This is James's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following James's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
James
Recent Activity
Have been and will do.
Toggle Commented Sep 21, 2009 on Clean Break at baldilocks
Louis, I know that your proficiency with english is great, and I'm aware of your post graduate level workmanship. I am forever indebted to you for my future correct spelling of "caricature". It is precisely that mastery that makes me wonder at your response. 1 Corinthians is a single work, an epistle by genre. It is not a compilation of short stories, or an episodic narrative. Either might give warrant to pull a section of text out of its nearest neighbors. To my knowledge, no redaction criticist holds that the section you pulled out is from a seperate author of the surrounding pericopes. You'll notice that I did not ask you for intent, which you specifically mention. That's too easy to dismiss as speculative. Audience, context, and flow of argument are much easier to agree upon. How about I give you my high level thoughts on that and see if you disagree: 1 Corinthians was written to the church at Corinth, and therefore has an audience of believers (at least nominal) in mind. The context of the sections both before and after this section deals with spiritual gifts, especially contentiousness over the speaking of tongues. Even more so, there are transition statements that lead into and out of it: "And now I will show you the most excellent way." immediately preceeds it (and connects it to the preceeding); "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal" immediately follows it, connecting love and the speaking of tongues section that also follows it. He uses the section on love not seperate from the idea of spiritual giftedness, but to advance his argument that it's just not appropriate for them to argue about such things. There, a VERY basic, and I believe non-contentious, analysis of audience, context, and argument analysis. Do you disagree with any of that? BTW, I plan this to be of multivarious help to you. I don't think you care for it when Christians pull prooftexts out of thin air, right? I find it indefensible. I likewise think you'll find it useful to sharpen your own stick a bit in these conversations. Let me do more: How about the sermon on the mount, and the words of Jesus (always best to go there, so then you can avoid any questions of Pauls apostolic authority, which will then hit a broader audience.), "Love your enemy," and, "Bless those that curse you." That's one of the many TOUGH ideas that Jesus conveys in that collection of sayings. "Love your enemy." Phew. Good one there. But can we transport what Paul says about love, especially "love is kind" to what Jesus is saying there? I wantt to say yes, but I'm not sure I can. Look at His interraction with the pharisees. Kind does not apply. Now, if we are forced to say that "love is kind" is bound up in "love your enemies", then we've got to then work out that Jesus wasn't loving, a late redactor made a HUGE mistake in putting those things close together, Paul was wrong, or what Jesus is saying about love for an enemy doesn't quite mean what we'd like it to mean. I'd posit that Jesus shows a tough love and intimate interaction with a Pharisee, Nichodemus, that can help us understand what this meant. Love is terribly important. Love is a characteristic of God, and is bound up not only in Himself, but in every one of His works. Love is not *always* kind, at least not in the immediate sense. Love does not require a Christian to act as you think it should, though. The pastor is called to care for the flock, which means fending off wolves, most unkindly. Paul calls on the church in Corinth, in the very same letter you quoted, to cast someone out of the church and turn them over to satan... out of love (maybe better said: with the intent that they will repent and come back to the church), but certainly not kindly. If you'd like some relatively compact places to get an idea of what the bible says about pastoring, I'd recommend the letters from Paul to Timothy and Titus. I think you'll see that there's some warnings and instructions that place boundaries around this "love before anything" understanding you'd like to have. I'd be very happy to discuss it. In fact, that's why I wanted to you futher elaborate on ambassadorship and connect it to Jesus. A flat nancy-boy picture of a hippy-lovey Jesus just ignores too much. OH! Funny videos you may like which underscore that... Google (or Youtube search) for "Vintage 21 Jesus" and you'll find 4 episodes which were put together by a church launch team out east (NC I want to say, but I'm not sure). It presents in a mocking way some of the bad misconceptions about Jesus. Some good snark, I think you'll appreciate. :)
