. I could be wrong about your theory."


What is there to interpret? What does Baptist or Anglican have to do with it?

C.S Lewis says that he believes people can be saved and not know Christ.

"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father;

I believe that when we all are in heaven the overriding knowledge will be that we are there because of the sacrifice of Christ's blood for our sins.

If you know Jesus... You know this now.


""I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me."
Romans 10:20; Isa. 65:1


When you use this scripture to justify the error in C.S Lewis's statement you err in your own interpretation of these scriptures. It has nothing to do with Dispensationalism, calvanism or any other ism...

You are using scripture that, when taken in proper context, is proof of salvation to those who did not seek him being the gentiles. Not someone that was saved and did not know Jesus which is what C.S Lewis has said and you apparently believe.

It might be helpful to put a little less focus on interpretation and more on reading what is written.

John Mark said...

SG actually referred to our meeting together for fellowship as "clandestine meetings" :)

And they say SG has a big ego? I seriously doubt SG gives a flip what anyone on the NBBCOF does or says. I'm sure he gets mad when his family is belittled in un-Christlike ways, but if the NBBCOF is the biggest problem SG has he's a very lucky man.

His reference to IDC's under cover meetings could be interpreted to be about someone else only by people with a hugely inflated sense of importance.

Reminds me of that old song:
You're so vain,
You probably think this song is about you....

Cakes said...

Since Gaines didn't give a flip about a pedophile walking the halls for six months, then I would agree Arnie.

John Mark said...

Since we're in agreement on that, the question that needs to be addressed is why do they care what SG says anymore?

Or, to be more specific, why are they so obsessed with the man? Is it going to be this way for the rest of their lives?

Kind of sad, if it is. Life's pretty short when it's all said and done.

Cakes said...

Well,

How long will people be obsessed with NBBCOF over here? I guess outrage is in the eye of the beholder.

How does an offensive blog entry compare with letting a pedophile walk for 6 months?

ezekiel said...

Charles,

When confronted with the Word, and when it doesn't agree with one of your statements, you start calling folks names, toss in a little calvanism to get things stirred up and then toss out some scripture that has nothing to do with the discussion.

To get us back on topic, C.S Lewis is claimiing that one can be saved by Jesus and not know it. The Word is pretty clear...I quoted it, about that.

What you and C.S. try to do is tell us that the very measure of salvation...Christ in us and us in Christ can be accomplished without "us" knowing it. I disagree. The very purpose of being attached to the vine is have life and to bear fruit. If we bear fruit, everyone knows it. And I could really give a flip what C.S Lewis says, don't care how learned he is or what brand of theologian he is. Nor do I get too concerned if you believe me. If he contradicts scripture, he is wrong. So are you. If I contradict scripture I am wrong as well.

If you want to debate the law and its application or lack thereof to gentiles, Jesus settled that as well. For now, I am going to consider this as just more smoke to divert attention from your error. And C.S's as well.

ezekiel said...

Charles,

For the record, I don't like scofield either.

Memphis said...

"How long will people be obsessed with NBBCOF over here?"

In my opinion, the NBBCOF blog will continue as long as people give it the weight they want. As long as they are apart of the conversation, I think it will continue. I personally do not go there anymore, so I do not know or care what they are blogging about anymore. To me it seems like a place where people can voice their frustrations with like minded people, and that there is nothing that is ever going to come out of that blog like it was first intended.

Same as with the NBBCOF blog, I think some of the posts on here would also go away if people did not respond to them (no names mentioned, again this is my opinion)

Actually there is very little converstion that goes on a blog, it appears that people want to be seen as right no matter what. Debate is one thing but argument is another, so I think the whole BBC blogging has run its course.

Memphis

Keith solomon said...

Actually there is very little converstion that goes on a blog, it appears that people want to be seen as right no matter what. Debate is one thing but argument is another

Boy, Memphis, you hit that nail on the head. Can you imagine what it would be like if a group of people sat down for dinner and the conversation mirrored a typical blog thread?

Cakes said...

WHS,

I've never heard that expression follow, "when confronted with the Word." You are truly an anachronism.

EZ is very measured and articulate, even if you disagree with his theology--he's not being antagonistic or a jerk, so just chill out; take a hot bath; but mainly, read, and think, about what you write before you publish.

