Ok, I made that up. But that math isn’t all that different from this math. A guy named Eric Bramlet went to a movie with his wife and he “loved it.” Ingrid reports to us about this pastor and the road that he’s on. Ken then takes that post and somehow links it to Molech and somehow blames Rob Bell.
Anything to get the ole hits up, I guess.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, June 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm and is filed under Ingrid, Ken Silva, Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
52 Comments(+Add)
Such a narrow scope of reality that you get stupified there Joe?
Some interesting things going on here.
First of all, the usage of the name Billy Cutts to denigrate Ken through crude humor.
This is especially interesting given the fact there is a two year old who has lost his mother and sibling, as well as his father. Not much thought for the family involved, but hey, “anything to get the old hits upâ€â€¦eh?
Second, this Eric Bramlet guy; the only thing worse than a self righteous right-winger is the I’m cool, my church is cooler than cool, dude. There are those who think they are the anointed revolutionaries and subversives that will confound your grandpa and save the church. They are the other side of the pharisaical coin. Read his “about me†page.
Apparently his calling is to “tell stories†that will lead people back to God. Well if Yahweh had only known that all it takes is a good story, He could have saved Himself, and His son, a lot of grief.
As for the movie in question…. it’s garbage. I get the feeling that Eric Bramlet went to see this and wrote about it just to get a laugh at the expense of those who truly hate sin. Several have commented already rebuking him for his “review†to which I say, don’t bother commenting, as that is exactly what he is after. Remember his kingdom work is to demonstrate how cool Jesus is, and how “uncool†you are.
The most telling statement from his post is this;
“Yes, it’s true – the pregnancy came from a non-married, one-night-stand situation. We’ll all pretend that that doesn’t really happen, and get over it.â€
Ah the quest to be “authenticâ€. We all know sin exists, and in worse formats than this movie portrays. However, do we roll in the slop with the pigs because we love bacon? Jesus reached out to sinners, but never told them that they were “okâ€.
I say shame on Eric Bramlet, and shame on this blog and it’s contributors who have never really shared what they actually believe, but will stand with anyone and anything as long as Ken and Ingrid disagree with it.
Chris P. Do me a favor. Connect the dots between Eric Bramlett and Rob Bell. Or Erwin McManus, or whoever.
Yet again Joe manages to say absolutely nothing and avoid interacting with what Chris P. said.
Oh Ken,
The point of my post dear, sweet, sweet Ken is to show your wild jumps of logic. Linking that poor guy to Rob is silly. You simply slapped Rob’s name in there so your site could climb a little higher on the Google Chart. I’m not here to defend Eric’s post. I don’t want to get into the merit of him going to the movie. I want someone to connect the dots from Eric Whatever his name is to Rob. Do you really want to play the card about not interacting with a post. Didn’t you invent that game?
Chris P,
Do you read the comments? If you read the comments you find out what people believe.
Ken,
I am not sure Joe is avoiding what Chris P is saying.
Nothing Chris P. said had anything to do with the post. Joe is simply asking How does Rob get the blame for this?
The problem is if Joe answer Chris P. comment than we go off topic yet again. You yourself have said a whole lot but has not answered Joe’s simple question. So how about we start there. Please we are dying to know, how does Rob get the heat for this one?
Chris P,
How is Joe not being sympathetic to a grieving family? he is simply proving the illogical jumps in Ken’s arguments. That is why he used the guys name wrong on purpose so you all would get the point without it hurting someone close to this case. It is absurd to think that Cutts got anything he knew from Ken(although he was speaking to a Baptist pastor so I guess you could jump to the conclusion it was Ken) I mean Ken has no problem blaming Rob for things? NO, it is absurd! Joe is trying to prove a point here. You all make illogical arguments. Just like it is illogical to think that Cutts and Silvia have ever communicated.
