Sunday, December 16, 2007

A bit of site housekeeping

Folks, I'm going to give you one heads-up, and one heads-up only.

The notion here is to deal with issues, and not with personalities--unless, obviously, a personality makes himself (or herself) an issue.

Whether it's an obvious bit of nonsense like calling someone a "moonbat" or a "sissy," or more subtly-phrased disparagements, there will be no more of them. At least, not here.

I've been tolerant, but as is often the case, my tolerance has been taken for granted. Talk about events and ideas, not about people, or your comments, too, will be eligible to join the "Remove Forever" club.

--Mike

308 comments:

1 – 200 of 308   Newer›   Newest»
Lynn said...

Folks, I'm going to give you one heads-up, and one heads-up only.

The notion here is to deal with issues, and not with personalities--unless, obviously, a personality makes himself (or herself) an issue.

Whether it's an obvious bit of nonsense like calling someone a "moonbat" or a "sissy," or more subtly-phrased disparagements, there will be no more of them. At least, not here.

I've been tolerant, but as is often the case, my tolerance has been taken for granted. Talk about events and ideas, not about people, or your comments, too, will be eligible to join the "Remove Forever" club.

--Mike


Hey Mike,

Aren't you being hypocritical on this? I mean come on now, you apparently don't mind people like John Mark and such disparage the other side. You can't have it both ways. And didn't you forbid Page from posting? How's that working out for you? Thats right, thats another load of bull too. Yes you delete his posts, but often his posts remain for days at a time. Afraid of looking like the hypocrite that you really are Mike? Maybe you should stop the talk and show a little action. Maybe then people will actually listen to you.

oc said...

And we are so worried about name calling. Since when?

Does that apply to calling people and/or their words such names as... oh... let's see...

anti-Bellevue virulence
naysayers
anti-Bellevue cadre
anti-Bellevue faithful
a joke
anti-Bellevue club
buckets of bile
a Bellevue contrarian/Bellevue contrarians
emotion-driven group
the Closed Forum
Integrity Does Count (But Only For Others)
Savaging Bellevue
contrarian groups
anti-Bellevue bile
bitter minority
clique ironically known as an Open Forum...
... the Forum is a place loaded with obscenities and filth.
anti-Bellevue sympathizers
playground mentality
anti-Bellevue opposition
toxic environment of the Formerly-Open Forum...
Mostly Closed Forum.

Just to name a few? And those are just the names and "more subtly-phrased disparagements" employed by YOU in a handful of YOUR blog posts. That's not taking into account all the bile spewed by such TBR luminaries as "John Mark" aka "arminius" aka whatever or "brady" or "bugsii," just to name a few. Or the "disparagements" of "memphis" or "solomon"? Are you going to go back and delete all YOUR comments in which YOU have called fellow Christians those names and/or are YOU going to pledge to refrain from using those terms (i.e. names) in the future, too? If you do, then I will applaud you. But if you do refrain from the use of those names, whatever will you talk about? It's been such a constant "theme" throughout your blog for all these months. Somehow I get the feeling you'll just say those things are only about "ideas" and not the people behind them.
And some people get upset when I say "sissy".

Just sayin'.
oc.

David said...

Wow Lynn and OC, it's striking how upset some get when the bar gets raised.

Lynn said...

Blogger David said...

Wow Lynn and OC, it's striking how upset some get when the bar gets raised.

8:02 PM, December 16, 2007

I'm not upset. I just find it hypocritical that you and others over here apply two sets of standards. One where you call those of us who are critical of Gaines all sorts of names, but at the same time you criticize the other side. If your going to do one thing to one group and the opposite for the other group, thats hypocracy.

Cakes said...

OC,

I know all "Christians" are not cut from the same cloth--the distinction is palpable.

So, no worries.

Keith solomon said...

OC,

Let me tell you why I get upset. When people say derogatory things about Bellevue, they are talking about me and my family. Yes I take it personally, because it's aimed right at me.

After the treatment I received back in March on your NBBCOF, I have very little sympathy for anyone whose feelings get hurt by anything I say.

I was a member of the NBBCOF before I ever came here, and the reason I was turned on was because I expect Christians to act like Christians. When someone makes an insane post about Bellevue security guards taking people behind the building and shooting them, I wanted the post to be broadly denounced. Naturally, I expected far too much.

Has anyone ever apologized to me for calling me a disgraceful parent, a pervert, a liberal, and a satanist? No, of course not, and no one ever will.

Don't think that I'm going to sweep that mess under the rug. Ever. If some of those bloggers want to come here and make amends, I'll listen to what they have to say. But I'll never pretend that it didn't happen.

Now why don't you and Lynn go back and see if watchman has posted any exciting new 'Tower of Babel' links?

oc said...

You upset David? I'm not.

oc said...

Cakes,
With you bro.

Keith solomon said...

Against my better judgement, I ventured over there. I noticed this:

The problem as I see it is the lack of courage to make a stand by the majority of men in the congregation, especially the deacons. They seemed to be intimidated by the bully, Gaines and his team of devious men. Unfortunately, these men have been in power for years, professing even to be Dr Rogers' friends, some even laying their traitorous hands on him in prayer at his retirement, all the while knowing what wicked plans were already in motion. They have rhetorically raped and pillaged, plundered and murdered the character of the membership by attacking them spiritually, accusing them as troublemakers, interfering with God's will, evildoers, disloyal, and those in leadership have even attempted to personally assassinate the reputations of godly men and women who dared to call them to accountability for their unscriptural actions. They have torn apart families, friends and God's church in order to get their hands on the millions of dollars of God's sacred tithes and offerings in the coffers of Bellevue. Especially those in charge of missions who were lying in wait to get their hands on enough money to do that which Dr Rogers found lacking in integrity. In his wisdom, he forbade these acts during his tenure as pastor, he saw the dark shadows that these actions would cast on the church and sought to protect her name and integrity. Yes, Gaines AND his wife are bullies, but the men in the darkness are the ones that orchestrated these treacherous deeds, the ones that carried out the sham of seeking a new pastor. They were warned about Gaines, yet shunned the advice and they chose Gaines for a reason, they knew he would allow them to line their own pockets, not with the monetary wealth of Bellevue, because these men and women were already millionaires, but with power and self-glory.

I'm not intimidated by Steve Gaines. I'm not a millionare. I don't consider myself wicked, and I've never "rhetorically raped and pillaged, plundered and murdered the character of the membership by attacking them spiritually". I didn't lay my traitorous hands on Dr. Rogers, either. For that matter, I've never torn a family apart.

I noticed gmommy addressed this post by pointing out that it was not right to label the entire congregation as evil.

OC and Lynn, I didn't see your opinions posted over there. Are you going to support gmommy or 'been redeemed'?

Silence is tacit agreement.

oc said...

Solomon said:
Has anyone ever apologized to me for calling me a disgraceful parent, a pervert, a liberal, and a satanist? No, of course not, and no one ever will.


oc says:
ok. You want that I apologize? Did I say that about you?.
I don't think I did. But ok. I apologize. Unless it's true.

Keith solomon said...

No oc, you weren't the one who said those things. But you seem to be defending those who did.

I will not accept an apology on their behalf for what was said. And I'm going to ignore the 'unless it's true' jab since I don't think you meant it.

Lynn said...

Solomon Said...

Has anyone ever apologized to me for calling me a disgraceful parent, a pervert, a liberal, and a satanist? No, of course not, and no one ever will.

Lynn Says...

I don't recall anyone over there calling you that. Show me proof.

As far as Been Redeemed's comment goes, I do agree with gmommy in that not everyone in the congregation is evil. That being said, I do agree with some of the things Been Redeemed has said, including that Steve Gaines is a bully (See the trespassing incident) and that he refuses to be held accountable for harboring a pedophile for 6 months.

Lynn said...

If you want to know what is truely evil....look at Hillary Clinton.

oc said...

Solomon says:
Silence is tacit agreement.



oc says:
Is that always true? You are pretty silent during Chuckie's rages.

Just sayin'.
oc.

Memphis said...

"Or the "disparagements" of "memphis" or "solomon"?"

Show me one.

Keith solomon said...

Sorry lynn, but I have no intention of going through that blog just to vindicate myself. It would serve no purpose other than to raise my blood pressure.

I've never lied on the blogs, and my posts stand for themselves. You can believe that, or you can believe watchman.

Keith solomon said...

OC,

Does this ring any bells?

solomon said...
Lynn said...
Hey Watching,

Pardon me for being blunt here, but your twisting the scripture in such a way that well, your a very dangerous man.

I seriously recommend you seek some sort of inpatient mental health treatment somewhere such as Bolivar.

Its seriously in the your best interest.

I concur.

4:56 PM, November 20, 2007

oc said...

solomon said:
I noticed gmommy addressed this post by pointing out that it was not right to label the entire congregation as evil.

OC and Lynn, I didn't see your opinions posted over there. Are you going to support gmommy or 'been redeemed'


oc says:
Huh? Now you are complaining that gmommy isn't condemning a whole congregation? I think that is a good thing, don't you? What is it that you want? What is your point?

And yes. I support gmommy and anyone else who needs support against a bunch of heartless and gutless people masquerading as people of God. Whether you like it or not.

oc said...

Solomon.
That's it?
That's the best you can scrub up?

ok.

Memphis said...

OC,

"Or the "disparagements" of "memphis" or "solomon"?"

Show me one...

ezekiel said...

Solomon,

"After the treatment I received back in March on your NBBCOF, I have very little sympathy for anyone whose feelings get hurt by anything I say."

And

"Don't think that I'm going to sweep that mess under the rug. Ever. If some of those bloggers want to come here and make amends, I'll listen to what they have to say. But I'll never pretend that it didn't happen."


Yes you do.

And

I hope you do.

Your heart is softer/bigger than that and letting bitterness harden it is a mistake you have seen and one that you know better than to make...

Jessica said...

Christians shouldn't call each other names. period. I won't apologize for saying it. And feel free to go dig up my dirty laundry- I am not perfect, but the fact is that I am trying.

If me saying that paints Christians in a bad light to Cakes then so be it. I will trust that God is powerful enough to overcome it.
I think it is the right thing to do and I am holding myself to the same standard.

Cakes said...

Testosterone and piety should never be mingled. I don't know if I'm at a prayer meeting or pit bull fight.

Look, everybody pokes at one another on every blog. The only reason I found my way to the BR is because one of those evil NBBCOFers informed me that Bugsii was talking trash about me linking to porn; I considered that an invitation to come over here to crack some rhetorical heads. And almost 10 months later, I never regret it.

In America, folks think everyone has a right to an opinion, and that is certainly true, but it is not to be colluded that all arguments are equally qualified or valid. Sarcasm and ridicule go han-in-hand with rhetoric.

The problem here is that, too often, there's a lot of laundry lists and the intellectual equivalent of "what he said"-type comments. Or, it's not ridiculing an argument, but the notion that if you can call ones' character in question, then you've killed their argument.

Every real concern expressed by the refugees is on your chopping block every day--how often is any of them even mentioning the BR?

Cakes said...