Your banter does really crack me up sometimes. Your sort of a man with no home on the blogs, eh?

Cakes said...

yeah, but he doesn't say you give people the digit. You do seem a little obsessed with the Calvinism thing, draw theological lines and your language does go to extremes sometimes.

Hey, I got a mouth like a sailor too, but as they say, when in Rome...

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

lynn

You picked out a pasting error on my part. Good job.

However which is false doctrine, Jesus rose from the dead or He is comming again?

Charles

7:23 AM, December 03, 2007

Actually, I was questioning you on that because you said it was false doctrine. Or at least thats how you worded it.

As far as what I think, neither is false doctrine. Its plain as day in the bible that Jesus rose from the dead, ascended to Heaven and will at some point. Its in the bible.

ezekiel said...

Watching,

Considering current events, Anachronism?

EZ 12:24 For there shall be no more any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. 25 For I am the Lord; I will speak the word that I will speak, and it will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, but in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and perform it, declares the Lord God. 26 And the word of the Lord came to me: 27 Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off. 28 Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord God: None of my words will be delayed any longer, but the word that I speak will be performed, declares the Lord God.

Cakes said...

Mempho,

The difference between an argument and a debate is that the former is an assertion followed with qualifiers by an individual, the second infers two or more proposing arguments to one another.

So, you are correct--there is little debate on this blog.

John Mark said...

But what do you call it when a group of people propose the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and everyone's tired of hearing it?

Cakes said...

And of which arguments would yu be speaking, since there are few textbook arguments proposed here?

That all of NBBCOF are discredited by the impetuous posts of some. Or, to what do you attribute the the superiority of this place?

Maybe the arguments keep coming up because folks here cannot or will not address them.

Lynn said...

John Mark said...

But what do you call it when a group of people propose the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and everyone's tired of hearing it?

10:57 AM, December 04, 2007


Congress

John Mark said...

Congress

Wow! Lynn got it!

(And somebody thought I was talking about somebody else....)

oc said...

What? The Bratton Report?

Lynn said...

oc said...

What? The Bratton Report?

7:03 PM, December 04, 2007

I was going to say that, but Congress makes a better punchline :).

John Mark said...

Maybe the arguments keep coming up because folks here cannot or will not address them.

watchman said...
The Gospel according to Oprah

A Faithful Baptist Preacher addresses the reigning high priestess of The New Age Movement in this incredibly astute and powerful sermon you won't want to miss.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO OPRAH (link)

7:46 PM, December 03, 2007


Does this post by this fool really need to be addressed? What imbecile would be concerned over what OPRAH has to say about the gospel? OH! Other than this one....

imaresistor said...
watchman...

This is a great sermon! Could you give me the URL? I'd like to download it and send it to others.

Ima

8:42 AM, December 04, 2007


Forgive me for not spending my time rebuking Oprah, or those who feel threatened by her.

Lynn said...

Well Oprah is the most powerful person on Television.


I'm not worryed about Oprah. I got more important things to worry about. For example, United States Prosecutors knowingly allowed a witness of theirs to lie under oath in the trial of Border Agents Ramos and Compeon. Oh yeah...said witness was a high ranking drug smuggler who smuggled 2 more loads of drugs into the country while on a visa so he can testify.

Hopefully the 5th Circuit of Appeals in New Orleans will free these border agents and throw Johnny Sutton in jail.

Cakes said...

In direct contradiction of Mike's wishful thinking of the Pastor's actions, here's a telling portion of Bellevue's own investigative report.

"In June 2006, Mr. W, with his wife present, told Dr. G about the incident. He also told Dr. G that he had repented, confessed all to his family, asked for forgiveness, been forgiven, that there had been no further sexual misconduct in the ensuing seventeen years, and that he was receiving counseling. Dr. G had only passing knowledge of what Mr. W’s job duties were. Based on his beliefs that Mr. W was telling the full truth and that the children of Bellevue Baptist Church were not exposed to any danger or threat, Dr. G did not seek counsel in the matter. This was a mistake, one to which Dr. G has admitted, in hindsight. At minimum, Dr. G should have taken steps to learn exactly what Mr. W’s duties included, so he could ensure that there would be no harm to others. In fact, Dr. G could have started investigating by asking Mr. W himself about his job duties, to ensure no unsafe exposure to children. In addition, he could have temporarily relieved Mr. W of his duties and put him on leave. He could have simply taken the matter to other ministers on staff with more experience in the matter than himself. "

BBCIR

He could have asked the man himself, Bellevue IC says. Does this sound like a Pastor who took action, but the wrong one--as Mike implies; or does it look like he did nothing.

