Update below. (16:24 EDT)
I'm not a fan of Jerry Falwell, who died today shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University at the age of 73. That said, I am quite disgusted with the pathological hatred displayed by liberal bloggers in their reactions to his death.
Jerry Falwell collapsed in his office this morning, and he’s in the hospital, and he’s “gravely unresponsive.”At a time like this, people deserve sympathy and good wishes ... except for Falwell, who is an evil sonofabitch.
John Edward's former campaign blogger Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon:
The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son
No word yet on whether or not that position is shared by John and Elizabeth Edwards campaign, or how Edward's staff will spin this into a fundraising opportunity.
Tapped goes for a "twofer" slam:
I'm waiting for Pat Robertson to find a way to blame his rival's death on either feminists or witchcraft.
The hagiography to cover up a history of hate and bigotry has officially begun.
A litany of hate at the Democratic Underground.
The "Blog of the Moderate Left" is surprisingly immoderate:
I wish I believed in Hell, so I could imagine Falwell enduring the eternal torment he wished on so many.
Technorati is tracking far more venom than I even want to contemplate, and as always, Allahpundit has running updates to capture the full flavor of the Democratic hatefest.
Perhaps I'm just blind by my own biases, but I don't recall similar widespread, triumphant glee and gloating from conservatives the last time a prominent liberal activist or politician died.
Cross-posted at Confederate Yankee.
Update (Ken Shepherd | 16:24): Negative comments also heavily dominate Ana Marie Cox's post at Time magazine's "Swampland" blog.
While Cox herself played nice, it seems that Cox does read her comments, as she cribbed off one commenter to add an update:
UPDATE: Commenter Bo234 is more insightful than I was: "Actually, the first politicization of his death was by the guy filling in for Rush who couldn't wait to bash the "loony liberal left" for something they haven't even done." Good point.
You will recall that NB's executive editor Matt Sheffield noted how heavily "Swampland" bloggers refer back to liberal blogs, while largely ignoring conservative bloggers.
—Bob Owens is an investigative blogger who writes at Confederate Yankee.
Comments Policy
I don't think we were this j
May 15, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Hero SquadI don't think we were this jubilant when Saddam Hussein was executed. And believe me, a lot of us were very jubilant at the demise of a madman murderous dictator. Sad.
Falwell lived his life the way he thought God wished, and attempted to share his beliefs with others to find the joy he had. What he did, he did because he thought it was good. I may not agree with everything he said or his tactics, but I can respect the man's heart and sincerity. I think we wanted everyone to feel God's love the way he did.
Rest in peace.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
...the left has never had thi
May 15, 2007 - 16:58 ET by TruthMonger...the left has never had this kind of hate for Hussein, or OBL...
Is there any question at all about the political pursuasions of the anti-Christ now:)?
It didn't take long
May 15, 2007 - 15:54 ET by goldenthroatYep, it was bound to happen - the left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do' liberal media and their cronies are already ripping into Rev. Falwell's legacy.
I can only imagine what is going to be said about him by the libs over the next several days. Of course, they will ignore the fact that he established a wonderful institution of higher learning at Liberty University, built homes for unwed mothers and alcoholic rehab centers, among other ministries.
The great part about it is that, if Falwell could speak, he could have cared less about these yelping little mutts. Whether you liked him or not, Falwell made a major impact on this country's political direction and impacted thousands of lives for many decades for the cause of Christ.
See you in the kingdom, brother.
liberal hate for falwell pales in comparison
May 16, 2007 - 12:58 ET by MC RoveIf you think this was bad, just wait till I kick it! They'll be dancing in the streets when ol' terd blossom bites the big one.
Shameless, soulless, despicab
May 15, 2007 - 16:00 ET by bigtimerShameless, soulless, despicable, filthy evil creatures.
Better known as Satan....doing the devil's work.
As I posted earlier elsewhere....my prayers go out to those who loved Mr. Falwell....he was a great man IMHO.
If Chief Justice Warren and h
May 15, 2007 - 19:51 ET by balboaIf Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made…. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”
Yes, "great" man...
Yes, balboa a "great man".
May 16, 2007 - 09:39 ET by SportPoliticsYes, balboa a "great man".