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Actually, there's a fine distinction here that needs to play out. It really is a fine distinction, and I want to get this right for you: The wiki link you gave me said that "democrat party" is a perjorative, right? It does not say that "democrat" is a perjorative in and of itself. Right? My post 19 includes the following quote that you find offensive: "Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech." Now, if in that post above, I am referring to individual democrats, members of the democratic party (those uses are good, right?), then the use of the term democrat is not perjorative, right? Here's why the distinction is important... for a response to be the democratic party response, you might rightly and precisely say that response itself would have to come from THE top official of the party (or one of THE, call it the DNC chair, Speaker of the House, minority whip... one of a VERY few people), right? So assuming that I'm right in understanding that "democrat" is okay for individuals, but "democrat party" is a perjorative, then I'd be right in pointing out to you that I never mentioned party, and its inference is not necessary in this case. Especially if you go and look at the link, I provided. Let me modify that a little and see if it holds clearer meaning with nothing by which you can be offended (this just for understanding): Now go look and see what the democrat official's of the highest level response was to that speech. OR Now go look and see what the democratic respsonse was to that speech from officials at the highest level. The first refers to an individual, and the second as an individual or individuals responding in a way that is indicative of a party response. Both of the above are inoffensive, right? I think I get it what you'd like me to get, but I hope you see what a granular distinction this is. I had no idea that I was getting anywhere near sensitive spots. How about I take that ball a little further away from it than you've even asked me to. Given the information you've provided, I would provide an amended statement as follows: "No go look and see what steps members of congress took in reaction to that speech, not just what pundits and parents who objected." By the way, the reason I don't just say, "yes Cineaste, you wrote what I should have said," because it doesn't exactly convey what I want it to. I hope you'll find that any of my above amendments, but certainly the last, makes you happy. Finally, in addition to post 21, which you already mention I use the terminology you prefer, also see post 10. I hope that you would at least entertain the idea that my inconsistent usage is demonstration of ignorance on this issue of "democrat" and "democratic party", as evidenced by posts before you ever brought it up.
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Oh, okay, then my bad. My answer is "yes", I made a mistake per your sensitivities. Also, I'm glad I made that liar thing conditional. I'm glad you're not a liar and that you just didn't understand my response. I thought it was plain enough, but clearly not. Okay, can I ask you some Yes or No answer questions? Is debate a form of communication? Did you look at the link I provided to Miriam Webster on the word democrat? Did you look at the link I provided to the Washington Examiner detailing the response democratic party officials GHW Bush's school speech? Do you think its appropriate to call someone an A-hole because they have slighted you, when you're not sure the slight is intentional? Do you think that Jesus interacted with anyone who you would identify with in the Bible? Do you think Jesus response to that person would make him an A-hole? Do you think that truth is important? Do you think that truth is important to Jesus? Do you think that untruth should go unchallenged? Do you think that Jesus' main mission on earth was to be a nice guy and love on people? Do you think a pastors job is to be a nice guy and to love on people? Do you think that the tooth fairy and Jesus are on equal footing, in terms of historicity? Thanks Cin, I'm glad we had this talk, because now I feel like we can communicate well, and on your terms.
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Cineaste, you said: "If you made a mistake then say so. I'll drop it since I noticed that you used the proper term in your next post. But, you need to tell me if you made an honest mistake or not. Is that specific enough?" I said: "I've never heard that "Democrat" is a dig" and "In this case, ignorance of any sort of issue, and an attempt at clarity was at play. " Was that clear enough? Because if it wasn't clear, you should let me and everyone who might read this know. Otherwise... well, I guess the best thing I can assume is that you've made a retraction of some sort. It's more likely that you're just a liar, in plain black and white. :/ "I'll drop it" and "I think you are being dishonest" don't fall in the same semantic range.