Either Mike or the BBCIC is in error.

If you think there's been real accountability for the above described (and not by moi) then please explicate.

I see a lot of other people paying the price for the debacle.

John Mark said...

Yes, cakes, but you're forgetting the REAL issues!!!

Oprah is bad!

Rick Warren is bad!

The sign on Germantown road is ugly!

The SBC is in declension!

Jamie Parker smiles too much!

The TV commercials are goofy!

Steve Gaines house costs too much!

WRVR gave away tickets to the singing christmas tree!

For goodness sake, let's keep our perspective, can we?

John Mark said...

Oh, and I forgot:

Donna Gaines buys underwear at Victoria's Secret!

Mark Daugherty is short!

SG said the fence was itty-bitty!

ECS is for rich white people!

The Halloween carnival was free, why not the Tree? (courtesy savingbellevue, even though the SCT is free)

The crosses cause wrecks on I-40! (okay, I made that one up)

The sign on Germantown road is ugly! (or did I say that already?)

Watchinghisstory is crazy! (oh wait, I agree with that one....)


Has anyone by any chance ever heard of focus?

Cakes said...

I'm sure you'd like to direct attention there--sorry, I don't do those issues. NBBCOF has been up a over a year, and you're right, it's not about the Pastor 24/7; but if it was, then you'd take a pot shot there too.

Do you ever actually engage an issue or just ride shotgun for Mike? That last remark is just so predictable.

NBBCOF is less about Gaines than this place is about NBBCOF, so again, I guess outrage is in the eye of the beholder.

Lynn said...

"If you think there's been real accountability for the above described (and not by moi) then please explicate."


Cakes, you are so right my friend. Theres been hardly any accountability. If there has been any, its just been a slap on the wrist. Its like Nicole Ritchie serving 90 minutes in jail for a DUI.

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

Why do people forget that the criminal act took place 17 years before Steve Gaines became pastor?

Will we ever know what took place at Bellevue for those 17 years?

Will Adrian Rogers get a free pass simply because he was unaware of it? What are the reasons he was so unaware of what went on in his church?

I just posted over at Stop Baptist Predators and they have a picture of Steve Gaines and no mention that the sodomy took place 17 years prior to his comming to Bellevue.

Is this fair to Steve?

Charles

8:52 PM, December 04, 2007


Charles, FYI, Dr. Rogers did not know about it. Everyone, including PW himself has said Dr. Rogers did not know. Is your skull really that thick?

Cakes said...

WHS,

Because sexual abuse always takes place in secret--the abuser, for the obvious reasons; the victim, for various reasons. What do you think it does to families? I didn't tell a soul until I was in my late-30s. The record shows the abuse happened at home, and the survivor came forward as an adult. Sure there's more to the story, but thats what we know.

You continue in implying the late Pastor should have recieved some supernatural insight if he was right with God or whatever--then dovetail it with some kind of cryptic divine intervention in the church. It is sort of disrespectful to the family to indict him like that and, after all, the dead are not here to defend themselves.

I don't know what you're talking about half the time, but you've got spirit and an independent streak. You don't mean any harm, but you really should consider that you might do so needlessly if you persist. Think about the people you love that have passed.

It is unfair to insist that, either he had knowledge, or should have been able to seer it, in my opinion.

Jessica said...

Quite frankly, I don't really want to rehash any of this again with any of you but I just have to point out :

lynn said:
"...including PW himself has said Dr. Rogers did not know...

Really?

I don't think think for one single second that Dr. Rogers knew- but seriously...since when is this a credible source? This has always been fascinating to me.

ezekiel said...

Watching,

"Will there be people who hear the Lord say depart from me you never knew me?

That is what the Word says. He also says ...

"On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies. He will not put on a hairy cloak in order to deceive, but he will say, I am no prophet, I am a worker of the soil, for a man sold me in my youth. And if one asks him, What are these wounds on your back? he will say, The wounds I received in the house of my friends."