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -- Former Klansman and current US democratic Senator Robert Byrd
"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd
According to the democrats " The conscience of the Senate"
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Democrat PRESIDENT Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One
that's not a very humble op
May 16, 2007 - 12:59 ET by MC Rovethat's not a very humble opinion at all, actually. it's a rather proud one.
own it!
As I wrote at Hotair:Can’
May 15, 2007 - 16:07 ET by kevcadAs I wrote at Hotair:
Can’t wait for Odormann’s, Tokyo Rosie’s, Bill Maher’s, etc. reactions to this news.
R.I.P. Jerry. You fought the good fight.
kevcad,Good point you made ab
May 15, 2007 - 16:22 ET by bigtimerkevcad,
Good point you made about Ubermann...I don't think he will be able to stop himself from making some ugly comments....after-all that is all the little leftist fella knows.
I told my brother, an actual
May 15, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Chris NormanI told my brother, an actual Olbermann fan, that Olbermann, being a heartless SOB, would probably name Falwell "The Worstest Deceased Person in the World"
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Thanks for highlighting the
May 15, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Ken ShepherdThanks for highlighting the Left's glee with your posts to your blog and on NB.
I would suggest two others that often escape our view as usual suspects: Gawker and Wonkette. Both deal with political news and comment but are not strictly devoted to those. As such, we tend to overlook them in favor of critiquing dKos, ThinkProgress, et al. But Gawker and Wonkette are fairly nasty with their postings.
To her credit the "Wonkette emerita," Ana Marie Cox, is not spewing such filth at her venture on Time magazine's "Swampland" blog.
Keep in mind that wonkette
May 16, 2007 - 13:01 ET by MC RoveKeep in mind that wonkette doesn't pretend to be serious, like dKos, Politico, and NB pretend to be.
I can't imagine people of sou
May 15, 2007 - 16:13 ET by NoMoreClintonsI can't imagine people of sound mind (i.e., conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders) spewing this kind of hate over . . . anything really. It truly shows the childish mentality of the liberal moonbat and (sarc on) I'm glad for them that they have this opportunity to show the world what kind hearted people they really are (/sarc). Let the rest of the world take notice.
I'm no fan of Jerry Falwell's
May 15, 2007 - 16:13 ET by daveinbocaI'm no fan of Jerry Falwell's, but I recall watching LotRings this weekend and the King of Rohan asked about the orcs "How can we resist such reckless hatred?"
Answer: With the courage of your convictions and the knowledge that good eventually triumphs over the orcs. I don't know about the fever-swamp variety.
LOTR, really? how anyone
May 16, 2007 - 13:06 ET by MC RoveLOTR, really?
how anyone can take you seriously ever again is a mystery that even the wisest ent in the forrest cannot see.
In contrast, I'm reminded of
May 15, 2007 - 16:18 ET by BradzillaIn contrast, I'm reminded of Kathleen Parker's fawning smoochfest column when Molly Ivins passed away. I rather disagreed with KP's impressions, but I was certainly not gleeful that MI was gone. I am perhaps pleased that I'll never have to read any more of her nonsensical columns, but that is entirely different.
Leftists: self-worship & self-anointment their diktat
May 15, 2007 - 16:23 ET by PlaceboHatred and vilification is a leftist tenet: Christians, whether evangelical or other denominations, all are maligned by the mass-media. Falwell, of course, was used to being targeted by the media-pagans. Being Godless is camp and a necessity to be a bona fide Liberal. Their worship is that of themselves: self-anointment and self-righteousness are part and parcel, their diktat.
Humbleness, however, cannot be learnt through self-worship and self-anointment; thus, it is they, the leftists, who, in the end, will come up short.
Rest in peace Jerry Falwell.
As a garden variety evangelic
May 15, 2007 - 16:25 ET by DilbertAs a garden variety evangelical Calvinist, I often disagreed with some of the Rev. Falwell's doctrine and his over emphasis on political activism.
That being said, as a previous poster noted, he put feet to his faith and was unapologetic on issues he and many Christians consider white or black.
My prayers to his friends, family and the members of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University.
Ps 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones. (NASB)
Dilbert
A TULIP garden, Dilbert? ;)
May 15, 2007 - 16:33 ET by Ken ShepherdA TULIP garden, Dilbert? ;)
KS: or maybe a TUPIP garden!
