Dan Phillips writes that you’re either just like a watchdoggie and you’re all cool and sweet and in with the in crowd, or you’re not and you’re probably some sort of commie, or nerd or something.
This post could be summed up in any number of ways, here’s just a few:
We’re #1 we’re #1!!!
Go Bayside, beat Valley!
Springfield sucks!
WOLVERINES!!!!
USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!
Edit:
I’d like to give a big congrats to the writers here at CRN.info for being such compelling writers that we are a higher priority to read by the anonymous coward known only as “editor” over at C?N than Team Pyro is, who incidentally shows up on their blogroll. WE’RE #1 WE’RE #1!!!!
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 at 8:06 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
97 Comments(+Add)
A two-level caste system for Christianity is very dangerous. How can we ever take seriously the admonitions from Paul to consider others better than ourselves if we think we are on a wholly separate plane from our brothers and sisters?
Plus, on what basis is “fire” the determining factor for such a caste system? Who elevated that virtue (assuming it is one), to such a lofty place, and who is to say that humility, kindness, peace, or some other New Testament virtue isn’t suitable for separating the special Christians from the dead weight?
The whole enterprise strikes me as thoroughly unbiblical.
Gee, wasn’t it Chris Perjak that said that the writers at CRN don’t care what gets posted here, and now a hat tip from them?
Do I sense dissent in the ranks?
It’s Pajak, “coop”; but then again, you knew that.
When did acknowledging this blog for linking to TeamPyro constitute caring about what you think?
As for esteeming others as better; when did that include tolerating any and all unscriptural teaching? Jesus and the apostle spent a lot of time correcting bad doctrine and warning against false prophets and teachers. The real sin of the Pharisees was not legalism. It was their unbiblical talmudic commentary and practice.
The post-modern church is full of this kind of “end run” theology.
Sounds a lot like watchdoggies attributing musical styles, use of pews, language, and the regulative principle of worship to scripture. Keep this up Chris P and you’ll be writing for us before long.
Tim,
That was the most shallow and superficial and lame commentary that I have seen on this DOODM site.
Why don’t you actually deal with the content of and heart of Phillips’ piece?
Maybe you don’t because it would expose your own error. Maybe you don’t because you know that what he said was true. Maybe you don’t because you are still in your sin and Satan keeps you blinded to the truth so that you defend heresy and ‘believe’ that your doing Jesus a favor.
Whatever your case may be, it is time for you to get your head out of your nether regions and grow up.
Since you like defending and being a “Fire Sale Evangelical” why don’t you go ahead and grow a pair and prove to us all that is what authentic Christianity is all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNJ5oi1cw2I
ROFL
I did not eat a taco for lunch yesterday. I ate meat with cheese, tomatoes and salsa in a hard tortilla shell…
Oh Chris R you’re just one of those fleshly, worldly, prurient Christians. WWIS?
I did deal with the content. The content is shallow, rah rah, we’re awesome everyone else sucks. If you’re into shallow, pep-rally style Christianity, as you seem to be, then that post is for you.
Its extremely telling that you seem to believe that proving what “authentic Christianity is all about” means writing a post refuting another post line by line. Go on with your bad self Chris R, keep on writing and
living outthat style of Christianity.Tim you are dead wrong!
The content is not Rah Rah. The content is absolute truth and contending for the on e true faith rather than selling out the truth and believing that you can Love Jesus and Hate the Truth and compromise the Truth and Sell Out the Truth and Water Down The Truth.
Jesus Christ says that those who worship Him will worship Him in Spirit and Truth.
Furthermore, You’re off the mark to call me worldly or fleshly because I challenged you to “grow a pair”. If that is what you call worldly then I am “worldly” like the Apostle Paul who said that he wished those of the circumcision party would ‘cut everything off. I’ll repent when the Apostle Paul does.
You are defending evil and heresy. If you think your doing Christ’s work, you’re out of your mind.
Repent.
Chris R. – You have a valid point with examining the content of the piece. However Dan’s obsession with hyperbole and aelf serving verbal assaults obscures what legitimate issues he may have raised.
To label YOURSELF as “fire in the belly” is so smug and prideful it is unChristlike. And when he uses others as a template by which to exalt himself is unbiblical. Jesus made himself of no reputation but we assign ourselves with exalted monikers. It is like the mother who wanted her two boys sitting on either side of Christ, we today have no humility while we CLAIM to love the doctrines of garce but not in practice.