Are you planning on taking up farming?

Memphis said...

Question:

Has PW had to take accountability for his actions?

David said...

Memphis,

As I recall, wasn't his discussion with Dr. Gaines one of confession in which he expressed sorrow and repentance? (I wasn't there...) But why else would someone suddenly reveal something like that to their pastor?

Memphis said...

David, I understand your point and I do not think I was clear with what I was thinking.

It seems to me that alot of people are worried that Gaines did not take a "punishment" for his role in this, and seem to be more worried about Gaines than PW.

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, I'm getting awfully tired of having to bring my shovel in here and clean up after your posts. Until you stop publishing hate and pornography and get the help you need, your comments aren't welcome here.

And David the Cakes, there's more to life than being able to quote one report and making disappointing remarks about people once you're not sitting at the same table with them.

We've covered--a long time ago--how Pastor Gaines mishandled his response to the Williams debacle, but the report you're so awfully fond of quoting (when it suits your previously-stated purpose) isn't the be-all and end-all you pretend it is. And frankly, knowing your published motivation for being involved in the commentary makes your laments much less compelling.

Folks, you might have noticed that I don't get to spend as much time here as I have in months past; thankfully, that's not going to change any time soon. I would prefer to spend my time here in more pleasant ways than shoveling out comments and shaking my head at snipers. To that end, I would appreciate the help of all who participate here in making your posts more constructive.

--Mike

Cakes said...

Memphis, Mike, Arnie,

People that have invested their lives at Bellevue, folks that would like to see accountability for screw-ups (you know, personal responsibility--the stuff Christian cpnservative harp on endlessly), and survivors of childhood sexual abuse can see that the pedophile has been given the axe. Otherwise, they haven't seen accountability for the other ministers culpable, and neith can you'all articulate them. Memphis says He thinks Gaines has suffered consequences--and leaves it at that.

It's not vengence that people want; it's to be able to have a Pastor and ministers at the church--for which they are stakeholders, whether you'd like to admit it--who they can trust. They have just cause, and it is in black and white. Many Baptists have also said there's been no accountability, and likewise villified for not towing the line. But you paint those folks however you want.

Mike, that's Bellevue's own report, and I don't need to be a Christian or sit at the table with anyone, to draw a proper conclusion; especially given the premeditated and contrived actions of leadership that followed.

So, when did you sit at the table with King Willie, to draw the conclusions you've written about him?

Arnie, still nothing to say, eh?

Does anyone have anything of substance; or have I trespassed into the mutual admiration society, where as long as your on the right side, you can get away with any dumb remark?

Memphis, what are these consequences? Arnie, stand ready with your amen or diverting quip. Mike, keep the daddy act coming (but I already have a daddy, so what else have you got?).

Memphis said...

Cakes first let me say thank you for not calling me Mempho.

Now to address your question regarding Gaines and the consequences I believe he has suffered. (You can shoot these down point by point if you wish, which I expect someone will in order to prove themselves right)

1. Public and professional embarrassment over the whole situation.
2. Increased scrutiny over every aspect of his professional and personal life.
3. Congregation that has departed (for people to say that he wanted to get rid of the crowds, well this was one heck of a plan for him to accomplish that goal).
4. A blog where people called him a goon, and even the possibility of being the Anti Christ.
5. Being secretly tape recorded in hopes of catching him saying things he shouldn’t say.
6. Tax records being publicly displayed and linked on the internet. (also loan amounts, address and false rumors about residences in New York)
7. His wife has been questioned and scrutinized.
8. People calling for his arrest for criminal charges.
9. Anonymous letters sent out bashing him and his sermons.

There are 9 consequences in the few minutes I have right now, you can agree with them or not agree with them, I am sure others could add more to the list just as others could detract each point. No one will ever agree that the situation was handled right, but to say there were no consequences, I do not agree.

Memphis

John Mark said...

cakes, to put it simply, you're making the forum into something it's not.

Their purpose is to run down Gaines and BBC for any and all reasons. It started with the group who was angry with the way Whitmire was treated, but where are they now? Happily at other churches, I guess (except for that incredibly strange Mr. Haywood).

Obviously there are serious problems with SG's character, but that's not why they want him gone. You should be insulted that they claim the scandal as their tool of choice.