Jessica,

Whenever i read your comments, I think of that lady in Have You Been Served from Britain--she always ended a pronouncement with "and I am unanimous in that!"

Otherwise, I don't find name-calling any worse that any other tactic up in here--disparaging people characters, outing them or beating them over the head with piety.

oc said...

Christians shouldn't call each other names. period. I won't apologize for saying it. And feel free to go dig up my dirty laundry- I am not perfect, but the fact is that I am trying.

If me saying that paints Christians in a bad light to Cakes then so be it. I will trust that God is powerful enough to overcome it.
I think it is the right thing to do and I am holding myself to the same standard


oc says:
Jessica. Come on. No one wants your dirty laundry.

And Cakes destiny doesn't rest with you. Or me. It rests with him snd HIm. But don't excuse yourself in the same sentence by saying God can overcome your bad witness. Of course that's true, but it sure looks like a way to avoid responsibility for a bad witness. That's an easy way out, don't you think? Should an unbeliever respect that?

And, excuse me. You talk about "standards", but it seems a little self serving. Do you remember disrespecting someone else's desire for anonymity?
And then acting innocent about it?

yep. And name calling is the problem. Sure.

David said...

OC: "You upset David? I'm not."

Nope.

I spent my day in church and had a wonderful time. And I did sleep all afternoon after eating big lunch. Oh, and I got up from my nap in time to go to church and eat dinner at a party for our home groups.

I told my wife, "This is pretty good. Preach -- then preach again -- then eat, sleep, eat again. Ahhh."
And she just stared at me.

oc said...

Oh good David.
Because it was looking earlier that you had something stuck cross wise. Glad your nap helped orient your life view.

And your wife staring at you. Well, that's a different problem.

Mike Bratton said...

There was a time when I could be here more than once every single day, with each visit long enough to "keep house," read comments, and post both responses and articles.

Those days are in the past, and I frankly hope they don't return; there is such a thing, as the song says for each of us, as having "too much time on my hands."

Hypocritical? There's a difference between reading a label and making one up. When you demonstrate a desire to destroy a church, that means you've applied a label on yourself that makes you "anti-" that church, wouldn't you agree?

A real hypocrite would ban such remarks as yours, lynn, simply because they're disagreeable.

And on the subject of Charles, his posts are up only as long as it takes me to get to my computer and delete them. Sometimes that is days at a time, but since it's the best I can do, I have enlisted assistance, so the "turnaround time" on eliminating those posts should meet with your approval.

OC, I appreciate the encyclopedic nature of your response. You might notice that none of that is name-calling, or otherwise focused anywhere but on a group's activities or mindset. You know, an issue?

--Mike

Cakes said...

"When you demonstrate a desire to destroy a church, that means you've applied a label on yourself that makes you "anti-" that church, wouldn't you agree?"

No, you may not agree with the mindset of people with whom you disagree, but the opposition to the leadership of Bellevue is not the same as "anti-Bellevue." Some of them may signify it as a desire to save Bellevue from its obvious corruption.

No, the anti-label is just a convenient way to dismiss real people who find the issue more complex than your preferred judgement of their character.

That truly is offensive, and this thread is a fine demonstration of just how low some will stoop to villify a whole group of individuals.

Keith solomon said...

oc said...
And, excuse me. You talk about "standards", but it seems a little self serving. Do you remember disrespecting someone else's desire for anonymity?
And then acting innocent about it?

yep. And name calling is the problem. Sure.


OC,

There were several posts preceding Jessica's that mentioned the name in question, although WHS's posts were later deleted. Jessica didn't "out" anybody. Your deliberate distortion of what happened serves no purpose other than to cause us to be skeptical of your posts.

oc said...
And yes. I support gmommy and anyone else who needs support against a bunch of heartless and gutless people masquerading as people of God. Whether you like it or not.


Is this another of your 'I apologize unless it's true' statements? Because if you're suggesting that I'm heartless and gutless and masquerading as a man of God you I'd like for you to retract it. What gmommy said was that she was not judging the congregation, but you just did it for her.

FYI, I received your post in an email from a coworker this morning. Several of them seem to get a lot of enjoyment making light of Bellevue and religion in general, and they freely pass around some of the meatier posts.

I think in some ways it's commendable that you stick up for your blog friends the way you do, but there's one thing you have to realize. As long as BBC is the butt of the blog's jokes and putdowns it is going to offend the membership of Bellevue.

Don't expect to be friends with us as long as you talk about us. Especially not when you broadcast your words to the world.

Cory said...

For what it's worth, you all might be interested in my blog post this morning. Merry Christmas to you all. You can access the blog through my profile.

Jessica said...

OC,

Lets not pretend that SOTL charging over here had anything to do with anonymity. There we are least three other posts before mine that contained her first and LAST name that didn't warrant a mention. So lets just stop propagating that fairy tale.

No cakes destiny doesn't lie with you or me, but if you think that making fun of people or calling them names is more Christ-like then go for it. I don't see how encouraging people to uphold a higher standard in their speech is a bad witness...but whatever.


Cakes, this is what I mean about getting to know people. You have this image of the way I sound (and am) in your head. If you actually took the time to look past who you have decided I am you would find a very different person. You say "we" are the legalistic, rule following, pious crowd when you really don't know anything about how we live our lives.

Maybe I do come off as uptight or pious or whatever, but you come off as condescending and frankly like a snob- but from hearing you describe your life and your job and interests, I am betting that is pretty far off the mark.

larry said...

I don't post very often, but I'm going to jump into the fray for a second. I consider myself fortunate to have friends on both blogs. I'm not going to use adversarial language and say both 'sides' and I wish that everyone else would refrain from using that term unless speaking about sides of a discussion.

A few months ago Solomon made some very harsh remarks about someone on the NBBCOF. He clearly posted out of anger and did not measure his words before he posted them. I pointed out to him that what he said was sure to be hurtful, and he agreed. He apologized for his words and asked forgiveness, which was given. That was the end of it. It's a done deal, and it would be wrong to keep throwing that mistake in his face.

I observed the exchange between Jessica and SOTL, and there wasn't any malicious intent on Jessica's part. Even so, she apologized for the misunderstanding. There hasn't been any follow up on the blog, and since there have been no further posts I don't have any reason to suspect there's any bad will between the two of them. Again, it's over with and it shouldn't be harped on.

And don't miss this one. I don't in any way condone the malicious behavior John Mark has displayed in the past. And let me say that his posts were quite agreeable compared to his emails. Even considering what he's been through, there's no excuse to treat people with as little respect as he did. But as several people have noted, his behavior changed noticeably in the last few months. I think there were a couple of reasons for the change, and I believe it was very real. In his December 8th post he said he was sorry for offending everyone.

One short apology might not seem like nearly enough to make amends for the trouble he caused, but that's not what apologies are for. They are an admission of a mistake, a sign of regret, and sometimes a hope for forgiveness and a restored relationship. I'm not going to dismiss JM's statement as insufficient, because it just might be the best he can do. And it might be the only apology we ever get from him, too. Unless I see evidence otherwise, I'll accept it as sincere.

When Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek, he knew how difficult what he was asking would be. King Solomon said that it was to a man's glory to overlook an offense.

Ghandi once said that the 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' justice only goes so far before everyone is blind and toothless, and a favorite quote of Martin Luther King was, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

At some point we all need to learn how to consistently turn the other cheek. Yes, I've flown off the handle myself. There will always be those whose purpose is to pour gasoline on the fire just to cause trouble, and those flames will occasionally burn us. We'll have to learn how to deal with those people along the way, though. I think that we've already seen some moderation taking place, and I believe it will continue to improve. Let's help it get better by not responding to any statement in anger.

Brady said...

I would venture to say that most of the derogatory things would disappear if the requirement would be that each person put their real name and email on whatever they post. The sickest thing about the anti-BBC blog is that even the owner of the blog isn't willing to post her own name. That folks, is sick.

David said...

Mike,

I never did understand your catchprase. Why would a Christian live for nothing?

"For me to live is Christ..."

And 1 Peter 2:24: "Live for righteousness."

... ?

Mike Bratton said...

Quite right, David. My mind, however, was drawn to Scriptures such as these:

"Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation".

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

"For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."

And, of course, the Scripture that sums it up much better than Mr. Rambo:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

There are more, but those are good examples. Thanks for asking. The notion I was getting at, as a (gasp!) topic for discussion, was the notion that only those of us who are Christians can legitimately grasp the idea of sacrificial living, to the point that we "die for something" of substance. Now, whether or not we practice it is another matter entirely...

--Mike

David said...

Ah, then I think it's a great motto to live by.

It is the picture of Baptism. We are dead and buried in a water grave and raised into the Resurrection of Christ. In that sense, we are dead and the life we live now belongs to him.

That would change:
Our speech
Our thoughts
Our giving
OUr marriages
OUr relationships
Our attitude toward the Church
Our goals...

well, it would change everything.

oc said...

Brady says:
"The sickest thing about the anti-BBC blog is that even the owner of the blog isn't willing to post her own name. That folks, is sick."

oc says:
Hmmmmm. Is that name calling, Mike? Brady picks out one person, and calls that person "sick".
I'm sure that's not name calling, is it? Or does it just barely fly under your radar, huh? How convenient, as the Church Lady would say. And not worthy of the "Remove Forever" list. Of course.
Even though we don't know if "brady" is the person's real name or not. We can make up any name and email address we want, can't we? And apparently some do.

This "Brady", wants to talk about what is sick. What is sick is that he/she can write whatever he/she wants on this blog, and knows she/he is protected because he/she knows that if he/she attacks the so called "Closed Forum", it will meet with approval from you.

That of course, is what you seem to deem appropriate, and it works as long as it suits you purposes. Name calling. Let's review, Shall we?

anti-Bellevue virulence
naysayers
anti-Bellevue cadre
anti-Bellevue faithful
a joke
anti-Bellevue club
buckets of bile
a Bellevue contrarian/Bellevue contrarians
emotion-driven group
the Closed Forum
Integrity Does Count (But Only For Others)
Savaging Bellevue
contrarian groups
anti-Bellevue bile
bitter minority
clique ironically known as an Open Forum...
... the Forum is a place loaded with obscenities and filth.
anti-Bellevue sympathizers
playground mentality
anti-Bellevue opposition
toxic environment of the Formerly-Open Forum...
Mostly Closed Forum.

And those are just the things YOU said.


Still not name calling? Of course.
Just sayin'. Nuff said.
oc.

Keith solomon said...

OC,

You know perfectly well that Brady is an infrequent visitor here. Using his post to make your point is as convincing as cakes' assertion that bugsii was the 'regular' who led him here when his own posts preceded bugsii's by at least a month. Time seems to make many of us forget. Not me, though.

May I repeat myself?

oc said...
And yes. I support gmommy and anyone else who needs support against a bunch of heartless and gutless people masquerading as people of God. Whether you like it or not.


My response:
Is this another of your 'I apologize unless it's true' statements? Because if you're suggesting that I'm heartless and gutless and masquerading as a man of God you I'd like for you to retract it. What gmommy said was that she was not judging the congregation, but you just did it for her.