May 15, 2007 - 16:37 ET by DilbertKS: or maybe a TUPIP garden! Which is more politically correct now, Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption?? :)
Good question, Dilbert. I'd s
May 15, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Ken ShepherdGood question, Dilbert. I'd say Particular Redemption is better in terms of semantics. I think "limited atonement" and "total depravity" in general have always been hangups for some on the semantic considerations.
I'm looking at attending a church close to my home that's Reformed AND charismatic in character. I agree with them on many points it seems and I want to check it out, but while I consider myself neutral or not solidly in either the Arminian or Calvinist "camp," I've come from the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition and only recently have I tossed around these in-house debates in my head more.
Bottom line, I need to listen to where God's calling me and trust in Him completely. I'd appreciate your prayers there.
Funny you should mention that
May 15, 2007 - 17:15 ET by tracheostomyFunny you should mention that Ken. . .
http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/04/jerry-falwells-friday-13th-declaration.html
While I'm not throwing a party like the libs, I'm not sorry to see him go. He did more damage to the cause of the gospel than we would like to believe. Wood, hay, and stubble abounded with this man.
1. He was one of the first to politicize religion. I really ain't down with that, even though we're in too deep 25 years later. No backing out now.
And it's not a church/state issue with me. I simply feel that sacred convictions and political compromise always make for the strangest of bedfellows.
2. Though he would protest to the contrary, I believe he was a moralist far and above everything else. With him, the gospel was just riding along in the backseat.
3. He publicly called limited atonement heresy only mere weeks before he died. This means he labeled like. . .me, my wife, and half the authors on my bookshelf apostate and denied verbatum Biblical doctrine. I'm still steaming from that.
May the Lord have mercy on him.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
all your lofty convictions
May 15, 2007 - 17:39 ET by tumbler_2007Dear Trake:
Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism. Instead of remembering to respect the dead, no matter your differences, you attempt to defame a man like Falwell before the body has cooled. And over WHAT ?
Your elitist attitude about the scriptures. You are no closer to the truth than any Born Again Sunday School teacher.
But you call another Bible thumper a denier of Biblical Doctrine.
Let me say now; there IS NO bona fide "biblical doctrine." There is only apostolic doctrine; substantiated by the sole infallible interpretor of the Word of God, which is His Church. The Catholic Church, Dear. What you deem to be biblical doctrine, Jerry Falwell called humbug. You call his doctrine, just as biblical (purported) humbug. All your autonomous sects and meeting houses find something humbug about one another. NO UNITY, because you have NO authority to settle something infallibly.
Catholics are secure; we have PETER. He lives on as Christ intended, in his successors the Popes. Remember that clause --"I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus handed Peter the KEYS, not just the Bible. ~~Keys mean complete authority; something protestants fail to understand. Wilfully, maybe; since they have no keys. Jesus said NOTHING about any "biblical doctrine."
You talk about being dead lik
May 15, 2007 - 17:43 ET by tracheostomyYou talk about being dead like it's a B A D thing Tumb.
What's your problem? I meant every bit; including the last part.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
my dear mother died
May 15, 2007 - 17:56 ET by tumbler_2007There isn't anything B A D about it; soon we'll be together at the banquet table of the Lord; all of us, I hope.
As a Catholic I don't believe in death at all. Jesus says the simplest most direct thing; "Whoever believes in me though he be dead, yet shall he live. And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die."
I know Falwell believed in the saving power of Christ. I must remain faithful that his errors will not be held against him, since he embraced them with sincerity and faith. The fact this faith was in his private interpretations of scripture (Sola Scriptura) a method not at all supported anywhere in the Bible--
Ought not have cost him his salvation. I truly hope not; because he loved Jesus Christ. That much is evident. As with every good soul, God will be his Judge, not us.
God will be his judge. From t
May 15, 2007 - 18:59 ET by MobiusStripGod will be his judge. From this side of the Great Divide, what I found reprehensible about Falwell is that he brought the religion of the dollar to the Church of Christ for political gain. He did not seek to heal but divide for his own need for power and money- and failed the lessons of Christ for those very reasons. Falwell was the first to cast the stone and let his ambitions create hate and sow mistrust. His gospel was one of arrogant judgement while he fleeced his flock: he would have been the first moneychanger cast from the temple.
Yes, God will most certainly judge the false prophet first.
I am sure you have copious
May 15, 2007 - 19:11 ET by MightyMouthI am sure you have copious examples of the "false" teachings of this "false" prophet O Pious one? Perhaps his outreach to unwed mothers or possibly his aids outreach program or one of the numerous other outreach ministries of his church?