There are 3 people not counting you(sotl, gmommy, and mary) who have posted regularly and are credible when they said their primary concern is the abuse case. Three, period. You can observe their authenticity in the way they post, since they generally don't fly off into the new age, purpose driven garbage (Mary does a little bit, but she evidently has a Catholic background. Not sure if she was ever a Bellevue member, though). The rest (about 15 of them) have just made BBC the epicenter of everything that's wrong with the church. In essence they are in agreement with WHS, only they blame the current pastor for the ills of the church instead of the former.

But even though these 3 might be sincere as they complain the abuse, that is NOT the issue. By and large, the forum exists because of a great void in the lives of it's members. They are not a part of a church family, and in fact never really have been. I don't care if they've gone to church all their lives, they don't know what it means to belong. If they knew what truly being a part of a church meant, they'd seek it out instead of just lamenting the demise of the imaginary Emerald City that was the 'old' Bellevue.

They don't know what it means to belong, and the forum gives some measure of belonging to them. That would be fine, but sadly, the chief requirement for 'belonging' is that the members HATE Bellevue. It's a little like a girl-haters club run by 10-year-olds (only with less organization and maturity).

Simply put, the forum is their only family. And it's not because Rick Warren has destroyed every single church in America. It's because they DO NOT know what church is really about. Until they learn to serve instead of demanding to be served they'll never fit into ANY denomination.

You can go right ahead and keep believing that the forum is a beacon of light and truth about child sexual abuse and holding ministers accounable, but I hope you really understand that believing something doesn't mean it's true.

The NBBCOF is just a huge gripe session that's been going on for far too long. CSA was just one of the things griped about.

I know that the Bible carries little weight with non-Christians, but these words from the apostle Paul probably have a counterpart in your own religion:

I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.

Until the forum members learn that truth and put it into practice, they'll never really belong to anything but that mosh pit. They've all left Bellevue, and many of them are now at some of the finest churches in the South, but they still feel compelled to come home after worship and attack Bellevue. If they had nothing else to turn to, it might be understandable (although not according to Paul).

Life is not so bad that people need to be so jealous of BBC. Whether it exists or not should not impact anyone but the people who worship there. Enough is enough, already.

Cakes said...

Oh,

There have been tons of consequences, but no accountability. Yes, they are quite easy to shoot down.

So, blog entries are accountability? Embarassment is accountability? Dissenting ministers, staff and thousands of parishioners shown the door or bought out of the contracts is accountability? Inviting scrutiny by a lack of trasnparency is accountability? Saying he should face criminal charges is accountability? Anonymous letters are accountability?

Ha! Yes, that was quite easy. Are consequences and accountability the same thing to you, just like an apology and consequences?

Gee, he apologized after he got caught. How noble of him.

Cakes said...

Well,

Thank you Dr. Armie. Where did you get your degree in psycology to make such a prognosis. Anytime I make arguments that people (including but no limited to NBBCOF) you pretend like it is a defense of NBBCOF, not the indictment of Bellevue's leadership that it is.

You can not stack up enough egregious post to equal one instance of letting a pedophile walk for 6 month, no matter how you try.

You are the one that is obsessed--with NBBCOF--and I surmise that it is because you have low self-esteem, or your mother or father didn't love you, thus you share the same MO as the bullies in my grade school classes (that was said tongue in cheek, so don't freak out).

John Mark said...

No, I'm not obsessed. It's just that since Bob Barker retired there's not much else to do.

John Mark said...

And speaking of which, when have I ever defended SG?

Looks like SOTL isn't the only one seeing things....

Memphis said...

Cakes, you have just proven my point on an earlier post. This blog is not about conversation or debate, but of people trying to priove themselves right, which is your main goal..to be right.

And I now realize why you post over here so much instead of the other blog (I looked). You have no one to argue with over there anymore since everyone is of the same mindset on the NBBCOF blog.

You asked me about consequences not being held accountable, yet your reply was to attempt to make me look inept or stupid.

And I believe it does take a noble man to admit when he is wrong.

Merry Christmas,
Memphis

Memphis said...

You know, I just realized that as a Buddhist, you might not celebrate Christmas. So if you do not celebrate Christmas, please do not read anything into my Christmas wish to you at the end of my last post.