You aren't supporting gmommy, OC, you're opposing her. She said quite clearly that it was not her place to dismiss the entire congregation of BBC as damned into eternal suffering in the pits of hell, but you overruled her very commendable statement by saying that in fact, we are.

Either defend your statement or retract it. Right now. I'm not going to let this go.

Do you consider the thousands of people who go to Bellevue damned or not? It's a simple yes or no question. Just answer in the affirmative or the negative so that we'll know how you feel about us and respond accordingly in the future.

Yes or no, OC. Either stand by your words, or start saying things worth standing for.

And Larry, I am NOT posting out of anger. This is the very heart of the dispute.

Yes or no, OC. I will not let this pass until you answer.

Keith solomon said...

And if I could share one of the passages I was beaten up with earlier this year,

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Careful what you denounce as evil.

oc said...

oc said...
And yes. I support gmommy and anyone else who needs support against a bunch of heartless and gutless people masquerading as people of God. Whether you like it or not.


I stand by that. Go look again at that post. If you want to insert yourself into it, I guess I won't stop you.

But furthermore, I don't need to retract or defend anything to you. And I won't. The statement stands alone. Twist it however you want, and demand all you want.

Memphis said...

Solomon, some people live to argue and look for the bad in things.

Mike Bratton said...

oc said...
Brady says:
"The sickest thing about the anti-BBC blog is that even the owner of the blog isn't willing to post her own name. That folks, is sick."

oc says:
Hmmmmm. Is that name calling, Mike? Brady picks out one person, and calls that person "sick".
I'm sure that's not name calling, is it? Or does it just barely fly under your radar, huh? How convenient, as the Church Lady would say. And not worthy of the "Remove Forever" list. Of course.


Read your own quote--it was in reference to the blog, was it not?

Is a blog the same thing as a person?

Even though we don't know if "brady" is the person's real name or not. We can make up any name and email address we want, can't we? And apparently some do.

Lots of folks do. A good number of them use their anonymity for far more despicable activities than identifying a blog as being "sick," by the way.

This "Brady", wants to talk about what is sick. What is sick is that he/she can write whatever he/she wants on this blog, and knows she/he is protected because he/she knows that if he/she attacks the so called "Closed Forum", it will meet with approval from you.

So, let me make sure I'm clear. You want the same privilege here that you'd like for me to deny Brady--to refer to a blog as "sick"?

And isn't it interesting that, at least here, you have the same "protection" as Brady does?

Oh, but wait. Brady was referring to a blog as "sick," but you believe that to be a personal insult against the blog's proprietor/proprietress, correct? Yet your reference to "sick," OC, was with regard to whether or not something met with my approval?

Oh, look--a pattern...

That of course, is what you seem to deem appropriate, and it works as long as it suits you purposes. Name calling. Let's review, Shall we?

By all means.

anti-Bellevue virulence
naysayers
anti-Bellevue cadre
anti-Bellevue faithful
a joke
anti-Bellevue club
buckets of bile
a Bellevue contrarian/Bellevue contrarians
emotion-driven group
the Closed Forum
Integrity Does Count (But Only For Others)
Savaging Bellevue
contrarian groups
anti-Bellevue bile
bitter minority
clique ironically known as an Open Forum...
... the Forum is a place loaded with obscenities and filth.
anti-Bellevue sympathizers
playground mentality
anti-Bellevue opposition
toxic environment of the Formerly-Open Forum...
Mostly Closed Forum.

And those are just the things YOU said.


You're quite right. Which of those statements are untrue?

I'll save you the trouble. Just from the few bits of anti-Bellevue detritus (there's another one for your collection) catalogued here, it's elementary to conclude that my observations were far more restrained than perhaps they should've been. Everything in your list is true, and you and your friends should, frankly, be ashamed of developing a place where hatred, lying, blackmail, and threats are the coins of the realm.

When I asked them to cut that junk out, my requests weren't taken terribly well. Perhaps you could ask them yourself? Seriously, I gave up trying to keep up with the church-bashing awhile back, but I keep hearing they're still at it. I mean, there's violating the Biblical template for conflict resolution, and then there's running it through the shredder as they've been doing for awhile now...

Still not name calling? Of course.
Just sayin'. Nuff said.
oc.


I'm guessing you read a lot of Marvel Comics as a youngster?

Face front, effendi!

True believers--Excelsior!

--Mike

Tim Greer said...

Lewis on following the house rules:

Book: Mere Christianity
Author: C.S. Lewis
Macmillan, NY, pp. 190

Excerpt from Preface:

I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions ...

It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into the room you will find that the long wait has done some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.

In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. This is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Tim Greer said...

Nehemiah on righteous name calling (and more):

23 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. 24 And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people. 25 And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves...

Remember me, O my God, for good.

Lynn said...

Mike Bratton said...

"I'll save you the trouble. Just from the few bits of anti-Bellevue detritus (there's another one for your collection) catalogued here, it's elementary to conclude that my observations were far more restrained than perhaps they should've been. Everything in your list is true, and you and your friends should, frankly, be ashamed of developing a place where hatred, lying, blackmail, and threats are the coins of the realm."

Blackmail? Threats? Nice to see your pulling stuff out of your head again there dude. Show me proof that there was blackmail and threats.

Keith solomon said...

Thank you OC.

Now that I know where you stand I'll give your future posts the attention they deserve.

Keith solomon said...

Tim,

If Lewis felt that was about other religions, I wonder what he'd say about Christians who slander each other just because of the churches they attend?

Tim Greer said...

Keith,
Christians are exactly who Lewis is referring to. I think the point of the analogy is that the house is Christianity and the rooms are various communions/denominations or even individual churches/fellowships.

But the same idea applies to a blog. If you go into someone's house and start kicking out windows and setting the carpet on fire, you aren't going to be welcome for very long.

tg

Keith solomon said...

Tim,

I heard that there are over 34,000 Christian denominations in the world today. That's just ridiculous. Most of them probably started because a church split.

I've never been through anything like this before, but I'm learning how it happens. 2nd Baptist was a split from Bellevue when Dr. Pollard came, and they've 'kept the fires burning' so to speak. To this day there are members who will speak badly about Bellevue just because it's their tradition. I also know of an especially vocal woman who despises Bellevue because Dr. Rogers started a TV ministry, and she takes every opportunity to run us down. There's no way to measure how much damage this one person might have done in her life.

When a church splits, it usually splits in two. What's unique about this mess is that the members who have left didn't form a new church, they've attached themselves to existing congregations. The anger that's constantly being fueled by the endless gossip is now infesting literally every Baptist church in east Memphis. It's a 'perfect storm' of slander, and Satan himself couldn't have planned a more effective anti-Bellevue propoganda campaign. Most of the people who've left have gone quietly, but it only takes a handful to keep things stirred up.

But regardless of what certain people say, God is still present at Bellevue. Its enemies can say whatever they want to, but if the Lord wants Bellevue to continue their efforts will be in vain.

oc said...

Solomon says:
"I've never been through anything like this before, but I'm learning how it happens. 2nd Baptist was a split from Bellevue when Dr. Pollard came, and they've 'kept the fires burning' so to speak. To this day there are members who will speak badly about Bellevue just because it's their tradition."


oc says:
yeah. You sound bitter, solomon.
But I wouldn't call you a cry baby, because name calling would the number one sin on Mike's list, and of course it's his blog. I guess lying doesn't matter though. So although I'm not calling you a liar,(that would be name calling), I will wait to call what you are doing 'lying' until after you have a chance to prove what you just said. Tell us about those members who "speak badly about BBC just it's because it's their tradition." We are all waiting...for some proof.

Just sayin'
oc.

Cakes said...

"God is still present at Bellevue"--what does it even mean? Who would argue with it. Is God present at the NBBCOF? Now, declare He's not. To my knowledge, there's no minister there who has utterly destoyed his own credibility as a "Pastor" (much less a high-paid one), a mentor, or even a conscientious human being.

I know, I know--unless I'm Catholic, I have no way of understanding the well-meaning authorities involved in the pedophile priest-coverups. Oopsie, wrong church.

I get so sick of the arrogance and piety displayed on this blog toward a whole group of individuals, who often give away imperfections and human frailties (just like this 365-day-a-year-NBBCOF gripe session). I'm not merely sickened by the hypocracy of the finger pointers here, it is the intellectual dishonesty (which is not the same as calling anyone a liar, daddy) and timidity of never broaching the seriousness of Gaines' culpability in this watershed moment in the life of Bellevue.

You seem to feel that if you discredit the sources as "anti-Bellevue," "slanderers," "haters," etc.--no matter who they are, their particular stake in the church, how badly they were injured, their particular motivations (which could just as easiiy be argued a contrario to the aprior judgements levied here ad nauseum--dismissing them wholesale; then you never have to ponder their arguments for accountability and restoration. I've watched long enough to see this tact played out time and again.

You can declare all you want--but the judgement of others (well, a whole class of individuals), as if you were God, says more about you than is does a single truthseeker.

I think the denial on the BR is just another aspect of how some folks deal with a crisis, when it threatens something for which they are deeply invested--it too warrants compassion. Just not at the expense of seeking justice and accountability.

I'm sorry for you, and how you've had to make so many unwelcome at your church, simply because they couldn't go away quietly, as you say. I'm sorry all that grace doesn't seemingly engender a drop of compassion for your brothers and sisters. I'm sorry that I can find understanding and empathy for a group of Southern Baptists, and fellow Southern Baptists cannot.

EZ is not consistent with who you judge as anti-Bellevue; Gmom is not who you judge either; Sotl is not who you judge; Concerned is not who you judge; David Brown is not who you judge; Lynn is not who you judge; Padroc is not who you judge; Nass is not who you judge; Lilly is not who you judge, Piglet is not who you judge; even OC is not who you judge.

Actually, by doing so (behind the shelter of a broad brush, of course), you only indict yourself.

As Mike asserted long ago, no one has any good reason to doubt the pastor's integrity and fitness as a spiritual leader; the business meeting represented all parties; the limited-scope investigation covered all the bases; and if you don't tow the party line, then you're "anti-Bellevue" or are really just hate Jamie's hair-helmet. Case closed.

That, my friends, is what is sick--if I too may use the term. I'll say some mantra in hopes that you'all may find your hearts.

maybejustmaybe said...

OC, I don't know what kind of proof you are asking for from Solomon, but he's not fibbing. I've known members of 2nd who talk about BBC in just the way he describes. And no, I won't identify them. But it's a deep-seated root of bitterness that's been around for years. No lie.

I'm sure the preponderance of that church's membership is NOT that way, but some are. It doesn't make the whole church a "bad apple," but one can't deny that they began from a nasty schism during the "Pollard years." That's pretty well-known, isn't it? Just like we can't deny that the SBC had its beginnings in the anti-abolitionist movement. It doesn't mean that the entire SBC is a racist denomination, though there are some who would certainly paint us with that brush.

oc said...

Solomon,
I have heard that 2nd Baptist is a wonderful place to worship. Why would you bad mouth her?

Just wondering.
oc.

Cakes said...

Well,

The analogy only applies if that split was caused because Pollard let a pedophile off the hook for six months.

Let's compare bad apples to bad apples.

maybejustmaybe said...