Here is my guess Silvia wanted to get his hits up so he knew if he mentioned Bells name people would go to his site and read the article. I don’t know maybe Ken gets paid based on how many hits he gets.
I find it interesting you can say you have no idea what these people on this site believe but all we know is what you all stand against and very little about what you stand for. Sometimes I wonder if you know what you stand for.
BTW, in case you were wondering. We have been glued to the news and have been in prayer for this family. I could not imagine what they are going through.
Well, I think it’s pretty obvious if someone isn’t so hyper-sensitive to jump to ol’ Rob’s defense. Let’s look carefully at the sentence where his name appears in my post shall we:
That’s the phrase Rob uses in Velvet Elvis concerning certain teachings about approaching the Bible. I was only referencing his phrase in general, and giving him credit for it as I then applied it in another direction toward the Emergent Church in general.
I’m sorry to steal your thunder here but it’s just that simple. So there’s no reason for me, or anyone else, to connect any imaginary dots. You see, other than the use if his phrase Bell has zippo to do with the rest of the post despite your wild jumps of logic “sweet, sweet Joe.”
“he is simply proving the illogical jumps in Ken’s arguments.” Sorry about that chief, Joe proves nothing except perhaps limited logic skills on hi spart.
So my guess Joe wanted to get his hits up so he knew if he mentioned my name people would go to this site and read the post. I don’t know maybe Joe gets paid based on how many hits he gets.
Ken, that argument doesn’t hold. I got the quote. You linked to him to get the hits your way in the google meter, Ken. It has nothing to do with defending Rob, it simply has to do with the fact that you never met bad logic you couldn’t use.
How did you and Ingrid find this guy anyhow? Do you hire people to surf the internet for you? You know what, I’m sure you don’t. You probably have people sending you links all the time. Because they love the warped and toxic crap you spill. They want to be hated.
My post has nothing to do with Bell, except that he was the target of your latest jump.
“You linked to him to get the hits your way in the google meter, Ken.”
So, are you God now Joe? What’s the matter? Is it you just can’t handle being wrong? “You probably have people sending you links all the time.” Even if they were; are you jealous there Joe? Not looking too good here friend.
No Ken, I’m not jealous. I’m sickened by that thought. The thought that there are people who spend time finding stuff for you to attack other with is disgusting. It’s putrid. It makes me want to cry. Truly, it does. You used to say that you were ok to write ignorant things about people because they were in the public eye (Chris P once said, “If you can’t stand the heat….) but this guy is just living his life.
As for your question about God, you crack me up. Problem is, I just don’t believe I’m wrong. I think you know exactly what you are doing. There’s no reason to link to your “archives” otherwise.
Ken, I pray you repent. I pray you truly get to see God’s Mercy and Grace in your life.
Until that day, we are the point you and I often find–we both believe the other to be wrong.
Remember Ken, Jesus never said it was a sin to be nice. He never said it was virtue to be a jerk.
“There’s no reason to link to your ‘archives’ otherwise.” Well, not if there weren’t new readers coming to my work all the time. And not if I wanted to make sure the information was as accessable as possible. It’s called being a good steward Joe.
“[T]his guy is just living his life.” If this is referring to Rob Bell, he is most definitely in the public eye and crippling the faith of thousands of youth who think Rob actually knows what he is talking about.
And remember Joe, Jesus never said it was a sin to be tell the truth. He never said it was virtue to be ignorant.
Ken, I’ll say this again. This post is not about Rob Bell. My comment about the guy living his life was about Eric Bramlet.
BTW Ken, one of my fav. verses is John 13:35.
Joe, I’ll say this again. My post was not about Rob Bell.
“My comment about the guy living his life was about Eric Bramlet.” That’s why I asked. Still, when you blog publicly and encourage people to see this kind of filth as a “minister” you have entered the public arena.
“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35) Absolutely. However, there’s more to love Joe than sappy sentimentality. I have great love for genuine Christians. But you see, they are the one another Jesus speaks of.