David said...

I’d like to say something about this “accountability” everyone keeps talking about.

It seems when some speak of the need for accountability, they really mean punishment. They want to punish the pastor. Accountability is taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Believe it or not, even Mega church pastors are still learning. I don’t think Dr. Gaines didn’t take action because of evil intent. He thought someone had confessed to him in private and it was his responsibility to keep that confidential. Not to gossip. Believe it or not, he was actually trying to be a good pastor. I know people (I know some pastors) who couldn’t keep their mouth shut about such information!

Ask a couple questions: Did Dr. Gaines learn from the experience? I’m not him, but he says he did. Has he apologized? He did. There is nothing he can do to rewind time and change his actions. The only thing that can be done is people can learn from the situation.

And let me scare all of you: At every moment we are unknowingly putting children at risk by what we don’t know. Only thing we can do is change what we do know. Now that Gaines knows it is right to expect him to act different in a similar situation.

Let me ask another question: Has God used the situation? He has. By a very public man making a mistake and having it brought out in the open, others have learned. I can tell you that I’ve become more sensitive to some situations.

However, I get the feeling from some that “accountability” means to them that Dr. Gaines should be fired or docked in pay or punished.

I think it’s best to leave God on his throne. I see people getting angry as they try to kick God off his throne and sit there themselves so that they might judge the earth. (Romans 3:19)

Cakes said...

How very Clintonian, David. So if a school principal does what Mr Gaines has done, an apology won't save his job. Why do school officials persist in trying to knock God off his throne.

You can sugar-coat any issue with religion-speak; but it is only religious leaders who get the indulgence.

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

Cakes,

I thought you claimed to be above name calling.

There is no sugar coating with "religion-speak." That I believe God is the judge of the world -- not us-- that is sugar coated religion speak? I think you might see it different if you understood the fear of the Lord.

ezekiel said...

Watching,

Hey, you are right!

Matt 7:23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (A)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

I forgot that I was conversing with a chap who uses lies and provacative statements, foul language, perverse, graphic imagery.....I will have to be more careful with you in the future. Probably need to avoid you all together.

By the way, being the prophet you are, does one who lies and provokes people with outrageous statements fit "you who practice lawlessness"? What about lying and using provacative statements, what about making statements with the intent to deceive?

In your...uh...
professional opinion, that is...

You seem to have the applicable scripture down pretty well yet seem totaly incapable of seeing how it should apply to you. I suggest you take a good look at your "body" of work and compare it carefully to the 7:23 and 1 John 3. Look back over what your "friends" have been telling you and the "marks" you have been receiving at their house (Zech 13:6) and see if you can spot the glaring problem that others see and you don't seem to.

Are you more like a son of a prophet whose message is "repent for the Kindom is at hand" or more like the individual in the cemetery that no one can chain? (Luke 8:29)

That was an unclean spirit there and your actions, words and manner seem to get a lot closer to "practicing lawlessness" than practicing "righteousness".
(1 John 3)

John Mark said...

I've heard that argument over and over, and I'd like to hear a precedent.

Could you provide substantion? An account of a teacher who has gone to a principal and confessed abusing a child in his or her home 17 or more years in the past who was immediately dismissed? Or was not dismissed and the principal was fired?

Not a teacher who abused a student, but their own child.

That should be simple enough. I'd check CNN myself, but it's time for my nap.

John Mark said...

Hey EZ,

Careful! Don't make WHS call down the fire!!

Cakes said...

Look up the law, Arnie. There is no statute of limitations on pedophilia. The reason it is a law is that no pastor, friend, collegue or otherwise is in a position to know whether their crime is 17 years old or not. Again, this is not something that should have to spelled out for you.

Cakes said...

I'm sorry, I thought when I called you David it was because it was your name; but I guess since you don't know the meaning of fact or evidence, then maybe you don't know what name-calling is.

So, if I was a Christian, I could understand your moral and intellectual indulgences too. Well, that's another good reson for me to stay a Buddhist.

So, are you saying a few thousand people are not really Christians.

Y'all have faith (in Gaines) that is beyond all understanding.

John Mark said...

I'm just saying that you're using the school system as an ideal.