OC, go ahead -- goad all you want. Perhaps NBBCOF could use some of these sermonettes about offering proof with every post. I'm not "siding with" anyone -- in my opinion that's what's gotten us in a lot of the mess we're in -- allowing every comment to polarize us further. Mature discussion? "Bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things?" Wow, there's a novel concept.

oc said...

maybejustmaybe said:
OC, go ahead -- goad all you want. Perhaps NBBCOF could use some of these sermonettes about offering proof with every post. I'm not "siding with" anyone -- in my opinion that's what's gotten us in a lot of the mess we're in -- allowing every comment to polarize us further. Mature discussion? "Bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things?" Wow, there's a novel concept.

oc says:
I'm not goading. Ya'll just go ahead and beat up on 2nd Baptist, even though I know they are praying for you.
So here's a novel concept. Repent.

Just sayin'.
oc.

maybejustmaybe said...

No one is beating up on 2nd. You're picking a scab. Let it go, OC. Good grief, why so sensitive?

Cakes said...

"Good grief, why so sensitive?"

Bwah ha ha ha har!

oc said...

Cakes,
I thought they liked sensitive men?
Or is it passionate? Or both? Or neither?
Just sayin'. :)
oc.

Keith solomon said...

OC,

Exactly what 'proof' do you want? Would you like me to send Mark Sharp with a 'sworn affidavit'? He'd probably give you one since his family was around back in the 60s.

What I said was simply that there is bad will at 2nd Baptist toward Bellevue that has lasted 45 years. This was not a slander of the church, since unlike certain groups they know that there is more to life than standing around hating Bellevue.

You seem to want to sit back in your living room and have me serve you at your leisure. Why don't you go to 2nd Baptist and find out for yourself? Or Faith? Or GBC? Or Ellendale? Or Briarwood? Or Bartlett Baptist? You'll get an earful.

And you might learn a few things about life that seem to have escaped you thus far.

Of course, I have to ask myself why I'm even addressing a man who won't defend his own words. What's the point? Even if I could convince you, you'd just turn around and wimp out when the cards were down.

The only reason I responded earlier is so that my coworkers could observe firsthand just how wishy washy some of the anonymous bloggers who are attacking BBC are. Backbones are sorely lacking among the people slandering our church, so thanks for the help in demonstrating that to my office mates, OC.

Of course, if you'd like to defend or denounce your statement about me and my family being a "bunch of heartless and gutless people masquerading as people of God" I'd be willing to listen to what you have to say.

Until then, I won't address you further.

Jessica said...

Cakes, it may sound good when you write it all out like that- but you can't see it from the point of view of those that lived it.

It is like a man trying to explain how childbirth feels to a woman... it just can't be done.

The people causing the awkward unwelcome feelings were probably not always the folks that you think. I can't place all the blame on one side- it was more a personality issue than a "side" issue. But placing the blame squarely over here is very niave.

Cakes said...

I was just laughing because I love it when someone pokes you in the eye, and then wonders why you're cross.

You just lost your church home OC; why so sensitive? You're friends are attacked relentlessly here; why so sensitive? You are called "anti-Bellevue" as if you have no call to question leadership; why so sensitive?

Maybe just maybe, Padre was abducted by aliens for six months, and his hands were tied. Hey, it's possible.

larry said...

I don't have any reason to think this suggestion will be taken seriously, but could everyone please think about this before you post?

Is that post you're about to publish worth the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross? Is it edifying to others in any way? Will it give grace to those who read it?

If not, should you post it or delete it?

Cakes said...

Sol,

Ah ha, got me on a technicality. You win.

For future reference--in keeping with you usefulness here--I am a liberal, a government employee, and have had premarital relations. I jaywalked just last week; but you probably already kew that.

Cakes said...

I always assumed bullles were welcome here, based on the content.

Keith solomon said...

cakes, I don't care how many premarital relations you've had.
I do care that the facts are being butchered to suit personal ambitions.

If your purpose for posting here is to hurt Bellevue because we oppose premarital relations and jaywalking, then I wish you'd stop.

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

A few things:

1) I learned several decades ago to expect less-than-complimentary remarks regarding Bellevue from folks who are a part of Second. Not always, but too often.

2) With regard to blackmail, Lynn, an individual who frequents this blog can testify to it if led to do so. With regard to threats against Steve Gaines' life (never mind anyone else's), that's already been documented.

Frankly, I can't pull anything out of a hat. I can do that trick where I put a quarter in my hand, then it disappears, then I pull it out of your ear--but that's about it.

3) Keith, you're my pal, but I had to pull the plug on that "bully" post. OC has said more than once that he's working on being less pugilistic in general, so pinning a tag on him which reinforces something he doesn't like about himself isn't productive.

Ideas, folks, not people.

4) David the Cakes, your comments passed "disingenuous" a long way back, and it's disappointing.

There are people every bit as disapproving of the past year's events and revelations at Bellevue who express their views without breaking the Biblical guidelines for doing so--and without doing things every bit as despicable as the real and/or imagined sins and stumbles of Bellevue's leadership. Such people are interested in commonality, resolution, and healing; those people are anything but anti-Bellevue.

Throwing a rock from the bushes, hiding one's hand, then getting apoplectic when asked not to throw more rocks is, to put it mildly, counterproductive. That is at the crux of the problem with the people and sites attacking Bellevue--a lack of responsible, accountable behavior.

And your "me write pretty" patronization of Jessica/mischaracterization of Christianity is gone, as well. Try again, please.

--Mike

Keith solomon said...

Mike,

No hard feelings.

Keith

Mike Bratton said...

oc said...

...

So, by the way Mikey. Is he/she calling me a 'wimp'? Just askin' from one who wants to determine what constitutes name calling in your camp. "whimp" huh? Abused kid from an alcoholic home, football scholarship from Arizona State University, golden gloves boxer. Not to mention working through Bible college raising 2 kids through that time by myself. The definitions should be clear concerning what he/she concerns a wimp, before calling me that, don't you think Mike? Or should he not be calling me that at all? According to you thread statement.
Hmmmm.


With a resume like that, it would seem that signing your name, or otherwise taking responsibility, for what you write and publish wouldn't be a big deal.

Keith didn't call you a wimp, but he did predict you'd "wimp out" rather than defend your statements. There's a difference--not a huge one, but enough.

And with regard to this...

Of course, if you'd like to defend or denounce your statement about me and my family being a "bunch of heartless and gutless people masquerading as people of God" I'd be willing to listen to what you have to say.

...a direct response to it should be at the very heart of the next thing you publish here.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

Keith solomon said...
Mike,

No hard feelings.


Much obliged. As with the other participants here, I'm hoping a word to the wise is indeed sufficient.

--Mike

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

Mike Bratton said...

2) With regard to blackmail, Lynn, an individual who frequents this blog can testify to it if led to do so. With regard to threats against Steve Gaines' life (never mind anyone else's), that's already been documented.

Lynn's Response: If its been documented, where is it? I can't find it.

Keith solomon said...

Do you think you are so smart and other people are just plain stupid, Keith?

OC,

Just out of curiosity, is that what this is all about? Perceived intelligence?

What does the Bible say about the wise and the foolish? Did Paul try to persuade the Greeks with his wisdom or his witness? If a person, any person, claims special favor because of intelligence, that person is out of God's will:

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

If that's why you've become so combative lately, you're way off base. If you're upset with me because for some reason you think I'm superior to you (which I've never claimed) then you really need to think again.

Cakes said...

Actually,

It was a reference to author David Sadaris; that, and constantly getting the preface about how I may write well, but blah, blah, blah...

It's time to exchange in something besides declarative statements, dismissing folks wholesale, what-he-saids, and the laundry lists.

Don't call a stranger disingenuous. Taking a patriarchial tone doesn't make you an authority on jack, when it come to my character. Why don't you know that you cannot look into a heart and judge someone's motivations.

You're disappointed. Well, it's reciprocated, because you are, once again, making pronouncements based on convenient presumptions of another. Sorry, that individual is a phanton, a contruction of your own making. You may believe it, but you're also in the habit--so I accept it for what it is.

Yeah, we've covered how outraged everyone here was by Gaines' inaction; but as usual, you cannot point to any concrete accountability for the failure that you'all hyper-assert was so egregious. People make ugly blog entries, so that resolves any need for accountability--or that is what is implied. What did Sol say? "Silence is tacit agreement."

This remains unfinished business, because the church sidestepped finishing it, other than corporate measures--attorneys, buying out contracts, and alienating folks that wouldn't play along. Hey, but condemn the eventualities that spring from such circle-the-wagons mentality.

You went over half the equation--it was a terrible, terrible mistake (again, I compute); what I don't apprehend is where you see accountability commensurate to the failure you insist. "He apologized" is not accountability, being embarassed by the internets is not accountability, the fact that thousands have left is not accountability.

Now, here's where you reply that you're disappointed, or I'm disingenuous, or that you expected more.

And yes, I'd really like to know what Jessica is talking about.

oc said...

Mike said:
With a resume like that, it would seem that signing your name, or otherwise taking responsibility, for what you write and publish wouldn't be a big deal.

oc says:
Listen. It's not a big deal, except the falsehood that it is so important to think that someone's name makes them a more valuable human being than any others. Example. Is "memphis" really someone's name? Is that person more valuable than an 'oc'? I don't even know if your name is real, Mike. And I don't care.
It takes no genius to get my name. I don't hide it. Several people from this blog have chosen to challenge me individually. You yourself Mike, know how to get a hold of me and know my real name, and have done so more than once, haven't you? So don't get stupid on me about that.



Mike says:
Keith didn't call you a wimp, but he did predict you'd "wimp out" rather than defend your statements. There's a difference--not a huge one, but enough.

oc says:
Is that enough difference for you, or for me? That's really cute, for both of you. But no, it's not enough difference for me though. But ok then, I'll play your game. I'm not calling him a sissy, I'm just predicting that he is one.

Just sayin'.

Memphis said...

Is "memphis" really someone's name?

I always knew deep down that you liked me!

oc said...

Memhis,
Like you?
I love you!

Memphis said...

You know you can love someone without liking them, or can you? hmmmmmm

oc said...

Solomon said:
Just out of curiosity, is that what this is all about? Perceived intelligence?

oc says:
No, not at all. It's all about the heart. It always was. Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7.

And you say,
What does the Bible say about the wise and the foolish? Did Paul try to persuade the Greeks with his wisdom or his witness? If a person, any person, claims special favor because of intelligence, that person is out of God's will:

oc says:
Thank you. Once again thou provest thyself wrong.

Thou doest that to thine self.
Thanks.
oc.

Jessica said...

Cakes,

Don't worry about figuring out what I mean. Next time I will put the quote in italics for you so you will know exactly what I am referencing.

I think your motives for being here are less that admirable. You constantly berate us for talking about the NBBCOF, but then continue to engage in conversation about it... But that is just my opinion.

You won't sell me the 'poor pitiful truthseekers' story so you can just stop peddling it. Some of them are people I have known my whole life and while they may feel strongly about a lot of things they aren't sitting around feeling sorry for themselves because it is counterproductive. They are strong enough in what they believe to have faith that there is a reason that things have unfolded they way that they have.


