Punk’d by the devil

Posted by: Tim
in Hall of Fame
25
Jul

From here:

For my regular readers let me explain. I began posting as the Rev Scottie over at the Slice of Laodicea website. It all began pretty quietly. I disagreed that all modern type Pastors were clones of each other. I posted my opinion that most Baptist churches and pastors in the South are as much clones as anything. As is customary on that blog things went on a rapid downward spiral of personal attacks. I made the mistake of trying to post an honest commentary as well as asking the moderator to tone down the personal attacks. The Rev Scottie posting days were then ended! I wasn’t even allowed to defend myself against some pretty stupid accusations.

In order to prove the bias and agenda of these folks I created the Dr Louis extreme fundamentalist profile. My goal was to see how much out of context scripture, poor spelling, and personal attacks would be allowed. The answer I found is anything goes as long as you attack someone they disagree with. I searched Google and popped in scripture references that would appear to support my position but were used way out of context. I was able to attack my friends Dave Anderson (movie pastor) and Gary Lamb without any rebuke or restraint. I finally created a Dr Louis Blog and linked it here in hopes that some Laodicea readers and posters would consider how wrong it is for brothers and sisters in Christ (By the way that includes dudes and chicks as well) to run each other down in a public forum.

Hattip: MMI

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 25th, 2007 at 8:34 am and is filed under Hall of Fame. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

26 Comments(+Add)

1   amy    
July 25th, 2007 at 9:40 am

Tim,
I’m curious about your ethics on this: You said, in the previous post,

“I toyed with the idea of sending out fake news reports via email to Ingrid et al. to see what they’d believe and what would end up being posted but decided it was a little too close to lying for me, . . . ”

yet you posted the Reverend Scottie’s post here. Do you actually approve of this kind of “close to lying” as you’ve put it?

Personally I would love to do something along this line, but I don’t think that I could because it has “lie” written all over it. Surely there are other ways to be absolutely ethically creative and still get one’s point across.

2   Chris P.    http://nonpaxromana.blogspot.com
July 25th, 2007 at 9:49 am

Ya know Jesus didn’t resort to subtrefuge, in spite of what post-modern “subversive” theology tries to say.

John 18:
19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.”

Nothing worse than the alleged humble/loving christian correcting the alleged arrogant/mean ones.

Get a life.

3   phil    
July 25th, 2007 at 10:00 am

Not commenting on the overall honesty/dishonesty of the tactic, I have to say that I’ve often wondered if some of the comments I’ve seen on different sites weren’t people doing this. It’s hard to say. Sometimes it just seems like some of the comments play so far into stereotypes, it has to be someone just trying to get some laughs.

4   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
July 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am

Amy,
Its a far different thing to simply post outrageous comments to see if they get posted, than it is to send false reports about churches/blogs to someone.

Chris P,
If only you held the same standard to Ingrid et al. Its been illustrated about a million times that they’ve distorted and even outright slandered their fellow Christians. Yet not a word from you. Even now we’re within 24 hours of Ingrid pulling down a post with no apologies or explanation. Yet not a word from Chris P. But then let someone put on display how kooky and absolutely nuts that they are and here comes Ingrid and Ken’s knight in shining armor, Chris P to save the day.

Shocking.

5   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
July 25th, 2007 at 10:02 am

Ya know Jesus didn’t resort to subterfuge, in spite of what extreme fundamentalist “subversive” theology tries to say. :)

6   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
July 25th, 2007 at 10:20 am

Chris P., as Chris L. pointed out in a post below, I did something similar. Please don’t end your comment with “get a life.”

What does that mean, anyway, that “get a life”? I have a life. I’ve done good and bad things with it. Why throw that out there? Seriously. It’s an off-handed comment I see people use when they think someone has done something that is beneath them, but it’s quite a statement to make about a person.

What I did was not honest, was a subterfuge, was a lie. You know, fake name, fake opinions. Should I get a life? Have you ever lied? Get a life. Done something that seems hypocritical? Get a life.

“Get a life.”

I have a life, and it’s a good one. I don’t think I need to be trading it in for something else because I a) sin and b) do something someone else thinks is amazingly petty.

“Get a life.”

I hate that. It’s a complete dismissal of a person, of who they are and what they do. It’s too casually used. It’s sickening. It’s as bad as the lie you pointed out. No one on this site should say that to anyone.

7   Darren Sapp    http://www.vaporministries.blogspot.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 10:23 am

Chris P.,

You will be able to freely respond and defend your postition on this thread. Let’s say though that you made a comment and then someone responded, twisted, misunderstood, etc. your comment and you were not allowed to respond.

Would that be subterfuge? Ingrid does not want a discussion and that is fine and her prerogative. Her purposely denying legitimate comments to make her position seem stronger is what baffles me.