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Wow, Andres in the news. Caught with pot, Obama US attorney steps in to have charges dropped: http://blogs.masslawyersweekly.com/news/2009/09/10/judge-angered-by-special-treatment-for-andrew-sullivan/
1 reply
Keith, I'm confused that you want to say holiness is not subservient to love, but holiness is defined in terms of love. Could you explain how you find there to be no contradiction there? I do find it rather difficult that you bring words like "legalistically" and "legalism" as a natural outpouring of a "distinct" view of God's holiness. Yes yes yes, you say "might", but you don't present any other "might"s, so I have to think it's the main thrust you're getting at... I put "distinct" as such above, because it also seems important to what you're saying... Are you saying that you think Aaron thinks that Holiness can sometimes be applied seperate from the application of love? In his post #40, he makes it clear that he thinks they're on equal footing. Do you think Aaron is saying sometimes God is holy and sometimes God is loving, but the two don't necessarily always meet? Then, you go on to say that holiness and love *can* conflict. Can they really? Do you think that? Do you think Aaron thinks that? Let me ask you this: Was Jesus unloving to the woman at the well of Sychar when he called her out on adultery? Was he being unloving when he yelled, "HYPOCRITES!" at the keepers of the law? Was he being unloving when he kicked the 'skubalos' out of the money changers in the temple? Was he being unloving when he sent away the rich young ruler? I *think* I know what you're getting at, that love and holiness are intertwined and on equal footing. God's love IS holy, and his holiness IS loving. Is that what you're saying? It's certainly how I understand God to have presented Himself. If so, then we've got to examine all of his attributes, including justice, mercy, grace, power, majesty, beauty, intelligence, wisdom, etc... I think it's only when you apply the difficult full balance that God IS all these things, and he is those things fully when he acts, that you can explain the very difficult to reconcile with a "loving-before-everything-else" God as Jesus presents in my examples above. Frankly, I think a lot of the unspoken confusion boils down to what it means to be loving. I think it has not been well distinguished from "nice", nor do I think there is a well established purpose of love. How did Jesus love people, and for what purpose? Once we understand that, we should follow it, veering neither to the left nor to the right.
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Sick of the idiots at two or three . net
1 reply
Chuck's new book, if anything, is too dense. My hope is that the common reader will be exposed to ideas that make him angry or hungry, but either way, will go searching for a greater explaination. He covers "What Christians believe, Why they Believe it, and Why it Matters," in only 240 pages. It's very ambitious. "Not sure what chart you meant " Heh, I'm not sure either. As you were wrapping things up, you said something like "take a look at the chart and see what you need to work on." (*nods*) On the time constraints and picking and choosing. My home church does that as well. I have a feeling that we may see more of a mix on verse by verse exposition at least occassionally coming up. Some discussions with my Sr. Pastor, just shooting the stuff mostly, have brought up repeatedly that in the interest of time constraint and moving the ball, that we've skipped some deliciously difficult passages. I wasn't attempting to dig that at him, but after the last time it came up naturally in conversation, he mentioned that he's got to find a way to not skip the stuff that jumps out at him. I know I certainly love the teaching and and nurtured by it. I also love and am fed well by some expositional, verse by verse teachers like Alistair Begg (Truth for Life Ministries) and Collin Smith (Unlocking the Bible, more of a local presence). Meh all of that to say... we make choices. Given that time constraint, I trust that you focussed on what would help your people the best, and what you gave was good. Can't wait to hear your "What is Truth?" Oh man is that a dense three words! Can't imagine where you might draw some anecdotes from... ;)
1 reply
Good Louis, now let's do some basic bible study heavy lifting. You've copied out a beautiful section of scripture. What is the context of that section? What is the audience? How does that section advance the argument? Hint: What is the chapter before and after dealing with? Is it the same topic? If so, is this section on love an excursis, or does it fit into that somehow?
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Good Louis, and that's a beautiful and moving piece of scripture. Now, what is the context? Who is that addressed to? What does that piece do to advance the logical flow of Pauls letter to the Corinthians? (hint: what is the topic of the chapter before and after? Is it the same? Then is this section on love an excursis, does it relate to that topic?)
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
"You know who I think would be a good ambassador for Christ? Aaron and Keith. They talk with people and not at them." You also fail again, to answer the plainly put question. Connect that now to Jesus.