Wow, Cardinal Kenny is now ex communicating people. I ever so much hope I pass Pope Ingrid’s test to get into the church.
Just who exactly do you see me “excommunicating” there Tim? Reading things in are we?
I will rate the Hollywood movies en masse.
“Flesh”
But what about the good ones?
Two things.
I saw a sandwich in an outhouse once but I left it.
Wait for them on TV.
If only have the things were true about the movie in the review, no Christian should see it much less a pastor. I know what you’re thinking, he’s read Charles Finney’s book on separation. You’d be close.
have = half
I will get a dictionary.
Joe said,
“this guy is just living his life”
and others, like him, are “just living their lives” and affecting the thinking of many youth in my area
and I’m glad that someone is speaking out against such corrupt teaching.
Ken: So, are you God now Joe?
Mr Kettle, Mr Pot is on line 2.
Brent,
*reaching for my pen* O how clever. Can I use that?
No, you have a stable full of shots at others. Come up with your own material.
I looked at the article. There was no need to tie Bell with this in any way. But then again this comes from the editor of a site where Rick Warren is evil because one of his ex conference coordinators give parties for people.
BTW… I am at Mosaic right now. Eric Bryant just got done addressing Ken Silva’s site from stage (not by name). Pretty good stuff.
Nathan,
Will there be an MP3?
Amy,
Ken and Ingrid used to justify their “work” because they said the people they were writing about were in the public eye. This guy isn’t in the public eye. There’s no need to mark him, and send mad people his way.
“Eric Bryant just got done addressing Ken Silva’s site from stage (not by name). Pretty good stuff.” So Eric’s moved on to writing his own fiction now huh…
Ken,
Wow! Gosh if you feel this way about Rob what shall I do? This explains exactly how I feel about you, only I would take out the word thousands and put in a few.
BTW, this has nothing to do with Rob and everything to do with the life you choose to live.
I have been wanting to ask you this question for a long time. Please tell me, How does being on the internet all day, researching dirt on other people help you be a better disciple of Jesus? Some where along the way I missed those passages in the Bible were it tells me to publicly address everyone who doesn’t interpret the Bible the same way I do. It just seems God has designed us for more than that; but seeing that you know your Bible better than anyone else, and there is never room for error on your part, we must be missing it some where. Maybe I should dedicate the rest of my Christian life to researching other Christians and sharing were I think they might be wrong. I am sure this is what God designed me for. ( Please note I am sarcastic the entire way through just in case you missed it)
Joe,
What is “being in the public eye?” How many people read this man’s site? Have Ken/Ingrid claimed that all the people they write about are “equally” in the public eye?
Isn’t everything on the internet in “the public eye?”
You seem to want to censor criticism of this man’s recommendation. Why? Is this the kind of leadership you want for your kids in say 12 years when they are going to movies on their own? By then maybe it will even be x-rated movies that will be being recommended . . . What’s to stop it?
It’s helpful for people to know that what is going on on their own doorstep is widespread – helps one to understand the dangers of stepping into church today and to know the importance of instructing children in judging church leaders’ teaching by the Word of God.
I am glad that Ingrid brought this recommendation up because I found that reading the warnings and scriptures in Eric’s comment section strengthened my own belief that this is the kind of thinking to stand strongly against. I hope that some of the comments made someone think twice about putting rubbish in their mind. Any scriptures or warnings placed on that site can be used of God to encourage someone to pause not just about seeing this movie, but others as well. Because God does use His Word to keep people from being pulled further and further away from Him.
Personally I want to see more kids like the 17 year old who commented on that site; it’s not going to happen when more and more kids are being influenced by pastors who promote “see all evil it won’t hurt you.”
Erica,
I truly must say that your skills as a wordsmith are really a sight to behold. But the truth is that you and Joe have no idea of the scope of my labors in Christ. Because your eyes are unable to see right now there’s no way for you to perceive what the Holy Spirit is doing through me.