Don't forget, God will judge you if you fasley accuse others. Are you sure of your accusations?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
ANY preacher that focuses hat
May 15, 2007 - 19:43 ET by MobiusStripANY preacher that focuses hatred and blame on groups of people in the name of Christ and PROFITS from it is a false prophet. Falwell was that false prophet. You don't get that basic fact, do you? The lesson of the Good Samaritan is apparently lost on you- Christ's lesson of selflessness and non-judgementalism- I imagine that you would agree with Falwell when he said Mother Teresa is in it for the money. I believe she died in near poverty. But then she was Catholic! Not many Armanis in her closet, I'd bet.
Find yourself some sources outside of your limited sphere. Get some Falwell quotes from non-fundamentalist thinkers. Read his own quotes. You won't try, of course. It would not fit your style.
"ANY preacher that foc
May 15, 2007 - 22:30 ET by MightyMouth"ANY preacher that focuses hatred and blame on groups of people in the name of Christ and PROFITS from it is a false prophet"
What proof have you that Jerry Falwell was such a preacher? You are the one spewing hate towards the man. BACK IT UP IDIOT!!!!!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"ANY preacher that focus
May 15, 2007 - 22:39 ET by botg"ANY preacher that focuses hatred and blame on groups of people
MM i thought he was refering to Oberdoof!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg,Reading through the th
May 15, 2007 - 22:50 ET by MightyMouthbotg,
Reading through the thread I see the twisted freak has admitted he is a fat ass. That's ok, alot of people are fat asses, but when you're a dumb fat ass you really have nature working against you. And he can't really defend his vile opinion of Falwell because he knows damn well it's indefensible! Let me tell you something "MobiusStrip" I am gonna dog you everytime I see you! You are nothing but scum!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Let me say now; there IS NO b
May 15, 2007 - 17:57 ET by tracheostomyLet me say now; there IS NO bona fide "biblical doctrine." There is only apostolic doctrine; substantiated by the sole infallible interpretor of the Word of God, which is His Church.
Contradictions abound in that one statement alone. Doctrine simply means "teaching" Tumb. If it's apostolic, then it's Biblical. Simple. And both are inspired by God. Calm down and think before you post, man!
The Catholic Church, Dear. What you deem to be biblical doctrine, Jerry Falwell called humbug. You call his doctrine, just as biblical (purported) humbug.
I call them both painfully partial in understanding. See my previous posts on this. I have stated gladly that I would join hands with EvoFundies and RCs if they both discarded what didn't belong according to scripture.
All your autonomous sects and meeting houses find something humbug about one another. NO UNITY, because you have NO authority to settle something infallibly.
This statement is yet another example of the postmodernist "death of certainty."
It can be settled infallably. Some are simply too scared to cut off the dead and dying extremity to save the body.
Catholics are secure; we have PETER.
BALONEY! You have no idea where you will go immediately after you die. You're not even secure in knowing you'll have last rites. Don't plan any vacations to Dubai, do you?
He lives on as Christ intended, in his successors the Popes.
Who have since rejected Augustinianism for his most heretical student. What about the Tridentine Catholics?
Jesus handed Peter the KEYS, not just the Bible. ~~Keys mean complete authority; something protestants fail to understand. Wilfully, maybe; since they have no keys. Jesus said NOTHING about any "biblical doctrine."
Literal keys? Where was it written literal keys. And why after Jesus declared "Flesh and blood have not given this to you. . .upon this rock. . ." did he call Peter SATAN in the same passage?
Peter cannot be declared both Satan and Pope in the same passage. Go settle that and come on back later. M-kay?
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
Alright, gang, let's keep i
May 15, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Ken ShepherdAlright, gang, let's keep it civil.
Unlike this exchange.
LOL Ken S....that was delicio
May 15, 2007 - 18:09 ET by bigtimerLOL Ken S....that was deliciously funny...saw it all yesterday.
Good point you've just made.
Oh snap. Scientology wins t
May 15, 2007 - 18:22 ET by tracheostomyOh snap. Scientology wins the PR fight on that one. Good example there. The first one to lose his/her cool usually loses.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
Screwed up again. The scien
May 15, 2007 - 18:46 ET by tracheostomyI screwed up again. The scientologist was "bull baiting" the reporter. See the comments.