8   amy    
July 25th, 2007 at 10:38 am

Tim,
So if you think that what Scottie did was okay, what’s to keep you from coming up with a different name and having a different “persona” on this site? In short, how can I trust you?

9   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
July 25th, 2007 at 10:43 am

Amy,
You’re supposed to be grappling with ideas here, not people. If I were to create a crazy persona I’d expect Chris L, Nathan etc. to take me to task for it. Which is exactly what Ingrid didn’t do.

As you’ve seen Chris L has brought the site to heel with his Flesh and Blood post and then his reboot post.

10   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am

Hasn’t Ingrid done this? Made a fake profile and posted here?

11   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am

Amy,

FYI -

1) We don’t delete posts
2) We don’t delete comments
3) We don’t prevent comments from being published
4) Whenever I see a new commenter or a name I don’t recognize, I go to my admin reports and do a bit of sleuthing with IP’s, locations, etc. (I believe you were involved in a thread in which I accurately identified at least two names using the same IP address.).
5) Whenever I see a comment that seems out of character for that commenter, I go to the admin reports.

Now, a question which might be of use here: Is ‘undercover investigation’, itself, a sin, since it is purposely deceptive?

Granted, I don’t know that Rev Scottie needed to go to the lengths he did to conduct his investigation, as we’ve known and proven his hypothesis as fact for some time now…

12   Coop    http://whileromeburns.blogspot.com
July 25th, 2007 at 10:59 am

Actually, Ingrid had a parody blog at one time, and saw nothing wrong with it. That disappeared with the original Slice, though. Not only that, I strongly suspect she has posted under an assumed name at my blog, and I think she’s done the same elsewhere.

13   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 11:12 am

Amy,

“yet you posted the Reverend Scottie’s post here. Do you actually approve of this kind of “close to lying” as you’ve put it?”

Do you approve of Ingrid and Ken and their cohorts aggressively lying about others? It seems that you defend them often…

There is a great difference. To Ingrid she has created this facade that she is open to comments… and that if she does not use them they are “rabid” emergents who cuss and swear and… on and on…

I just add to “submissions” on this blog a recent “rabid” hateful comment I submitted that did not go through… I even re submitted it with the line… “It seems my post was lost”…

Yet I am willing to bet that because I state that emergents are willing to love the person and help them understand she will not let it go through.

Which is more honest to you? Someone who does as Ingrid… or one that is checking to see if his suspicions are correct and that she lied? And even though we all knew this, it seems that she is exposed again… and by your post it seems that you are still defending her.

So is outright lying fine in your book as opposed to “close to lying”?

Chris P.

So you think that turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile and loving you enemies is not subversive? LOL! Sorry, snorted milk out my nose…

In a world where there was a new messiah almost yearly… (read the bible close and see that there were some claiming this even while Jesus was living) most if not all were calling to rise up and fight Rome… yet Jesus told them to love their enemies and turn the other cheek…

If Jesus told people to take up sward and fight Roman in His Jewish culture, that would not have been subversive at all, but common.

Even the verse you quoted is out of context as Jesus was being falsely accused because of His subversive actions against the religious leaders…

Blessings,
iggy

14   Mark    http://www.journeychattanooga.com
July 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am

I’ve been posting at the slice for a couple of weeks and only about half go through. One of the amazing things I’ve seen is excessive posting of out of context passages and downright hateful attacks. When correcting the context and content of the scripture they use, they never respond. When you criticize their position it never goes through.

However, other than the slice posters here, I think there are so many completely outragious comments that there has to be several using the slice as a joke.

15   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 11:51 am

Coop,

I think I pointed out awhile back that we’ve got 3 commenters from Ingrid’s IP address, and one of them was “Val” (though we’ve established that it is a different “Val” than the one more recently, who I accused of being the same person since he was posting from Chris R’s IP address).

16   Mark    http://www.journeychattanooga.com
July 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am

By the way, they so bought Dr. Louis hook, line, and sinker, that they refused to post my rebuttals to his hilarious comments and I know Rev. Sottie.

17   Chris P.    http://nonpaxromana.blogspot.com
July 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Jesus and His Kingdom were not of this world. Hardly the subversion of any past and present false messiahs who are quite wordly. Jesus didn’t come to subvert; He came to put it all to death and re-create. His crucifixion was the last desperate act of a dead creation.l
This is all just a cute, cool game for the self-centered post-modernists.

Be careful you don’t snort brain matter out of your nose with your milk. You need whatever you have.

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Chris P,

And none of that sounds subversive to you? Also, i never stated it was the same as the past an present false messiahs… but that compared to them and the general thought, Jesus taught and was very subversive to the accepted ideals.

perhaps a look at the definition of “subversive” might help.

“Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government:”

Now as you stated Jesus’ Kingdom was in Heaven… though after the resurrection we are now partakers of that Heavenly Kingdom.
I think that you are missing that Jesus overthrow the powers and principalities of this world and then overthrew its gov’t… and established His Kingdom on earth…

that is being subversive if i ever saw it…

Note also Paul spoke of Jesus as Lord… which in Rome was a title of the Caesar as he was Lord of all. Yet, Paul uses language in a subversive manner to proclaim that Caesar is not Lord, Jesus is.

So for you to say Jesus was not subversive seems rather, well… I just won’t say it. LOL!

Be Blessed,
iggy

19   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Chris P,

“Be careful you don’t snort brain matter out of your nose with your milk. You need whatever you have.”

the put down was not nesassary. Though i do agree.

iggy

20   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
July 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Does anyone have the links to Slice articles that “Dr Louis” commented on?

21   Mark    http://www.journeychattanooga.com
July 25th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Pretty funny stuff. I do believe there are many people doing the same thing, at least I hope they aren’t serious.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=476

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=478#comments

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=484#comments

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=496#comments

22   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
July 25th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

This is all just a cute, cool game for the self-centered post-modernists.

If you’re referring to the fake posting/identity thing, again, I did it and I don’t think any of the descriptives you’ve used are correct. The original reason I made up an identity was so that I could join in the conversation without being blacklisted. My early comments weren’t over-the-top or anything, though you’ll have to take my word for it since SOL 1.0 is now gone. It was only later that I started to feed the mob opinion by being a yes-man and seeing how that would play.

I find the question about undercover investigation very interesting. There are some jobs I probably couldn’t do, or do well, because of the extent of lying and subterfuge required. Yet many of us who don’t agree or would refuse to do such things benefit from the efforts of those who agree to do it. What does that say about us, if we benefit from a lie?

23   amy    
July 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am

Tim,
I asked you,
“So if you think that what Scottie did was okay, what’s to keep you from coming up with a different name and having a different “persona” on this site? In short, how can I trust you? ”

You replied,
“You’re supposed to be grappling with ideas here, not people. If I were to create a crazy persona I’d expect Chris L, Nathan etc. to take me to task for it. Which is exactly what Ingrid didn’t do. ”

You really didn’t answer my question. I hardly think that asking you a question about what your ethics actually are about this, when you’ve posted something that would appear to give the “ok” for what “Rev Scottie” did is a question that should remain unanswered.

And if you’re seriously concerned about “ideas, not people” being “grappled” with, please consider that “Which is exactly what Ingrid didn’t do. ” is grappling with people.

Then there’s Iggy’s post to me. Taking the focus off whether or not you think Rev Scotties actions were ethical, putting the focus on, of course, Ingrid and Ken. People, not ideas.

Iggy,
Ken and Ingrid are not the measuring stick by which God judges our actions.

FYI, about 1/4 of the posts I wrote to the old Slice were disagreeing, and about 1/2 of those got posted. And I have seen posts that disagree with Ingrid that are nicely written, written by people who are not “like me,” that have been posted.

I have read Slice once or twice in the last month or two. I don’t read all of the articles on this site. As I’ve said numerous times, I don’t agree with everything said there.

If I see “Ingrid and Ken and their cohorts aggressively lying about others” and GOD, not Iggy, places it on my heart to say something about it, I will.

And Iggy, there’s a possibility that if I did so, you may never even know about it. Why would I choose to confront them here, for your pleasure and delight, when the issue could be addressed in person? If the answer was unsatisfactory and I decided to take it “further” I honestly think I would find a different forum in which to bring it up.

24   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2007 at 10:35 am

Amy-

Was it ethical for Ingrid to come up with the fake blog site?

“Why would I choose to confront them here, for your pleasure and delight, when the issue could be addressed in person?”

Huh??? And you criticize Rob Bell here. Have you confronted him in person?

25   Tim Reed    
July 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am

Amy,
How do you know I’m even Tim Reed? Maybe I’ve appropriated his website and name in a devious attempt to draw you into a conversation?

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2007 at 11:20 am

Guys,

I think Amy’s question about deception is a valid one, and to say “Ingrid did it too” doesn’t answer the question. I am considering an article on ‘when is deception OK, or is it ever’. Look at entire professions: police investigation, journalism, auditing, etc. – without these, there would be chaos in modern society. In times of war, human intelligence (spies), hiding fugitives, etc. call for deception, and without it, evil would have free reign. Where is the line drawn for this?

One Trackback/Ping

  1. CRN.Info and Analysis    Jul 27 2007 / 8pm:

    [...] There has been a bit of furor this week over Christian blogger, Rev. Scottie, going undercover using an alias in order to prove the lie behind the commenting policy at an ODM site. In fairness, it is similar in methodology as the brouhaha when that same ODM site created an pseudonymous “ECM” site while falsely accusing other sites of hiding behind anonymity. [...]

Back to top