Sadly, apparently you just look for what you want to see. O, and insult me all you like and it still won’t change the fact that Rob Bell is deceived. The man-centered semi-pelagian garbage he spews has all been preached before.
Amy, the point of this post wasn’t to defend Eric. It was to show some wild leaps in logic. Here in the comment thread we went a little off topic, and once again, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
“This guy isn’t in the public eye. There’s no need to mark him, and send mad people his way.
Right. That’s not defending him. Pomo non-thinking…
Joe,
Your “wild leaps in logic” idea has been sufficiently responded to.
I was responding to“This guy isn’t in the public eye. There’s no need to mark him, and send mad people his way.”
You’re not defending Eric? Why not? Are there some biblical principles that might apply to this situation that you would use to NOT defend him?
What about Matt, Nathan? Are there some biblical principles that you would apply to NOT defend Eric?
Amy-
The point of Joe’s article was questioning the tying in of Rob Bell with some pastor somewhere. I don’t know this guy Eric, he doesn’t have any books, I haven’t looked over his statement of faith, he doesn’t minister where I live. And what does this have to do with Rob Bell? Silva was just trying to drive up his google hits.
Amy said,
Yet again, Amy and I will have to agree to disagree.
BTW Amy, you left out a word when you quoted me. I said no need to send mad people his way.
Has anyone here read Greg Boyd’s book, “Repenting of Religion”? A lot of things in this post and in the comments remind me of it. He talks a lot about churches trying to be defined by the perimeter rather than the center. If churches shore up the walls constantly defining who’s out and who’s in, it gives them a false sense of identity that should only be from the radical unconditional love of Christ.
The interesting thing about Phariseeism isn’t that it overemphasizes sin; it’s that it underestimates the seriousness of it. By creating a ranking of sins, i.e., there are ones that are allowable such as gluttony, greed, gossip and ones that are not tolerated such as homosexuality, swearing, seeing R-rated movies, the pharisee always makes the other person’s sin more severe than his own. I don’t know, maybe we’ve heard someone say something about logs and specks before.
As far as this Eric Bramlet guy goes, the only people that really have any business policing him are the board at his church. It doesn’t really matter if he posted something on a blog or not; he doesn’t need to be accountable to every self-proclaimed watchman on the internet.
Phil said “gluttony, greed, gossip and ones that are not tolerated such as homosexuality, swearing, seeing R-rated movies”
Regardles of our carnal and personal rankings according to perspectives, all those you listed are wrong (sin). But in agreeing with your premise, sins of omission get the least attention. One guy who smokes but prays gets attacked, while the non-smoker who never prays is viewed as committed.
Amy,
what if I wrote an article about a fundamentalist group who bombed an abortion clinic. I then said “Here’s more example of the “corrupt teaching” (thanks to Amy) of the Emergent Church”
I mean, we all know that the fundamentalists are the ones who bomb abortion clinics. Does that mean that the theology you hold to is to blame for that? No.
I completely disagree with the article review of the movie. In fact, because of the review I will not go to see it. I don’t think any of us here are defending the movie or the article. It is just rediculous that Ken links that with Rob Bell. The jumps in logic are huge.
I don’t know if seeing all R-rated movies is a sin. Shindlers List comes to mind. Yes, there was a couple gratuitous scenes of Shindlers philandering, but other then that, a great important film.
For the most part, though, I avoid R-rated movies. I can’t remember the last time I saw one.
BTW,
the MP3 should be available today or tomorrow… the video podcast will be available by Wednesday. Eric was discussing how Ken had “inside people” at Mosaic’s Origin’s conference and proceeded to write an out of context article on it. Erwin’s response from the stage was one of love, forgiveness and acceptance.
no one should see the Passion of the Christ (R)
Joe,
I don’t understand your remark about misquoting you. I cut and pasted your remark and it has “mad” in it. If you’re making a joke, sorry, I don’t get it.