You do them a disservice when you continue to lump them into a bunch of misfits who were "forced" out. Some felt that way- no doubt about that.
Some walked out with their heads held high.
Some of them whined and complained and expected the world to cater to them.

Again, I don't see why you think you have a better perspective on the environment in which this all happened than people that actually lived it?

Jessica said...

here is what I was referencing the last time in case you were wondering:

Cakes said:
and how you've had to make so many unwelcome at your church, simply because they couldn't go away quietly, as you say.

Jessica said...

I know you are sick of me, but I am taking a break for the holidays- I don't really have any interest in spending my life re-fighting the war.
It is like a civil war re-enactment up in here. We all know how it is going to end up but we all keep doing it anyway.


happy holidays.

Brady said...

Sorry I don't write enough to suit some of you but I don't really spend my life reading and commenting on blogs.

It is interesting that Mike was the only one who really read my statement about signing your real name and email address to a post.

I NEVER said the lady who runs the anti-BBC blog was sick. I said her blog was sick and I stand by that statement.

Just read some of the awful things that people say back and forth on this blog and you can imagine how it would be cleaned up if people would stand up and state their real name and email address. But then, we would hear the outcry that "Gaines and his goons would come and get them." What a load of garbage.

Folks, its time to clean up the blogs and quit throwing out lies and inuendos and never taking credit for what we have said.

Brady said...

Sorry but I forgot to sign my name and email address. Hope the rest of you will follow suit:

Brady Davis
brady_jock@yahoo.com

Keith solomon said...

I think Jessica has the right idea. I hope everyone has a great holiday with family and friends.

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

You people need to learn to spell. In the 10 minutes I've been on this blog, I've seen more spelling errors than on all of Facebook. And Facebook is a high school and college website. For example, "[sic] inuendos" has two n's. "Innuendos."

I would like to respond to Keith Solomon a bit as well.
Silence is not necessarily tacit agreement. I try to remain silent on Bellevue as much as I possibly can not because I agree with what is going on but for the following reasons:

1) I'm just not sure how to respond anymore.

2) I've tried to maintain a healthy distance of 60 miles between me and BBC (It seems I'm not far enough yet, but grad school a minimum of 500 miles away should do that come next fall).

3) The following proverb is not directed at a particular individual yet: "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it." Not everyone on blogs such as this are that bad, but it seems to be getting worse and worse; there is just no way to respond to the arguments of those on both sides that are not interested in the truth. And most of y'all need to stop lying to yourselves and move on. Get involved in whatever church you're in, and stop thinking that YOUR OPINION is so important to the world. It's not. The world would be a better place if this website, savingBellevue, whatever "open forum" there is, and all the rest of the blogosphere devoted to something PAST and DONE WITH did not exist. See, for example, a certain Solomon grousing about something that happened last march. As the rest of the online community might say, "OMG!"... When in the WORLD are all you people going to get rid of the bitterness and move ON??!?

4) Notice the juvenile nature of the above post (mine). I find that blogging about this, and reading other blogs, leads to a childish level of posting. From what I can see, there are few (or no) exceptions to this rule. IQ declines at a rate proportional to number of blog posts (in equation form, IQ=(1/B), where B=number of blog posts).
-----
-----
So please, someone act like an adult, and do one of the following:

1) Stop posting altogether because you get busy with things that actually matter - church (get in one you can stand, and stay there. Don't look back.), family, personal spiritual discipline (including Prayer, meditation, witnessing, reading scripture, etc.).

2) Begin to post something useful instead of character assassination - of ANYONE - pro-BBC, or anti-BBC.
3) If you do choose 2), then check your spelling.

4) Be a man (unless you're a woman), and start the long journey of repentance from bitterness, grudge-holding, and passing immoderate and unnecessary judgment. (I see it in almost every post here, and elsewhere about BBC. And don't keep lying to me or yourself and say some dumb thing like "I'm not bitter - (it's just that so-and-so needs a response/Someone has to stand up for what's right/any other objection that just keeps you from examining yourself.)" You only prove my point. Besides this, isn't God - the owner of cattle on a thousand hills, who won't tell us even if he is hungry - able to stand up for Himself?

======
There is NO NEED for a "balanced forum," or in fact, for any forum on this matter. For good or ill, it's done, and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner it will truly be over. Anti-Bellevue people: No matter how much you talk - till you're blue in the face, Gaines is at BBC to stay, and Dr. Rogers isn't coming back from the dead to stop him. Dr. Whitmire is gone, too. This bed was made 75 years ago when the church decided to have a corperate structure (board of directors) rather than follow a congregational or elder-led model.
Pro-Bellevue people: Fact is, y'all are now just as dirty as those you oppose. There is just as much bitterness and gall in your posts as there are in the others. I know you'll get all offended and not listen to me, but it you would stop to think about it, you would realize I'm right.
=======
As for me, I saw this coming a long time ago (think 5 years). I knew that Steve Gaines would be the pastor, and that Jamie Parker would be the minister of music. I knew the politics that occur at BBC (which, by the way, are SO ridiculous...), and that it's not about what you know there, but who. Once I realized that Bellevue was not an organism, but only an organization, I gave up.
=======
Folks, do you REALLY expect something to change from what is being said here? The only things that are changing are people's attitudes: They're gradually getting worse and worse.

Either leave and be done with it, or stay, and be happy. And as for those who leave, it may be better spiritually for you to actually find a job in a different place (different city, I mean) and move away from the scandal (or whatever you want to call it). Leave all of it behind, and don't turn back. "what is that to you, follow thou me."

I am Arron Powell. I will not post my email from fear of spam, but you can find me through facebook, if you wish.

ezekiel said...

"This bed was made 75 years ago when the church decided to have a corperate structure (board of directors) rather than follow a congregational or elder-led model."

Running it thru spell checker is a real pane tho dont you think?

By the way, you are prolly right. I hope you do well in Grad school and make a mint! I would say good luck but hey, we know luck aint got nuthin to do with it, right!

Memphis said...

Arron, nice post. I hope that when both blogs read your post that they look at themselves first before looking at others mistakes.

David said...

corperate structure: Corporate

Keith solomon said...

ezekiel,

My feelings exactly.

Karen said...

I've quit posting on both blogs mostly due to all this reading gives me a headache. While there have been valid points on both "sides", there has been MUCH mud thown by all of us (me included) and I am just bored with it all.

I just came by to see how things were going over here and to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. By the way, my dad is doing great and will retire on Jan. 4th, so drop him an email if you get a chance.

Also, please pray for Chris Thomas (Zach's dad) who is the County Court Clerk. He is waging a battle against holding a Kwanza(sp?) celebration at the county building. Check out the Commercial Appeal for more details. He is a remarkable man and I admire his stance.

Have a great day! Karen

Arron said...

Darn spell-chequer...

Since OS 10.2 (I think), Macs have a native spell-checker that runs on all typed text everywhere. It gives you those little red lines, and the option to correct. Somehow, I missed the little red line under the word "corperate"... And bunches of of folks found it... Oops... So for your reading pleasure, I now have "corporate" spelled the right way 7 times (because seven is the perfect number):
Corporate
corporate
corporate
corporate
corporate
corporate
corporate
...
I also did not capitalize March in 3) of the first set of numbered points.... And while I'm here talking about grammar, there's one bit I didn't even check for: "its" is possessive. "it's" always means "it is". This is a common problem. It's even more common than politics and/or hypocrisy in a church (ANY church...). Bloggers beware!
-AP

====
PS: Ezekiel, thanks for the good wishes about graduate school... though it is somewhat unlikely that I will ever be rich, given that I am going for music composition... It could happen, though :-)

ezekiel said...

arron,

I attended the TSO concert last night. I am sure there were some of those guys and gals pulling down a pretty penny.

They were very good at what they do and appeared to really enjoy doing it. Maybe that needs to be the definition of rich. King Solomon seems to agree in the book of Ecclesiastes.

Do what you like to do and do it the best you can. Money is just a stumbling block anyway. Somebody else will end up spending it. Don't take my word for it, read Ecclesiastes 5:10-20.

Merry Christmas!

David said...

Charles: "A good seminary training substituted the simple common inspiration the Holy spirit provided to the primitive assembly."

Then why are you so critical of me when I felt the Holy Spirit objecting to what I was being taught -- so I left. You've used that as a baseball bat to swing my way... but now you've decided to criticise the Seminary. Which is it, Charles?

Wait, don't answer -- repent first, then answer -- or your post will go bye-bye.

In fact, once again your post will disappear and I'll be left talking to myself. Sigh.

Aaron, I hope my spelling is fonetically correct. I would not want to offend thee. (:

David said...

Charles,

Everything in me objects to liberal thinking on the text. I believe deeply that it is inspired. I would sit in class furious that this was being taught. It's not that I was afraid I might believe it -- it's that I deeply and fundamentally disagreed.

Crazy ME (not calling anyone names, Mike) I decided to believe the entire text. I could question various parts of it, but once I was convinced Jesus rose from the grave, I really didn't have any objections to the rest of the text. After all, if God could raise Jesus from the grave -- then I don't think a world wide flood is a problem. or a 6 day creation. Or the sun to stand still in the sky. Or ... well... anything! If that one fact is proven: Jesus arose -- it takes very little faith to accept the rest.

Anyway, my professors wanted to teach us that there was no Satan. That the flood was a myth. We should use "C.E." instead of "A.D." and the list goes on. I could have sat there and swallowed it up, but each time I sat in class I was spiritually troubled.

I don't know that it's for you, Charles, to say what dates the Holy Spirit had trouble working on.

Hey, could you please (PLEASE) do what Mike asked you to do so that I'm not left talking to myself.

Cakes said...

Aaron,

Enibodi ken mak a miztak. At lease yous got sumtin to say.

Cakes said...

David,

The sun still doesn't move around the earth. The earth moves around the sun.

But I get what you're saying.

Happy Holidays, all.

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

"The sun still doesn't move around the earth. The earth moves around the sun."

Cakes,

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. "Or the sun to stand still in the sky" I don't believe such wording indicates which body is in orbit of the other.

But I do appreciate that all things do indeed revolve around the Son.

Cakes said...

David,

Ever heard the Larry Norman song, The Son Began to Reign.

I know the verse, and the limited understanding of the solar system it implies. If it did happen, then the earth is what would have stood still, no?

Jon L. Estes said...

Arron,

Somewhat like the spelling thing you bring up...

I once called someone ugly, then I looke'd in a mirrur and disovered I had no rrom to complian about othr' fine folks faultz.

Arron said...

Dear Folks,
I'll try to stay away after this... I felt it necessary to come one last time to this strange forum-that-isn't-a-forum-but-sort-of-is...
For what it's worth, only one person has spelled my name correctly, which makes me laugh. I now have a system to telling people how to spell my name. I say "Arron, A-R-R-O-N, with one A and two R's, NOT two A's and one R." I usually add "You've probably written it A-A-R-O-N by now, but that's OK... If you would, please write it one more time, A-R-R-O-N." Usually, this whole spiel is enough to correct the name once, but the downside is that it has to be done each and every time I get someone else to write the name down...