There's how it appeared, then there was how the reporter knew what was really happening.
Brilliant.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
Trake-- you listen to me and listen now!!
May 15, 2007 - 19:10 ET by misterbillTrake-- you listen to me and listen now!! I am the ONLY one who knows about God and what he wants. I will not bother to quote you chapter and verse as I wrote half of them. Enough is enough. Kneel before me and accept my superior wisdom and ------------sorry trake ------LOL --
I just could not resist. Keep on keepin' on. I hadn't seen this area of discourse for a couple of weeks now.
LOLZ!!! That was the best, ma
May 15, 2007 - 19:27 ET by tracheostomyLOLZ!!! That was the best, man!
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
this is too easy
May 15, 2007 - 18:44 ET by tumbler_2007"If it's apostolic, then it's Biblical. Simple. And both are inspired by God." --REPLY: Explain then, why Peter tells us not to depend on private interpretations of the scriptures. (2 Pet3 :16 (He calls you unstable.) If your doctrine's now apostolic you wouldn't have rejected the Church of Christs' apostles.
"I call them both painfully partial in understanding. See my previous posts on this. I have stated gladly that I would join hands with EvoFundies and RCs if they both discarded what didn't belong according to scripture." REPLY: Without the Catholic Church and Peter's authority, you can't declare what belongs and doesn't belong in the Bible. You're only touting your own "Bible scholarship."
" . . . another example of the postmodernist "death of certainty." REPLY: No; your sect's example of human pride. --Substituting trust in your ministers for the proven infallibility of Christ's Church; Pillar and Mainstay of the Truth -- 1 Tim :3 :15--
"It can be settled infallably. Some are simply too scared to cut off the dead and dying extremity to save the body." REPLY: OK; what else did the devil teach you, besides you're infallible, even without any authority from the apostles ?
Catholics are secure; we have PETER. --You say:
BALONEY! You have no idea where you will go immediately after you die. You're not even secure in knowing you'll have last rites. Don't plan any vacations to Dubai, do you? REPLY: A non sequitur. Is this self-confidence ? WE ARE WITH PETER. You can't confront this truth, can you ?
He lives on as Christ intended, in his successors the Popes.
Who have since rejected Augustinianism for his most heretical student. What about the Tridentine Catholics? REPLY: Another bloated non sequitur. Why waste the bandwidth, Trach--? Come up with something to justify your rejection of the holy apostles' authority over YOU and all Christians. You CAN'T, can you ?
Jesus handed Peter the KEYS, not just the Bible. ~~Keys mean complete authority; something protestants fail to understand. Wilfully, maybe; since they have no keys. Jesus said NOTHING about any "biblical doctrine."
Literal keys? Where was it written literal keys. And why after Jesus declared "Flesh and blood have not given this to you. . .upon this rock. . ." did he call Peter SATAN in the same passage?
REPLY: You read it and summarily distort it. PETER was only Simon up to that point. Are you telling us Jesus made a mistake? Why is he thereafter PETER, ROCK --? -- And, why does Jesus hand him the keys to the kingdom of heaven (HIS CHURCH) since you think he was seriously called Satan ? Aren't YOU the one with constant contradictions ? I shouldn't wonder. Your grasp of the Bible's words is infantile. NO Holy Spirit to guide you, trachea.
Peter cannot be declared both Satan and Pope in the same passage. REPLY: --On account of what ? Your personal inclination to reject the apostles and their Gospel to the world in favor of an anathema Paul warns of in Gal 1 :6 through :9 --? You left Christ's holy Church ! You are disloyal to Peter if you reject his successor the Pope. Peter is Christ's authorized representative on earth. That is what the KEYS mean in that passage from Matt 16 :18, 19.
Explain then, why Peter tells
May 15, 2007 - 19:11 ET by tracheostomyExplain then, why Peter tells us not to depend on private interpretations of the scriptures. (2 Pet3 :16 (He calls you unstable.) If your doctrine's now apostolic you wouldn't have rejected the Church of Christs' apostles.
First of all, you're actually alluding to only a partial stating of 1 Peter 1:20 and then ham-fistedly imposing your interpretation onto the 2 Peter passage (a separate book entirely, but ironically enough a warning pertaining to the very thing you just did).