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Sure, Cin, you made a mistake: "The proper grammar is "democratic" not "democrat." Now, either your English is poor or that was a dig. I assumed it's a dig, because I've already pointed out the error recently in another thread. So, I thought that was a bit "A-hole-ish" of you because the phrase "Democrat Party" is used as an epithet by conservatives. If you made a mistake then say so. I'll drop it since I noticed that you used the proper term in your next post." I've never heard that "Democrat" is a dig. I use it to be specific, because "democratic" is a process of governance, and "democrat" is an adherent to a political party. Since appearantly there is some hypersensitive issue where switching "democrat" for "democratic", even where context makes what I'm talking about perfectly clear, to indicate A-holery, I'll be super careful in the future. Though you might need to help me. Was it the "democrat" vs. "Democrat" or "democrat" vs. "democratic". (Either way, I think you really need to step back and take a few deep breaths man.) In this case, ignorance of any sort of issue, and an attempt at clarity was at play. (Poor english? Give the folks at Miriam Webster a call: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democrat ) "As a pastor, some of the people in your church may not agree with you. Some may even be liberal Christians" Okay, so how can I be a better ambassador HERE. You think that because I'm studying to be a pastor I can't have a political opinion in ANY forum? That's ludicrous. This is not my pulpit. This is not my church. Be more like Aaron? Why, I'm glad Aaron's like Aaron. You don't like me? I'm fine with that. When it comes down to it, until you can show that I've been an A-hole in the wrong way, then I'm going to be very content knowing that I've been an A-hole in the right way. As it is, if you can come up with another example, I'll assume I can take you at your word as quoted above.
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
"it's clear that you consider the Republican party to be "consistent with a Biblical World view," " I completely disagree with that. Too broad a brush, yet again Louis. Never seen me, or others you're attempting to paint for that matter, be quite hard on the Republican party? "imposing their theocratic views on the country" You must be able to quote at least ONE important Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, or Christian leader who is advocating theocracy, right? I mean, to make a statement like that, there's got to be at least ONE. Right? Of course the very very silly thing about what you're ranting against, is that someone has beliefs that they consider consistent with their political outlook. Aren't your beliefs consistent with your political outlook? Isn't the fundamental idea of a democracy (which we're not, but the idea holds), that people vote their conscience? Are you proposing that we should have some sort of religious test in order to vote? And then sillier yet... funny how you really really REALLY didn't want to address the telling and fact based chart of the original post. :p
1 reply
Well I'm right glad that we all know the all important and critical fact of Joe Wilson's 2007 caffiene pill habit. Now can we start hearing something about the Congressional Research Service stating clearly that, " there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation." I mean, it's rude to interrupt the President, or any speaker for that matter, in such a way... but is it at all material that he was *right*?
1 reply
Oh, Aaron, I think I missed that you were studying toward ministry. What degree are you working towards and where? How's it going for you? I think I missed that about you, or perhaps I haven't been around long enough to pick up on it. I'm at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School working on my MDiv. I'm still working full time while doing it, so it's slow going, but I love the teachers and curriculum so far. I wish I could spend more time on campus, but as it is I have to pick and choose... Ravi Zacharias will be speaking at chapel later this month, so I'll be taking some oddly timed lunches to duck in for that! At any rate, I hope your studies are going well and that you're able to keep the joy and the focus in right perspective and balance with the work.
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
The Democrat reaction to GHW Bush's speech was actually more than what we see now. See this: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html Hearings? Investigations? Assessment of "legality"?