Also: Yay, Karen, for not blogging anymore!! I applaud your efforts (for what the applause of a 22-year old only working part-time is worth...)!
===
I hope people read more than just my juvenile mocking of bad spelling (that is, I hope they read my juvenile mocking of bad blog commenting and stupidity on both sides...). And while I'm here, let me also help to assassinate my own character: Most of what I said in the last posts was directed at - mark this folks - both sides! I am sick of watching people who have genuine grievances with a church they once loved get their characters dragged through the mud again and again. And I am equally sick of people who are no longer at Bellevue continuing to criticize a place that is clearly not interested in listening. I am also tired of watching both sides do everything but cuss each other out online.
So:
Bellevue people: Quit thinking that "We're in the right, and those who left are just idiotic, spiritually immature people." I know, for example, of a case (names I refuse to reveal) of a person who was abused as a child who recently left because he or she no longer felt comfortable at the church after the child abuse incident.

Anti-Bellevue people: Quit undermining your own arguments by acting like children in your posting. It is ridiculous to believe that you can change anyone's mind by having a stupid online forum that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to read. Just move on.

I think that about covers it. Now, y'all play nice while I go and... um... not come back.... Maybe...

-Arron Powell
PS: I think Mike still has my email if someone wants it...

ezekiel said...

arron,

Actually, Memphis and I spelled it correctly. Therefore you are wrong again. David erred intentionally to make a point and cakes....well cakes is a budist and everbody knows we christans spell better than they do.

Arron said...

:-) (-:
:-/ ?

ezekiel said...

arron,

Now you know that if I can't spell, I can't read text messaging either.

Arron said...

Ezekiel,
It means, I don't know whether you're being sarcastic or serious (smiles, and upside down smiles), and I don't much like the tone, if you're being serious... Text makes it difficult to tell whether or not something is meant in jest or not... And I have trouble with that anyway...

Also:
Please pardon me for not catching the spelling of my name correctly... I apologize.
Goodnight, all...

ezekiel said...

arron,

My comment had a little of all in it. Sarcasm, fact, and a back handed poke (in jest) at my friend cakes. Don't let the tone offend you. That is why I don't attempt humor any more than I do. I was smiling when I wrote it...

Don't let the bed bugs bite......

David said...

EZ: "Now you know that if I can't spell, I can't read text messaging either."

Man, you got that right!

And Arron, at least you have a name to spell. A real name... not a screen name.

Cakes said...

EZ,

Dat's capitol B, Budhist, too yu, Buuddy. Hav sum freeking respict.

Cakes said...

Whut he said...

ezekiel said...

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

.......

Memphis said...

Mike and other blog friends, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Mike Bratton said...

Marvelous article, Memph...is..., and I bid everyone who passes this way a joyous Christmas. For those who participate here regularly, you are all in my prayers, both now and into the New Year.

--Mike

maybejustmaybe said...

Merry Christmas and my love to all.

MJM

Keith solomon said...

memphis, mike, and mjm:

What you said!

oc said...

Merry Christmas ya'll.

Jessica said...

I know I am late but Merry Christmas to all my bloggy friends!!!

Dr. Bill Loney said...

may you all have a good x-mas... and remember, just cuz you can eat a whole pie, don't mean you have to

William T. Loney, MD

Jon L. Estes said...

Merry Christmas to all and to all a nice nap this afternoon...

From one who has 13 in his home this season. Fun, Fantastic and Tiring.

David Brown said...

Charles: I know I should not reply to you but then aren't you not allow to post here?

Oh well, say what you want, have at it for shortly Mike will delete you.

But wait! I did take a peek on the dark side and your poll is not going so well is it. Imagine that! The whole world is wrong and Charles is the only one right. Boy that is comforting.

As for your assertions of blasphem, do you want to take another poll? Your record is not good with polls. I wouldn't chance it Charles.

Charles you are really brave, you wait till Dr. Rogers is deceased to attack him. Does beating up on a dead man make you feel big?

Charles, Dr. Rogers made many mistakes in his life, so have I and even you have if you can accept that. But your theology is just flat twisted. Some mighty fine people have urged you to turn back to Jesus and Jesus alone but for some reason you refuse. You keep wanting to add man-made religion to the equation. You are no better than Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell. I am sorry for you.

As we end this year, it is my most sincere prayer you repent and turn back to where you know you should be. Let's start out in 2008 with fresh slate. But somehow I don't dare hold my breath that it will happen.

Mike Bratton said...

I probably shouldn't, but since Charles makes it about himself and since I'm concerned both for Charles and for those with whom he comes in contact--particularly children...

WatchingHISstory said...
David, The name of G-d is blasphemed among the common people of Memphis through you.


Charles, you are an unrepentant pornographer and liar. You regularly engage in character assassination on a scale that would make Bhutto's unidentified murderer proud, except you conduct your campaign from behind the relative safety and comfort of a computer screen.

You should be on your face before a righteous and holy God, asking forgiveness for your public and private displays of your foul mouth, fixations on perversion, and for insisting that God the Holy Spirit would both guide you into obscenity and communicate with you in an unholy, obscene way.

David isn't a blasphemer, Charles, you are. You mock God, and I fear for your spiritual well-being because of it. Repent.

--Mike

oc said...

Watching said:
Mike

David Brown said: "Dr. Rogers made many mistakes in his life"

Is that true or is David lying?

Charles


oc says:

David Brown also said this concerning YOU, which you seem to ignore, from the same paragraph:

"But your theology is just flat twisted.Some mighty fine people have urged you to turn back to Jesus and Jesus alone but for some reason you refuse. You keep wanting to add man-made religion to the equation. You are no better than Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell. I am sorry for you."



Why didn't you ask Mike if that is true or if David is lying?

It seems you aren't asking the right questions. And you don't ask those questions on purpose. It hurts to look inside, doesn't it?
So you don't.

You see, by your attacking questions, your accusations of blasphemy where it doesn't exist, your insistance that everyone should read your blog poll, well, it just gets to be quite desperate and pitiful.
You gettin' this?

Just sayin'.
oc.

David Brown said...

Besides the joyous sounds of the season one of the best sounds I have come to really appreciate is when Mike hit the delete button.

Dr. Bill Loney said...

Charles,

One can read the various comments by individuals here and discern to some extent their theological leanings. Obviously some hold a more reformed view while others do not.

Adrian Rogers did not hold a reformed view, and I do not believe that any have disagreed with that supposition. You are of the opinion that his theology is in some part responsible for the actions(and concealment of such) of a certain predator and that his theology has born fruit evidenced by the state of affairs at BBC and the spirituality or lack thereof of its members. You also believe that you have been given divine revelation indicating that the LORD is judging Adrian Rogers in heaven for various reasons by making him witness the troubles of the church he once pastored. If any of this is wrong, please correct.

A couple of questions now...

1) Those that disagree with your assessments have clearly stated this, but you persist in putting this back before their eyes... what do you want them to say, being that they are not going to ever agree with you or acknowledge that they find truth in what you have asserted?

2)The things for which you say Adrian Rogers is presently being judged for...are they sins? If he is in heaven, then isn't he there because Christ atoned for his sins? Wouldn't this constitute divine double jeopardy?

3)It is a fearful thing for anyone to be judged for their sins apart from THE substitutionary sacrifice.. is it your belief that one can be brought to heaven on the merits of Christ's atonement, only to then be judged personally for particular sins?

4)If any are judged outside of Christ, that is to say- for unatoned sin, how then can that person ever be justified before God?

Can you reconcile your theology with the assertions you have made?

Awaiting your reply.

William T. Loney, MD

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

offline, Mike

check out my posts

and oh yea, vot on my poll, it really makes me look bad if YOU don't! Help me out here, we need each other.

Goodnite - God bless
Charles



What? Your rants don't make you look bad? Your rants make you out to be a psychologically deranged person who needs serious inpatient medical treatment in Bolivar.

Mike Bratton said...

Page, I left you a note here on the 27th. You should address the points listed there before publishing further pontifications--and before allowing yourself to ever again be alone with children.

I can easily delete the things you do here, but it's an impossibility to "delete" the consequences of letting your lack of repentance leak over into the rest of your life. You're a legitimate danger to a great many innocent people, and it's long past time you took seriously the many calls to repentance sent your way.

--Mike

Dr. Bill Loney said...

David said:

"Dr. Loney,
I would have stayed in school if I’d known they offered a doctorate in lunacy."

Mr. Page has expressed his theological views and has also discussed his vision concerning Adrian Rogers. I believe the two are hard to reconcile. I asked several questions in a civil manner seeking an explanation. Where does the lunacy apply?

WTL, MD

David said...

Dr. Loney,
My sincere apologies.

Lynn said...

"2)The things for which you say Adrian Rogers is presently being judged for...are they sins?"
A.) Yes, far worse than Paul Williams sins.

"If he is in heaven, then isn't he there because Christ atoned for his sins?"
A.) Yes, he is in heaven and noone is there apart from Christ's atonement.



Charlie, your showing your hypocrasy again.

Mike Bratton said...

Dr. Loney, perhaps you can consult on this?

A popular definition of insanity is said to be when an individual does a given action, one that always produces a given result, yet expects a different result.

While I am not a fan of label-pasting or simple name-calling, what conclusion do you come to from Page's actions on this blog? He suggests God guides him to have an obscene mouth, and is an unrepentant liar and a pornographer, yet he apparently expects to participate here freely, clearly, and without impediment, even though he has seen the result of attempting to publish here with an unrepentant attitude.

My conclusion is that he is in dire need of intensive Christian counseling. Your thoughts?

--Mike

P.S.: See what I mean? I delete three of his unfortunate posts, and he has them back up in less than five minutes--knowing that I'll just go back and delete them again. That's just not rational behavior.

Lynn said...

Mike,

Regarding Charles Page...I think a new word needs to be created for him. Insanity doesn't do any justice.

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

lynn

explain my hypocrasy in my statement that I made

Charlie

8:24 PM, December 30, 2007


Usually, one is judged before they get to heaven.

Mike Bratton said...

Lynn, I'm just working with the available evidence. I'm not certain we need to develop a new word or phrase when the word "unrepentant" reverberates so powerfully on its own.

--Mike

Brady said...

I thought I had read most everything on blogs but this discussion lately is the most incredulous thing I have ever seen.

First of all, no Christian will be "judged" in Heaven. That issue was settled when he accepted Jesus as his Saviour. The judgment seat of Christ is only for the saved and is not a time of judgment but of rewards.

The worst thing I saw was the comment that someone can be "barely saved." There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for that kind of heresy.

Methinks some people need to get back into the Word and learn to discern truth.

Brady said...

Just one more little thought before I finish watching the football game...

Where in the world does someone find Scriptural authority for saying that they can look into Heaven and see what Adrian Rogers is or isn't doing. That is just hocus pocus being called spiritual.

Someone needs to repent for asking us to believe that kind of stuff.

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike

crazy or insane, I am a sinner saved by grace! Thanks to Christ!

Charles


So you tell us.