Show me the precedent. Should be pretty easy to do since you've shown so much confidence in your trump card. It's getting a little dog-eared, so I think you need to beef it up a little.

And let's not forget that quite a few BBC members knew about the abuse before the story broke or before it was reported to the authorities. What should their penalty be?

And would firing Gaines really have been enough to satisfy everyone? I think not.

John Mark said...

Y'all have faith (in Gaines) that is beyond all understanding.

Actually, I'd say that the faith in Gaines is very reasonable. The faith I'm seeing is the faith that he makes mistakes, does stupid things, but just might learn from them.

What's beyond understanding is the de facto worship many people gave to the position of senior pastor, so much so that they had nervous breakdowns and such when they learned he wasn't perfect. How unhealthy is that?

David said...

Cakes,

“So, are you saying a few thousand people are not really Christians.”
No sir. I’m saying BILLIONS of people are not Christians. It’s a wide path.

“So, if I was a Christian, I could understand your moral and intellectual indulgences too.”
I was not advocating any indulgences. Did you actually read what I wrote? I think you’re smart enough to understand what I was saying. Try again.

I said that people seem to be confusing the word “accountability” with the word “punishment.”

--Accountability would be creating a new standard within the church that makes it clear how reported offenses would be dealt with in the future.

--Punishment would seek to bestow injury on Gaines for his offense.

As I stated, I believe he thought he was being a good pastor. When people confess stuff to us, we don’t go reporting it. It’s a spiritual matter. However, in the case of child abuse that is not so. I do not know if Gaines knew that. He does now. If people want to punish Gaines, then that is possible, but don’t call it accountability.

And by the way, cakes, I have no fiath in Gaines or any other man.

David said...

cakes,

"I'm sorry, I thought when I called you David it was because it was your name; but I guess since you don't know the meaning of fact or evidence, then maybe you don't know what name-calling is."

Are you really sorry?
I forgive you.

David said...

WHS: "Have I ever stooped to this level of communication?"

Uh,... YES!

John Mark said...

Man, the suspense is killing me!

We should take up a collection and get cakes a blackberry!

John Mark said...

cakes, Is your friend still measured? Does this kind of Christianity measure up to your concept of kindness in dialogue?

Hey, it was a fair question!

Cakes said...

No David,

I'm not really sorry that I called you by your own moniker, nor do I call the adjective "clintonian" name-calling. Name-calling would be if I called you Clinton, and such infers an insulting (im)proper noun.

Clintonian has entered the lexicon and its meaning is plain, a desperate excuse parading as a reason. That happens a lot over here.

I think once Gaines destroyed his own credibility with a significant number of the stakeholders in the church, it was wrong to make them unwelcome, to contrive a meeting that protected the leadership and the injured got the business, dissenting ministers bought out of their contracts and deacons given the axe, to make people sign loyalty oaths and hand over their W2s, etc.

There's your consequences.

Otherwise, Bellevue's own investigative report contradicts the portrayal of the Pastor as caring or on the ball. But not being a Christian, I'm sure that is why I cannot seer the nuance you guys percieve.



WHS,

Cakes said...

Oops WHS,

I don't understand the reference to which EZ refers or its implications.

ezekiel said...

Its interesting that a cry goes out for christian kindness from the same mouth that for months has spewed a litany of foul, offensive repugnant filth, all the while claiming a personal revelation from the Christ that he claims to abide in yet denies by his very actions and words.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. 15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

ezekiel said...

Cakes,

The offense appears to be a lack of christian kindness on my part... You never said I was kind, just measured and articulate... Considering the stuff flowing from WHS my communication is the very essence of measured when compared to WHS.

I will leave the articulate judgement to others...

ezekiel said...

Watching,

Lets look at your favorite scripture again...

"Matt 7:23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (A)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Now what does 1 John 3 tell us?

1 John 3: 1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

Look back over the last several months and tell us what you have been practicing...and then look back at your favorite scripture.......Key words are practice and lawlessness....

Cakes said...

Holy cow WHS,

Do you have to be that graphic, or might you still make your point without doing so?

ezekiel said...

Watching,

"I am a bold, Spirit-filled and Evangelistic Calvinist."

That may be your take on things...and I will give you the bold, even the spirit filled calvanist but the real question is whose spirit fills you?