1 Peter 1:20 ". . .knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.This is of course, is not saying that prophesy of Scripture can only be received by a select few and then meted out to the laity.
Without the Catholic Church and Peter's authority, you can't declare what belongs and doesn't belong in the Bible. You're only touting your own "Bible scholarship."I agree that the church is one, holy, apostolic, and catholic (that is to say, universal). The authority I have is the same given by the apostles including Peter, who blessed private interpretation in the very same passage you cited!
2 Peter 3:15 &16! Don't wanna say you're cornered. . .but there you are. Peter himself urged the laity, whom Paul continually referred to as "saints" I might add.
OK; what else did the devil teach you, besides you're infallible, even without any authority from the apostles ?See above. Careful Tumb, they also too hastily accused Christ being of Satan as well.
A non sequitur. Is this self-confidence ? WE ARE WITH PETER. You can't confront this truth, can you ?I was confronting your eternal security. You flinched and dodged.
Another bloated non sequitur. Why waste the bandwidth, Trach--? Come up with something to justify your rejection of the holy apostles' authority over YOU and all Christians. You CAN'T, can you ?I agree that keys equal authority, but for what purpose is the authority given? Your reason for those keys being given is based on the "this rock" statement; not just the keys. The keys are the outcome of the original declaration.
By the way, you failed to answer the most important part of my question.
According to your reasoning, Jesus addressed the same individual as both "this rock" and "Satan"
THAT SIR, is a true non-sequitur!
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
sorry, traches
May 15, 2007 - 19:32 ET by tumbler_2007You lost the debate. I'm not saying it triumphally, just grading your weak responses. To answer your last, almost laughable challenge:
"By the way, you failed to answer the most important part of my question. . . . According to your reasoning, Jesus addressed the same individual as both "this rock" and "Satan"
THAT SIR, is a true non-sequitur!" REPLY:
My reasoning ? No, Dear; it's SCRIPTURE -- !
The "same individual whom Jesus calls Peter ?" Are you now interested in discrediting Peter ? Too bad; Peter went on to give his life martyred for Jesus. Crucified with his feet pointed upward to heaven, because he objected to his executioners that he was unworthy to die on the cross similarly to His Lord. As for the objection you have here above: it's irrelevant to our discussion. Jesus could say anything He pleased. In the end, Peter was chosen to lead the apostles and Christ's Church. The Catholic Church.
Same individual. Peter = Simo
May 15, 2007 - 19:39 ET by tracheostomySame individual. Peter = Simon and was no less fallable following his name change.
Answer the question.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
You also alluded to one scrip
May 15, 2007 - 19:40 ET by tracheostomyYou also alluded to one scripture and gave the address of another entirely.
How is that not twisting?
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
don't ask for a truce
May 15, 2007 - 19:42 ET by tumbler_2007----
YOU LOST THE DEBATE.
Tumbler, please explain how I
May 15, 2007 - 21:45 ET by tracheostomyTumbler, please explain how I lost the debate.
1. I illustrated the contradiction of your personal interpretation of scripture on 5/15, 1911 hrs. You have been obfuscating and evading ever since.
2. I demonstrated how your verses cited didn't exactly match with either your premise behind citing them, or the actual words of Peter you quoted. Check the passages yourself.
3. I'm not declaring myself a "winner" or "loser" Tumb. I am asking you to either clean up your dodgy; unanswered mess, or bring in a real Catholic apologist to do your thinking for you. SO HOP TO IT!
Or. . .you can always repent to the divine revelation of the Holy Spirit. . .just a suggestion. =)
-PJ
"Trake:Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler, 5/15/07
I wouldn't call limited ato
May 15, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Ken ShepherdI wouldn't call limited atonement "heresy" although as I said I don't necessarily agree with 5-point Calvinism. I think that both Calvinist and Arminian views of predestination and election are within the pale of orthodoxy and that many an Arminian and many a Calvinist will forever enjoy fellowship with another, with Christ, in the life to come.
Bottom line: they can and should be vigorously debated in light of Scripture and on the basis of Scripture, but Christians should not refrain from cooperation between denominations and theological camps on that basis per se.
My current church, a Nazarene church, and a local Presbyterian church co-sponsor Upward Basketball as a ministry tool to reach local kids and parents with the Gospel. That sort of thing should not fall by the wayside because the other six days a week they exchange flame wars over paedobaptism and eternal security.