Yet your actions tell us you are unfamiliar with the concept of repentance, much less its manifestation in day-to-day life. And your words make God out to be unholy, to be an entity that actually leads people to sin and then condones that sin.

Your "theology" and your actions are in conflict, and have been for quite some time. As I have said, I am concerned for your spiritual well-being, and for the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of those around you, particularly any children with whom you may spend time.

It's imperative you seek professional Christian counseling as soon as possible.

--Mike

Brady said...

"Seems" barely saved? Does that mean your mansion isn't as big as someone else or do you not even get a mansion at all?

In all my years, I have never heard anyone actually espouse the doctrine of being "barely saved."

Maybe you are a pioneer!

Brady said...

You are really stretching that verse to cover what you say you have seen and heard. Wonder what the Biblical definition of "young men" actually is? I don't think you fit the bill.

Just out of curiosity, what is your preoccupation with Adrian Rogers and with what he did or didn't know and did or didn't do? Your zealousness in disparaging his reputation is a bit repugnant and not very becoming on a "Biblical scholar" like yourself.

Mike Bratton said...

Brady, if you have a serious question for Page, please leave an e-mail address for him, so he can contact you directly.

--Mike

Brady said...

Mike,

I don't have a serious question for him. Just responding to his strange remarks on here. I'm done answering his type of heresy. It gives me a bad headache.

Keep up the good work. I love your blog!

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, the "demon-like voice" you enjoy attributing to Jesus Christ is heresy, just as it is heresy to insist that God the Holy Spirit both speaks to you in obscenities and encourages you to speak and write obscenities.

You've repeatedly blasphemed two of the three Persons of the Godhead. I pray you never go for the trifecta; your lack of repentance for the unholiness you attribute to God the Son and God the Spirit is horrific enough.

Get counseling, and repent.

--Mike

Dr. Bill Loney said...

Mr. Bratton

Ok, I put my usual Loney inclinations to laud the merits of canned meat products and solicit inexpensive yet dangerous plastic surgery procedure patients…and actually asked a serious question(s). What Mr. Page has stated as his theological views and the contents of his vision did not line up. Obviously, at some time this evening Mr. Page posted a response or statement of some nature, and by the tenor and subject of some recent posts it must have offensive to others, particularly to you (Mr. Bratton), since I suppose only you have the power and right to remove said posts.

I really was curious to see how Mr. Page would explain or answer my questions. Seeing how his remarks were not well accepted and yet I did not get to read them…could you possibly email them to me? Re-posting them seems like something that is not going to be considered, so could you opine?

Sincerely,
William T. Loney, MD

Dr. Bill Loney said...

...put aside my usual..

Dr. Bill Loney said...

no need Mr. Bratton;

a good Samaritonian has sent them to me...after reading them, I see there a couple of new doctrines in Mr. Page's cache that are quite alien to both the reformers and religion in general.

And while his disparagements of Adrian Rogers may have been present, leaving up one his classic posts may not be such a bad idea and might even well serve as a proverbial 'case and point' when questioning his state of...well, everything.

Submitted in Loney humility,
WTL, MD

Mike Bratton said...

The awesome, galaxy-spanning power of the Remove Forever button leaves me with no record of a deleted post, unfortunately.

The RF button remakes the time-space continuum as though the post never existed. However, as with certain elements of quantum physics, one can detect that a post did move through the blog, and even gather some information about it, by analyzing the effect it had upon surrounding commentary.

But I will consider leaving up one of Page's future screeds as a cautionary tale. Thanks for the suggestion.

--Mike

maybejustmaybe said...

Happy New Year, fellow bloggies! And a tip of the ol' hat to you and yours, Cap'n Mike. :-)

Love,
MJM

Dr. Bill Loney said...

Mr. Page,

is the email on your profile working/current?

if not could you please e-mail me

WTL, MD

Brady said...

Charles,

You have a sick preoccupation with Dr. Rogers. I'm sure glad Mike is going to delete all your posts. Why do you keep coming on here and making an absolute fool of yourself???

Brady said...

Sadly the only thing the Shepherd would tell you to make a fool of yourself for would be for the cause of Christ--not for your incredibly sick attacks on Dr. Rogers.

Dr. Rogers was a good personal friend of mine and I (along with many many others) resent your unscriptural and sick attacks on his character and ministry. Why don't you just keep them on your pathetic blog and stay off of here.

Brady said...

I sure hope you are one of the elect or you are going to be in some deep trouble.

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

lin said: 'When I ask you if you knew about PW, and your answer is " yes"...please understand that the " deer in the headlights" look that you give me with regard to that tells me all I need to know."

NOW lin knows what I mean. Can you believe it 17 years and not a clue!
When I ask you if you knew about PW, and your answer is " yes"...please understand that the " deer in the headlights" look that you give me with regard to that tells me all I need to know.

lin, when will ever4yone wake up to the mess Dr Rogers left to Gaines?

Charles

5:47 PM, January 01, 2008


Hey Charlie....you do realize you referred to the wrong person don't you? That was SOTL that mentioned that. Not Lin.

Brady said...

I was just thinking today of how wonderful it would be if there was a blog that only printed posts that were affirming of BBC and Steve Gaines. Might be a refreshing change--and something the Lord could and would bless. I do get weary of hearing from those who have left the church and are still consumed with everything that happens at BBC. The church will go on without them--and probably even grow and prosper.

Cakes said...

Brady,

Such a blog would be redundant, since already there is a place where the loyal, or at least the scquiecent, may engage mutual admiration and submission to present--and tainted--leadership.

You know, at church.

Happy New Year all!

Brady said...

Cakes,

Sadly you don't even understand the church and what it is all about. But then, when a man isn't a Christian the Bible says you cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit.

A church is there for mutual strengthening and affirming. We are also taught in the Word that we are to submit to those who are in authority over us. Not denigrate them on every hand.

Go back and reread the owner's manual.

Brady said...

Lynn,

And if you were the kind of believer you say you are, you wouldn't hide your real name and address.

Put it out there for all to see--it will set you free!

I must be getting kind of close to your psyche since you are now calling me an ass.

Lynn said...

Brady said...

Lynn,

And if you were the kind of believer you say you are, you wouldn't hide your real name and address.

Put it out there for all to see--it will set you free!

I must be getting kind of close to your psyche since you are now calling me an ass.

5:18 PM, January 03, 2008


Lynn is my real name. And my e-mail address is on my profile.

Mike Bratton said...

Lynn, I see you're the Artist Formerly Known As Koragg. Cool that you're using your real name, yet not so much that you're making donkey comparisons.

--Mike

Cakes said...

I love it when people I don't even know presume to have some knowledge of me that cannot percieved by the limitations of this type of forum. I spent a good portion of my life in the Southern Baptist church, and know of it's theology and history. Having grown up in church, I know of its politics and power struggles. I've seen the same play out in much the same manner in Buddhist circles.

I know this perhaps troubles you--that somehow, what takes place in the Southern Baptist context has got to be distinquished from the rank behavior of infamous Lamas and the Catholic church, since you'all are the true ones. But, in the end, everybody just plays their strong hand, just like the corporate world, and it's no suprise who wins. Common sense is all that is required in percieving the pith of the last year's events.

Should I require some religious experience--upon which to shelve common sense (a constitutional right to assert that Padre's was a terrible offense), so as to defy reason (yet accountability is the same as revenge, so we'll count on intangebles), and to believe the direct opposite of what has been so irrevocably demonstrated--then no thanks.

However, a few thousand folks, of your namesake, are no longer amongst you--you might as well bid them good riddance. Right on this thread is a good man, your brother, who has articulated so measuredly and honestly how folks, as you say, move on.

The meanness you folks demonstrate to one another is shocking.

oc said...

Mike,
Maybe the reason that Lynn makes that comparison is because Brady is getting to close to Lynn's donkey. Brady calls it a "psyche".
He sure is honed in on Lynn's psyche, don't ya think?

Just sayin'
oc.

Cakes said...

WHS,

I cannot help you with the TULIP, but I know all about the Lotus.

Cakes said...

Dude, buy an ad.

oc said...

That's ok, Cakes. He can't even spell his own blog spot correctly.


http://watchinghidtory.blogspot.com/


You gotta feel sorry for him. Don't ya?

oc said...

OK, I guess you don't have to feel sorry for him. I take that back.

Mike Bratton said...

Cakes said...
I love it when people I don't even know presume to have some knowledge of me that cannot percieved by the limitations of this type of forum.


I can understand that it upsets you, but you fall into quite a large, Biblically-addressed "asked and answered" category, David. You self-identify as a non-Christian, yet presume you can reserve the right to make pronouncements on Christians and Christianity from someone who was--wink, wink, nudge, nudge--"one of the insiders."

Unfortunately for the argument you've pressed (and you're hardly the first to do it), it's not objectively tenable. One can have been a member of the Nuclear Physicists' Club for oh-so-many years, hung with them, eaten potluck suppers with them, and even told anyone who asked "Yeah, I'm a nuclear physicist, too!" However, without the credentials, just hanging out with them didn't make you someone who could speak with authority regarding nuclear physics.

You don't have the credentials, David, to speak authoritatively on Christianity. Insisting you do is just so much bluster.

I know this perhaps troubles you--that somehow, what takes place in the Southern Baptist context has got to be distinquished from the rank behavior of infamous Lamas and the Catholic church, since you'all are the true ones.

Quite a misstep, there, since Catholicism is, indeed, a Christian denomination.

But, in the end, everybody just plays their strong hand, just like the corporate world, and it's no suprise who wins. Common sense is all that is required in percieving the pith of the last year's events.

Actually, common sense informs us that people who don't like organized Christianity in general are going to relish any opportunity to bash... wait for it... organized Christianity.

Should I require some religious experience--upon which to shelve common sense (a constitutional right to assert that Padre's was a terrible offense), so as to defy reason (yet accountability is the same as revenge, so we'll count on intangebles), and to believe the direct opposite of what has been so irrevocably demonstrated--then no thanks.

You illustrate here, as you have on more than one occasion, that you really don't appear to have the slightest clue as to what Christianity is about. A personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ does not come at the expense of common sense, logic, or rational thought. To the contrary, it is quintessential human irrationality that precipitates the self-centeredness which non-Christian religions all share.

However, a few thousand folks, of your namesake, are no longer amongst you--you might as well bid them good riddance. Right on this thread is a good man, your brother, who has articulated so measuredly and honestly how folks, as you say, move on.

People who "move on" without a God-ordained destination do so outside of His will. People who "stay and fight" without an interest in comity and reconciliation also do so outside of God's will.

The meanness you folks demonstrate to one another is shocking.

And your willingness to excuse "meanness"--when you approve of it, of course--is all too unremarkable.

--Mike

Cakes said...

OC,

I trust that WHS is, from his perspective, seeking to do right, and will come to an understanding of where he may be misguided and fixated. I don't percieve a shred of malice, only fundementalist ideology taken to the extremes of exclusion and intolerance for a doctrinal difference.

I thought Christians called a truce on the various details so long as Christ is Savior--WHS will eventually realize that he's not really engaging in a conversation, he is rather offering monologue, and a brief one at that. Actually talking with someone, respectful of context and language, is always more auspicious than shouting from behind a crusade. He'll figure that out.