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Woo hoo for a full quiver! So did you end up going to the beach? I'm going to apologize right off the bat. I really don't have much negative to say. Maybe one thing, I'll get to it at the end, and it's just super minor. I went back for another go, just because it's helpful to always search out areas for improvement. This was a very good sermon. Right off the bat, I felt you were more comfortable in front of the folks and felt like you were ready to jump right in with confidence. Nice opening prayer. (grading prayer always feels weird, right?) Sounded confortable and had a very natural pace and flow. Seemed prepared, in a good way. I think you mentioned the difficulty and danger of the failures of the church at the beginning in a way that was edifying and disarming. That can be a dangerous path to tread, but I think you handled it deftly. You mentioned a worry about the sermon being boring. Here's a quote from John Stott (quoting someone I don't know) that I gathered recently and love: “‘The true way to shorten sermons’ said H. W. Beecher, ‘ is to make them more interesting.’” (quoted in Stott, I Believe in Preaching, p 292, H/T Unashamed Workman blog). I don't think the sermon was boring. :) There's some information/illustration on this passage that I've found interesting and perhaps useful that you may find use for later. It's certainly more applicable to Romans 11, but a little here. In grafting, the normal situation you find is that the branch draws sustanence from teh roots, but the fruit or the flower comes from the graft-stem not the graft-root. Overly-simply put, if you graft a red rose stem on a white rose root, you get red roses. Here, Jesus is saying something that should be a little suprising (olive grafting was common in Israel, so this should be widely known), that the fruit is dependant on the root side of things, namely Him. Great job bringing the limits of the context into plain view: growth not salvation. That said, way to preach salvation anyways! I love a good mini-gospel presentation in the middle of a sermon. Preach it! I love that you both support the natural good that comes from right action, but zing those who's pride burns against those less sanctified and yet justified. That's a healthy kind of deflation, for sure, without going to far. Even better, I love that you ask them to answer, at least in their head, whether or not they can accept that God saves the truly wicked. Hah, I love that you brought the "dung' meaning out of the commonly translated "rubbish" bit that Paul says about his own righteousness. Maybe its an age thing, but I love any chance to point out that the bible is not a prude and dusty old tome. It's quite edgy in its own way. (Did I mention that Song of Solomon is HAWT?) I absolutely loved the thought experiment about "how long away from an intimate relationship until you feel the strain"? Bringing it home at a week was good. That may have been hammered home if you think "a week" wasn't good enough by going even more explicit, "from Sunday to Sunday?" Minor nit, and I think your folks got it. I think I heard a collective intake of breath. I think I did one! I love that you made a point to really sit on, and point out the repitition of the ABIDE idea. It's absolutely key in this passage and an exegetically sound choice. Additionally, I love that you pointed out that there's not just a relational/experiential element to this, but a knowledge one. That is perhaps a little less exegetically grounded (from THIS text), but solid biblically, and I think puts a great boundary on what people should expect abide to mean, wholistically. "Experience w/o knowledge leads to heresy; Knowledge without experience leads to Pharisee." Love it! Have you read Chuck Colson's The Faith? Just came out, it's short (for him), and has group study materials associated. He hits on this in a BIG way, and it's a work that I think is edifying for the Church Universal. Great job talking about the horse and cart relationship between love and obedience. Man is this just so fundamentally important for people to get. You talked a bit about what disobedience can imply. That might have been strengthened, depending on the needs of your folks. "What does disobedience in a nominal Christian mean" is a tough topic, and probably deserves more attention than a brief excursis, so it's easy for me to imagine why it was touched lightly. The chart that you mention at the end, did it have room for the non-believer? Great idea, to really leave them with mental homework at the end, and making sure it would apply to everyone. The only real concern I had coming out of that, is that you labelled it John 15, but really didn't get into the final pericope which deals with the world's reaction. Was that handled in a different sermon, or are you guys locked into doing a chapter a week and having to make time constraint choices. If the latter is the case, it might be worth slowing down to hit it all. Great sermon. I actually talked about it with my wife at lunch. She love the point about not going a long time without touching base on intimate relationships, too. Keep up the great work!
1 reply
In fairness, I would allow that the numbers don't mean precisely that... So much of economic outcome is based on perception of the econonmy (there's a great high level discussion on economics and Christianity on Scot McKnight's blog, Jesus Creed, right now). I think at a minimum, we could say that business owners or those that are in charge of business forcasting as it relates to staffing decisions have a negative perception of Democratic policy and how it will affect their business. Ultimately the result is the same.
1 reply
Well, at any rate, I think if this discussion moved along, then you'd be able to easily agree that an ambassador is representative of the person or body that sent the agent. You'd also want to say that the ambassador, to perform rightly, should constrain himself to representations that are consistent with the desires and stated aims of the sending person or body. So, to really be able to say that "you're a bad ambassador of Jesus", you'll want to connect the dots a bit. You did X, and that's inconsistent with Jesus for reasons Y and Z. I strongly suspect that when you look at the full picture of Jesus, you'll find that if you want to force everything he did into the servant mold, that he served people by being rude, brusque, abusive, obstenant, inflammatory, and dare I say, an A hole? At any rate, I know that you like to do zingers, and prefer not to do a back and forth that actually answers questions asked, so I thought this more "getting to the point" would be helpful.