Anyway, I'm well off the beaten path with this comment thread.
It's not OT. Liberal have n
May 15, 2007 - 18:05 ET by tracheostomyIt's not OT. Liberals have no idea what a Christian is or how complex the beliefs can be. They just want to paint every believer with the same broad brush.
It's time to define it more accurately for the liberal and the world.
It's not a light that truly shines if it's obscured by cloudy, vague, politicized moralism.
But that's just me.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
Your bigoted remark about li
May 15, 2007 - 19:13 ET by MobiusStripYour bigoted remark about liberals and their knowledge of Christian principles informs your self righteousness, Trach. You are taking a political stance and ascribing religious faith to only those-not-liberal. You complain about broad-brushing: what, exactly, was that? Very Christian of YOU to paint your fellow humanity in this way. Rise above your politics and get back to the message of Christ. THat remark was perhaps the most un-Christian thing I've read in a long time.
Um, just remember that sayin
May 15, 2007 - 19:36 ET by tracheostomyUm, just remember that saying I make bigoted remarks about liberals legitimizes them as an actual partisan group. . .right? You'd be better off with the crowd who denies their existence altogether as an invention of Evangelical Fundies.
Also, if you read my whole part of the thread, you would see my goal is to de-politicize Christianity as a mere "moral majority" here. For IMO it is far more than a moral front. It is the bride of Christ our sovereign Lord.
When I complain about "broad brushing" I mean to say I don't want to be lumped into someone that would chase a "People vs Larry Flynt" type of rainbow. To me, Falwell in our day was no diffrent (and no more knowledgable) from WJ Bryan in his.
All I'm saying.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
An anagram came to mind----
May 15, 2007 - 19:41 ET by misterbillAn anagram came to mind---- MOBIUSSTRIP == BURP IS MOIST
Very juvenile: like it just &
May 15, 2007 - 19:53 ET by MobiusStripVery juvenile: like it just "came to mind". Look your own up on anagrams.com, like you did mine. Can't deal with a discussion, eh? Run away, run away!
in point of fact, moby
May 15, 2007 - 19:55 ET by tumbler_2007He said an anagram had come to mind. But he's MINDLESS at best; stupified at worst. We just laugh him off around here. Yuck yuck.
One day back here and you've
May 15, 2007 - 20:01 ET by BlondeOne day back here and you've already devolved into ugliness.
You're the only one who's laughed at here.
<crickets>
Easy there B, after all T i
May 15, 2007 - 20:07 ET by botgEasy there B, after all T is a "goodwill ambassador"
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
a dangerous duo
May 15, 2007 - 20:57 ET by misterbilla dangerous duo can you tell that Tumbler is , for some reason, extremely jealous of me?? It is because I am a true American and he is like a RINO. He is really a plant. He was raised here with the intent , one day he owuld help in the integration of illegal immigrants when they dtart their move to create the satate of Aztlan. Mobius ? Well I will not waste my breath explaining to him that if my humor is as poor as he says, how could I be using a site to look up anagrams?
Now you all know , except for Tumbler and occasionally witchwang, I am usually polite. That being said, mobyus dickus my findings re: you is that you are a complete a$$h)!e. Why anyone wastes time debating you is hard to undersatnd. Identical twin to the a$$ ki$$ing Tumbler who fancies he is God and only he knows what was in God's mind when he created us. He shames me as a Catholic. He turns every thread into a string of quotes from his Bible. The Lord God I was raised to know would deem him gulty of the sin of Pride. And we all know that cometh before a fall.
Sit thee down thy vile sinner--kneel before your Lord and beg His forgiveness.
PS
May 15, 2007 - 20:57 ET by misterbillI know you are, but what am I?
as i mentioned to Blonde, eas
May 15, 2007 - 21:03 ET by botgas i mentioned to Blonde, easy Misterbill, whatfore shouldst thou be upset for their being foolish?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
"Tis true--the man does possess===
May 16, 2007 - 00:17 ET by misterbill"Tis true--the man does possess===the ability to anger me. He is like the god Janus, first one face then the other.
sat too long in the sun ?
May 15, 2007 - 23:04 ET by tumbler_2007T
May 15, 2007 - 23:15 ET by misterbillMisereatur vestri omnipotens Deus et dimissis peccatis vestris, perducat vos ad vitam eternam.
misterbill,Ignore the troll.N
May 16, 2007 - 00:24 ET by Blondemisterbill,
Ignore the troll.