Matt,
I already told Joe I was responding to a comment he made. It was an “off-track” comment. Am I not allowed to respond to “off-track” comments?
Nathan,
I was responding to a comment Joe made.
I never addressed the “Bell” part of Ken’s article. Ken has already addressed that; if you have further questions about it, please address them to him.
I missed the first “mad” Amy. As for the rest of your comment I confess I am confused. You called Matt and Nathan into the discussion and then say you were talking to me. Maybe all 3 of us misunderstood you? Either way, peace to you and yours.
Amy- you asked me if I wanted to defend Eric. I don’t want to. I’m not interested. I don’t think there is any reason to attack him either.
Regarding bringing Matt and Nathan into the discussion,
I’d really like to know if you guys think the Bible gives any sort of principles for what we put into our minds. What are you planning to teach your kids? This movie situation is an excellent one to discuss.
10-20 years ago when/if you all have teenagers, will they be mocking Christian internet sites (imagine one run by people you really like) which are trying to promote caution and rebuking church leaders who are talking fondly about x-rated movies? (Or maybe they’ll still be talking about “r-rated” movies but “r” rated movies in the future will be what x-rated ones are now.)
Will they be kids who mock the “legalism” of folks who fuss about x-rated movies, or will they, as they grow up, have so little rubbish in their heads that they will recognize it when they see it, and not want it, because the Spirit of Christ will be so strong in them?
Do you all actually agree with Ingrid’s points about this movie?
Amy,
Did you just introduce the “if this is where we are today, then where will be 20 years from now argument?”
If so, I’ll guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
Yes, I actually “agree” with Ingrid’s points. Like I said, I don’t normally watch R-rated movies. I’m careful what I put in my mind and if I had kids, I wouldn’t let them see that movie. I don’t know this Eric guy and linking him to Rob Bell seems silly.
Amy,
Personally, I hardly ever watch movies either at the theater or at home. My wife and I are careful to what we do watch. That being said, we don’t need some internet busybody telling what we can and can’t do. The vast majority of what Ingrid talks about is none of her business. She is not the gatekeeper of Christian morality.
Joe,
I’m thinking of the future, of kids who are little now and are growing up in this world where they are being taught by Christian leaders that stuff like this is okay. There doesn’t come a magic day of crossing that bridge when it comes, because it doesn’t happen in a day; changes happen little by little and people adjust to them and what used to be evil is “good” or just a “little bad” or “representing reality, therefore available for consumption.”
Phil,
The kind of thing she talks about with this guy recommending this movie is happening all over the place. Realizing that and making sure that kids are prepared to respond to ideas of Christian leaders like this is the responsibility of every Christian leader, especially those who have a heart for young people’s ministry or are parents.
We are all responsible for “these little ones” and to help our brothers and sisters in Christ. One of the first steps to helping and protecting someone is to be aware of the dangers they are facing.
Is Ingrid telling people what to do any more than pastors who talk positively about movies like this on the internet? One is saying “it’s harmless, it’s fun;” the other is saying “it’s harmful, it doesn’t honor God.” What’s wrong with hearing both sides of the argument?
Amy,
For one thing, Ingrid’s was built on the premise of “outing” this guy for seeing a movie, not a movie review. There are a bunch of Christian sites on the internet that offer movie reviews and will tell parents what kind of stuff are in movies. If Ingrid wants to get into that business, so be it. She needs to do it without being judgmental of other Christians.
Also, I’ve found there is little, if anything churches can do to stop kids from going to see R-rated movies. If they make them a forbidden fruit, kids will want to see them all the more. Only when churches start living out of a center based on Christ will things start to change. I just don’t buy the, “think of the children” (to quote Helen Lovejoy, from the Simpsons) argument. I kids were shown something real in churches, the draw from all the crap we rail about wouldn’t be so big.