I percieve a really kind and gentle person behind all that convoluted stuff anyway. I believe that he will manifest that person.

David said...

Cakes,
"I percieve a really kind and gentle person behind all that convoluted stuff anyway."

I'm stunned. Kind and gentle people don't describe in graphic detail molestation. They don't seek to smear dead men. They respect other believers enough to back off when they cross a line. Wouldn't you agree?

Cakes said...

I think WHS is perhaps more interested in being shocking in a context where such details are not welcome on a "Christian blog."

Being a Christian, you may say that behind all that convoluted stuff, is a heart born prone to evil, and find proof in his behavior; I may just a well find that he was born a gentle and kind soul, but it has been obscurred by the passions, conflicted thoughts and psycological imbalances.

It may strange to believers in the doctrine of original sin, but what would I know about that anyway? No fair if you express any opinion whatsoever about my beliefs, since how could you understand, not being one! And no, that seminar in the fellowship hall on cults doesn't make you an authority.

So, I may wish that WHS finds that purity again, beneath all those obsessions, fixations and whatever else might cause him suffering.

Ultimately, our path demands that we each take responsibility for our conciousness.

Brady said...

I have found that arguing about who knows what about how a church should run, how the Christian life should be lived, and evaluating a pastor's leadership can be summed up in one verse:

I Corinthians 2:14 "But a natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

If a man doesn't have a personal, living relationship with Jesus he CANNOT understanding the things of the Spirit of God.

Those are God's words--not mine. Pretty well answers I would think. Sorry if it offends some of you.

David Brown said...

Brady you claim to be a Christain? Please explain

From: Brady Davis brady_jock@yahoo.com

To: davidbrown@bigriver.net

Subject: Brady

Date: Fri 01/04/08 08:17 AM

Good morning o wise one,

Enjoyed your little rantings on the blog when I got up today. For a man who is busy telling people to "man up" you don't have the balls for much of anything. Must come from your weird past.

Keep up the good work. All those weird women on that bog think you are their hero and I'm sure you love that position.

I'm glad nASS has returned me to no blogging status. At least we gave a little respite to Dr. Gaines from all you hate mongers.

Be sweet if that's possible.

Brady


Very edifying isn't Brady

David Brown

oc said...

Hmmmm. Guess what Brady?
You stepped in something you can't easily shake off your shoe.
Go figure.
Just sayin'.
oc.

David said...

Good news, Brady,
Repentance is the word of the day.

oc said...

Brady says:
"Enjoyed your little rantings on the blog when I got up today. For a man who is busy telling people to "man up" you don't have the balls for much of anything. Must come from your weird past."


oc says:
And now we wait...and wait...for
Brady has raised the issue of "testicular fortitude"...
Just sayin'.
oc.

Cakes said...

Mike,

At times, I think that I am not to tread any ground here that even remotely touches on faith or religion, even if the subject is constantly jammed in my face, a la Brady. Well, in matters for which no sound or reasoned argument exist, the "Christian" on the Bratton Report--when stumbling in the realms of rhetorical plausability--may always rely on the caveat of grace.

I'm not a Christian, so what do I know? Reducio ad absurdum. Many non-Christians are sitting on juries, are parenting, serving in the military, and otherwise, serving vocations that require moral imperatives and the cultivation of ethics. The level of dismissiveness and moral supremacy implied by the caveat is not particularly offensive to me-- as I've been around protestants my whole life (wink, wink)--again, I am simply demonstrating the absurdity of such craven piety.

Ah, but what a mouth--now, anybody else in this joint want to give me hell for not wanting to meet this guy in cyberspace or elsewhere? He's evidently on a mission, after all.

Perhaps I should make Brady a Vin diagram, in order to demonstrate that sometimes what looks like foolishness, is, well, just foolishness.

I will continue to rely upon the breadth of my knowledge and experiences, and meet any challenge of substance with the freedom we all share to express our disparate perspectives. (And I'm happy to let you apply whatever theology you wish to my church life. I simply ply from the experience.)I won't simply become a whipping boy, just because someone wishes to disqualify me based upon faith.
That's Medieval thinking, disgusting and merits a rebuke from moi.

Cakes said...

It's special moments like these that are priceless.

All hail the substantive and well-behaved blog--yippee! Rambo XVI--haw!

Cakes said...

Bwady...oh Bwady, where ah you? We need more sermons.

oc said...

I heard someone on this blog say that silence is tacit agreement.

Fine. Everyone must be in agreement then.

oc said...

Brady, by the silence, as Keith Solomon has previously pronounced, all are in tacit agreement that you are hereby neutered.

Just sayin'.
oc.

Cakes said...

There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

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

Cakes says, in part:
"When in one line two crafts directly meet."


oc says:
Yep. It's a train wreck, ain't it???

:)

Just sayin'.
oc.

oc said...

Hello darkness my old friend...
I've come to talk to you again...


The sounds of silence... It sure be quiet up in here. Tacit agreement.

oc said...

Or maybe, just maybe...the Rapture has occurred... and me and Cakes are the only ones left on earth...
and all the "chosen ones" have left...shoot, I'm stuck here with a Budhist...Now how can I bully him into accepting Christ...hmmmm....

Mike Bratton said...

Cakes said...
Mike,

At times, I think that I am not to tread any ground here that even remotely touches on faith or religion, even if the subject is constantly jammed in my face, a la Brady. Well, in matters for which no sound or reasoned argument exist, the "Christian" on the Bratton Report--when stumbling in the realms of rhetorical plausability--may always rely on the caveat of grace.


David, I don't recall your nomination, much less your election, to the post of ethical arbiter. Your pronouncements of what is or is not "rhetorically plausible" are, at the end of the day, grounded in subjectivity--and an objective source is much more valuable than any personal viewpoint.

I'm not a Christian, so what do I know? Reducio ad absurdum.

Or "reduction to the absurd," for those in Rio Linda. :)

Many non-Christians are sitting on juries, are parenting, serving in the military, and otherwise, serving vocations that require moral imperatives and the cultivation of ethics. The level of dismissiveness and moral supremacy implied by the caveat is not particularly offensive to me-- as I've been around protestants my whole life (wink, wink)--again, I am simply demonstrating the absurdity of such craven piety.

Unfortunately for you, David, no one's made that assertion, so your appeal is insubstantial.

The issue is a spiritual one, not an ethical one, so please don't try to remake it into something where you feel you have a legitimate ability to offer "former insider" commentary.

Ah, but what a mouth--now, anybody else in this joint want to give me h*** for not wanting to meet this guy in cyberspace or elsewhere? He's evidently on a mission, after all.

Watch your language.

Perhaps I should make Brady a Vin diagram, in order to demonstrate that sometimes what looks like foolishness, is, well, just foolishness.

First, it's a "Venn" diagram. Secondly, misrepresenting a topic under discussion, as you have, does nothing to advance the conversation.

I will continue to rely upon the breadth of my knowledge and experiences, and meet any challenge of substance with the freedom we all share to express our disparate perspectives. (And I'm happy to let you apply whatever theology you wish to my church life. I simply ply from the experience.)I won't simply become a whipping boy, just because someone wishes to disqualify me based upon faith.
That's Medieval thinking, disgusting and merits a rebuke from moi.


As has been noted to you more than once, non-Christians making "expert comment" pronouncements about Christianity is a non-starter. Doesn't work, won't work, can't work--it's a practical impossibility. By your own testimony, you have no applicable knowledge or experience regarding what it means to be a Christian. Remember, attending a nuclear physicists' potluck doesn't make you a nuclear physicist.

You, David, disqualify yourself.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

--Mike

P.S.: Brady, I seriously expect an apology from you to David Brown. Quoting Scripture in one breath and making vulgar references in another is unbecoming behavior for anyone who presumes to be maturing in the Christian faith.

P.P.S.: Mr. Brown, did you handle your e-mail from Brady via private, return e-mail before publishing here?

oc said...

Peace. Since 8:46 AM.

It's been a good day.

Just sayin'.
oc.

oc said...

Mike says:
P.S.: Brady, I seriously expect an apology from you to David Brown. Quoting Scripture in one breath and making vulgar references in another is unbecoming behavior for anyone who presumes to be maturing in the Christian faith.

P.P.S.: Mr. Brown, did you handle your e-mail from Brady via private, return e-mail before publishing here?


oc says:
Mike, not that I don't agree with you because I do...very much so...in respect to Brady's behavior, but I must ask...how do you you presume to be the authority on how others conduct their correspondence???

The fact of the matter is that Brady is a troll, trying to incite riot where ever he can. He tried it over at the "Closed Forum" as you are fond of calling it, but he had his water shut off, so to speak, just because of his nasty demeanor.
You know that David Brown is respectable,and has proven so. Now don't play a game trying make them equal in respectability. No one is buying that pitch. It is what it is, so call it that.
You being "politically correct" is making me sick. I expected more from you.

Just sayin'.
oc.

Cakes said...

"David, I don't recall your nomination, much less your election, to the post of ethical arbiter."

Yeah, I forgot, that's your job. You know the point the point I am making. I don't have to be a Christian to judge a matter of common repute, even if it takes place in a church. You also know that what Brady and others argue is that I cannot understand such matters, particularly regarding Bellevues' issues, since I am not a Christian. Well, that is patently ridiculous.

If I find parallels in my own experience, then I don't need your permission to cite them. I've met pompous, self-righteous, blustering, big-brother-type christians my whole life--samo-samo. So what, I've also met other tall men who grew up believing it gave them some kind of authority or gravitas.

It's genes, Mike--time to get over yourself.

oc said...

Mike said:
Or "reduction to the absurd," for those in Rio Linda. :)

oc says:
thanks Mike. We have a real hard time with translating Czech...and other languages...like English...
or even Latin...


Mike says:
Watch your language.

oc says:
My goodness gracious!!!!
We have never heard the word "hell" before??? What a shock to our Christian sensibilities!!!!
Is it actually a biblical term?
And in what language???

And Mike further says:
The issue is a spiritual one, not an ethical one, so please don't try to remake it into something where you feel you have a legitimate ability to offer "former insider" commentary.


oc says:
Hmmm. You think that the ethical and the spirtual don't inter-twine?

Having a big problem with that, Mike.
Lucy, you have some shplainin' to do...

Just sayin'.
oc.

oc said...

Watching...


No.

oc said...

Watching.

It is now 'O8. You be one year too late !

oc said...

Peace. Since 8:46 am. A full 12 hours...she sleepeth...


:)

Just sayin'.
oc.

oc said...

She sleepeth still...

oc said...

OK Princess. It's been 24 hours. No one has stormed the gates to claim your manhood. Not even you. Go figure. So I will graciously back out now. And as I throw these tiny things up into the air, and you scramble for it, I'll just say, ya'll have fun.

And it is just as I thought.
Just sayin'.
oc.

oc said...

She sleepeth still...

oc said...

It's alright ya'll. I have now laid down someone's "tangibles". It's ok to enter and claim them...


Who's first????

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

And it is...Just as I thought...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 308   Newer› Newest»