Not worth raising one's bloodpressure over.
Seriously.
Ignore the troll.
Just getting the last of his venom---
May 16, 2007 - 00:35 ET by misterbillJust getting the last of his venom---out of my system. Before he went on vacation I was getting very good at ignoring him.
Old misterboil
Does not toil
To make the fool
My simple foil
Hmmmm?
May 15, 2007 - 21:35 ET by misterbill--
Mobius and Tumbler became a new team
Thought each post was a real scream
The words that they wrote
Didn't amount to a mote
The results were just a bad dream!
misterbill,Why are you not te
May 15, 2007 - 19:54 ET by Blondemisterbill,
Why are you not teaching school?
You have such a wonderfully "out of the box" approach to everything....my one attempt at a limerick taxed me to no end, but you come up with this great stuff at the drop of a feather.
You are amazing with your quick wit and bon mots here....keep them coming. And thanks for the giggles.
this is a groupie
May 15, 2007 - 20:00 ET by tumbler_2007Mobes,'' Have a good laugh on Blonde too. She's Misterboil's most ardent fawner. (Is that a word ?) Sycophant ? Maybe "grape-dropper"--? Well, he needs support; it mot as well be her !
Have another drink, Tumbler.Y
May 15, 2007 - 20:02 ET by BlondeHave another drink, Tumbler.
You're sucking up to the biggest troll on the board.
<crickets>
Biggest Troll? Is there an aw
May 15, 2007 - 20:09 ET by MobiusStripBiggest Troll? Is there an award? I can guarantee you'll always get your girth worth, Blondie, but not sure how else I might qualify.
Yep, Mobi.You win the "b
May 15, 2007 - 20:14 ET by BlondeYep, Mobi.
You win the "biggest troll" award.
You and Tumbler are a match made in heaven.
My girth is just fine, BTW, Mobi.
mobes old pal---
May 15, 2007 - 21:00 ET by misterbillmobes old pal---if you are what you appear to be, your greatest threat is hemorrhoids.
Tumb- she really has a proble
May 15, 2007 - 20:11 ET by MobiusStripTumb- she really has a problem with adding an "i" to her name. Not sure why, but it really sets her off. Maybe there's a Dagwood connection... maybe it's MisterBoil!
Mobi,I've told you before, on
May 15, 2007 - 20:18 ET by BlondeMobi,
I've told you before, only my good friends are encouraged to call me "Blondie"...and you are surely no friend (nor even a passing acquaintance) of mine.
Having said that...I'll leave you to your new-found friend, the other really major troll on the board. Hope you two have a lovely time together, you big fat trolls.
xxxxxx oooooo
<crickets, again>
Blonde - you may have uncovered something here--
May 15, 2007 - 21:01 ET by misterbillBlonde - you may have uncovered something here--Tumbler the goatherd often refers to Brokeback Mountain. Do you suppose he shared a tent with "mobes".
Hmmmm????????
May 15, 2007 - 21:06 ET by BlondeHmmmm????????
mobius is a lib
May 15, 2007 - 23:33 ET by tumbler_2007I'm a conservative & Moby is a liberal. Never the twain shall meet. But I can still identify with Mober. I know what it is to combat the bottom-feeders of NewsBusters. These two together make one large wart on our NewsBuster butt. Truly gross ! Mobius Strip is really trolling but nevertheless stands miles higher than Boil Boy and his Blonde Patsy.
ME ? I'm a Republican, Bush et Reagan styled conservative. NO TROLL, SORRY !
SORRY !Ah, the first (I hop
May 16, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Free StinkerSORRY !
Ah, the first (I hope) of many, many, many, many appologies you owe people all over Newsbusters.
Get busy.
t
May 16, 2007 - 00:24 ET by misterbill"But I can still identify with Mober."
Of course you can!
"large wart on our NewsBuster butt".
OMG I am hurling-------
Bush et Reagan styled conservative
Reagan was one of my heroes--do not insult him by comparing yourself to him.
Well, Blonde
May 16, 2007 - 00:01 ET by RJWell, Blonde, I see one of the Bobsie Twins describing warts on their butts. Geez, I don't even want to think about what kind of intimacy it takes to have that kind of knowledge.....
and yet
May 15, 2007 - 21:42 ET by