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Mmm, not going to look at the OFFICIAL democratic response to the GHWBush school speech? Also, in what way do you think we have been A holes, please site specific examples. Also, please answer the first question, what do you think the role of ambassador is? And then be a little more substantive, on what you think would be a better presentation. That requires a positive response, not just negative, though that's welcome in addition.
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
Oh, and the actual topic! Looks fantastic. Mark has a great way of mixing funny with the hard things, in a way that actually illuminates rather than obscuring. I heard just yesterday that the Southern Baptist Convention made a motion at their last big get together to censor his materials because he makes too many graphic sexual references. I can only assume they are referring to last year's series on the Song of Solomon (Series: The Peasant Princes, can view the whole thing on the Mars Hill website). It certainly makes me wonder what the SBC's take on SoS is. That book is HAWT! I haven't read through the link yet, but I've heard Mark speak on the topic. Frank would definitely describe his style, but also incredibly well rounded, deep, and informative. Because of his particular audience (least churched city in America), he goes to great lenghts to support his points not only from the bible, but from secular media and scientific studies.
1 reply
Not only lobbyist, but lobbyists. Not only lobbyists, but married ones. Not only married lobbyists, but lobbyists who had matters before the committee that Duvall works on. He resigned today. I hope there's criminal procedings. Of course this is part of the danger of the Christian community. There is a real desire to love people where they are, and bond in unity, that often times communities forgoe any sort of scrutiny or discipline. This guy was either a good faker, or his community let himself and all other Christians down by not calling him to account. Infidelity of any type, but certainly this is an egregious example, is not a "fall" or a "stumble", it is hundreds and hundreds of sins compounded. John had something to say about this that should not be ignored: "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (1 John 1:5-7, NIV) Only God knows the heart of a man, and I hope he truly has been down a long dark path, and will repent and come back. John's words call us to be discerning and to use our judgement. He has indicated he has no fellowship with God.
1 reply
Good Cineaste. Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech. Louis, what do you think appropriate ministering to you would look like? What do you think the role of ambassador is, and how should that be better presented? Also, in this statement, you've called into question the validity of our Christianity, but you seem to think that the validity of POTUS Obama's Christianity is beyond question. Why's that? I'm sorry that you think we're a barrier to Christianity. I'm thankful that ultimately I am beholden to God and not man, and that he knows my every thought.
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply
It wasn't really that snarky. I start any word study I do with the TDNT. Then I use my Logos software to find every instance of the word in the Bible. Then, depending on the language, I'd use one of several concordances that give extra biblical sourcing. Then I'd check primary sourcing on more of a longitudinal look (though I'm much more interested in current use than etymology, it can have some value). Kosmos, one of the words that is commonly translated as "the world", though there are a few others, has a broad connotation, but it is all phsyical/geographical. In its broadest sense it can mean "the universe", or it can mean "the earth", or it can mean the world *as specifically opposed to heaven*, which is to say sinful earth. Sure, you merely present your opinion, but it's an opinion based on nothing of merit and has no real value. It's not that it's not "orthodox" or "official", it's unsupportable and untenable. Point is, I really think you have no concept of Christian scholarship, and it's illuminating. Just as with the evil neo-cons, you make an assumption of stupidity towards those that disagree with you, and never allow a challenge to enter your mind. That's why you think one opinion is as good as another. That's also why you are stunningly ignorant of the arguments of those that disagree with you.
1 reply
I wonder Louis, are you aware of anything more specific that people found alarming, in particular, something that existed in writing and was changed very quickly when alarm was raise? If you don't, you might just maybe be working against a caricature here. Also, are you aware if any former Republican presidents gave speeches to school children that more or less mirrored exactly what POTUS Obama just gave, and if there was any official democratic reaction to that which is much more visceral than what you're seeing now? Because if you don't, you might not know just how broad a brush stroke you've just painted with.
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2009 on Can we all agree ... at two or three . net
1 reply