How long are you going to halt between two opinions? Who are you going to serve? If Christ then repent of all this filth, perversion and obsession with sexual sin and use your knowledge to honor and obey the WORD. Contend for the faith. Set a godly example....

Or keep practicing what you have been. Serve the god of this world.....

ezekiel said...

Proverbs 10:32The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable,

but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverse.

ezekiel said...

Proverbs 10:31The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom,

but the perverse tongue will be cut off.

ezekiel said...

WHS,

Ephesians 4:17Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

You have been running your mouth for months about how angry God is at Dr Rogers. How angry do you think he is with you for trampling under foot the very spirit of grace? It may be a good time to forgive Dr Rogers of his offense to you...or you may risk being unforgiven for your offense to Christ. Remember the parable of the one who owed a little and the one who owed a lot? Are you any more able to pay your debt than he was?

gimommo said...

I apologize for posting here but do want to expose the fact that Charles has inserted the name Steve Gaines into a post I wrote on Christa Brown's site in response to another one of his rants.

Not that I think any of us should allow this man to use any of us for his personal agenda...BUT it is clearly NOT what I posted.

He has taken the liberty of making alterations... either to fit his own sick games or just because he enjoys himself so much when he is dishonest and cruel.

Very clever,Charles.
Too bad Christa thought it necessary to delete your posts from her site.

maybejustmaybe said...

Captain Mike -- please? Is comment moderation an option? Allowing this filth to be posted at all is pointless, and to allow it to be posted as though in the name of our Holy God is defamation of all that is righteous and true. I beg you to put a stop to this. It's gone on long enough. Repentance is not going to come.

ezekiel said...

WHS,

"This filth did not originate in my mind and came from my mouth but from Bellevue Baptist Church."

It might not have originated in your mind but it has taken root there and continues to fester and grow. Take a look at you post

I don't need to apologize to you for the anger God has toward Bellevue and Adrian Rogers.

Considering what you are writing while claiming to be a servant of CHRIST, God's anger at BBC and Dr. Rogers is probably the last thing you need to be worrying about right now. Repent for the Kingdom is at hand...

You, my self-righteous friend are completely wrong about this.

First, I am not self righteous. My righteousness is from Christ, through the atonement for my sins through His sacrifice on the cross and cleansed by His Blood.

Second, I am not wrong about it at all. The Christ that I know is shocked and dismayed that a person claiming to be a follower of Him is on a blog, demeaning a faithful servant and using the type of language that you are using, again and again and again. I am sure He feels the same outrage that I do. Rather than worry about God's anger toward Dr. Rogers, I suggest you spend your time personally trying to avoid His anger directed at you.

You need to sit down, shut your mouth and ask the Holy Spirit to cleanse you of this unclean spirit and restore you to fellowship with Him. Let's just hope and pray that he shows you more kindness and mercy than you have shown Dr. Rogers and his family.

Astounded said...

I am a bold, Spirit-filled and Evangelistic Calvinist.

Isn't the above statement somewhat oxymoronic? Why would a Calvinist need to resort to evangelism? Would not evangelism to a Calvinist be tantamount to usurping God's soverignty in choosing only those He wishes todole His salvation out to?

Jessica said...

If everyone would take a page from Memphis' book (and mine now as well) and just scroll on by anything that says "Watchinghisstory said..." the world is a much more pleasant place.

It won't stop him from posting, but if no one responds he will at least not keep being rewarded for what he says. Charles wants us to respond and desires for us to be "shocked".

Then Mike will come back, delete the posts and it will be like it never happened.

David said...

Cakes: "I'm sorry–“
Cakes: “No David, I'm not really sorry”

I’m not smart enough to keep up with you, Cakes.

I started to feel good about life, thinking: Golly, Cakes likes me. Gee whiz, isn't life grand. And then i found out you were fibbing. I'm telling the teacher, I really am.

I'm very sad you weren't sorry, because I base my emotional being on your preception of me. If you don't like me, then I don't like me. Please like me. We could be friends, ya know.

I guess I should have asked: “Are you really really sorry? Or just sorry? Because you have to be really really super sorry or it doesn’t count.”

Now, about cows being holy...

Cakes said...

David,

Reading your post this morning made me laugh. I do like you and your sense of humor.

Have a great day.

D.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 543   Newer› Newest»