We do not desire humility and anonymity, we need to be known as “Fire in the Belly” Christians because we have forsaken all to follow Him.
Right…
Way to miss the point.
I see you’re not just a member, you’re the president.
It must be really easy to be you, no research required. Just claim absolute truth and anyone who disagrees with you is “selling out” and “compromised”.
Let me try:
Chris R, you are defending heresy and evil. If you think you’re doing the work of Christ you’re outside of your mind.
Repent.
Actually, Chris P, I didn’t know that. I’m bad with names. Sorry if I offended you, which apparently I did.
Oh, and by the way, a hat tip usually indicates that you have read what another blog had to say about something, and if you’re willing to read through it and point others to it, it usually means you care what they said.
But that’s just me.
Rick,
Then the Apostles were UnChristlike because they label themselves as true teachers and those who were perverting the Gospel message they called false teachers.
There is a clear US and THEM mentality given to us by the Apostles. They condemned to hell those who perverted the truth and said that Utter Darkness and judgement awaited them.
Any definition of “ChristLike” that omits calling heresy and heretics for what they are is a FALSE definition of “ChristLike”.
Pointing out error and contending for the true faith is one of the ULTIMATE ways that anyone could show Christ’s love and be Christ Like.
If you think I show up here because “I love to argue” your out of your mind!
I am terrified for the contributors of this blog. They are defending evil and heresy and make a mockery of sound doctrine. That is exactly the type of behavior that earns God’s wrath and judgement. I can’t bear the thought of the young men on this blog burning in hell.
Chris R,
I call BS. You spent quite a bit of time arguing semantics trying to “prove” that I lied last Saturday. Those are not the actions of someone who is “terrified for the contributers of this blog”. Those are the actions of someone who is so prideful about the positions they hold that they’ve replaced God as the arbiter of truth with themselves and replaced scripture with their particular strain of theology. Which is more than evident here in this thread where you’ve labeled the post from Team Pyro as “absolute truth”. Congratulations looks like your Bible now has 67 books in it.
Chris – It is one thing to wear a label that reveals your theology such as Calvinist or Arminian or Reformed, but to assign yourself as such a surrendered disciple that “Fire in the Belly” must publicly describe your life is hubris. Paul said he was the least of all apostles and the chief of sinners, and our Lord made Himself of no reputation.
Phillips could have just as easily made an organized and scholarly presentation without such foolishness. Grown men forming clubs and calling themselves self congratulating monikers is unchristian regardless of the other points of doctrine. It is wrong and diverts the essential point they make.
But such is the blog nation. Could I be described as having a fire in my belly? Sometimes, but most times not. I am what I am by the grace of God and usually my efforts only hinder. Any words of wisdom I ever utter have surely not come from the polluted stream of serotonin that I am sometimes so proud of.
Labels like that offend the Spirit. Let another one’s lips praise you and not your own.
Rick,
I think you guys are missing the forest because of the trees.
Ya’ll have bought into politically correct thinking and act like the unforgivable sin is ‘offending someone’.
I’m not missing anything and especially not some of the misgivings about the emergent church. However when I read right off the bat that the writer considers himself as a “fire in the Belly” Christian I cannot read further. God reisits the proud.
Well, you’re busy condemning the saints of God and weakening the blood of Christ.
So nah nah nah nah boo boo, my club is holier than yours.
I just spit out my lunch! Chris P. have you read the gospels?
In case my last comment was a bit too cloudy for anyone out there the answer is, yes, this is apparently high school. Jocks and goths don’t mix.
Tim,
Again grow up and learn how to argue.
It is a FACT that the preachers and teachers that Phil is referring to teach doctrines that undermine and contradict Biblical truth. This is NOT about style, this is about substance.
Regarding Saturday, I stand by what I said. You clearly lied about the ODM sites. There was no semantic games involved.
Once again, your acing like the ONLY thing that matters is that a Christian is loving and sincere. As if, that makes it okay for them to believe and teach whatever they want. The Bible, NOT CHRIS, warns and teaches against that.
You’re gravely mistaken if you think I’m here to debate my opinions or if you think that ODM’s are bashing people for not ‘agreeing with them’. We’re just pointing out the very painful fact that today’s popular preachers are teaching false doctrine and twisting God’s word. I stand by the entire body of work that I’ve published on my sites.
Over and again, you skirt around the issue of Biblical Truth. You conveniently appeal to it if you feel that an ODM is being unloving or untruthful. Yet you continually evade the fact that the ODM’s are actually pointing out very real and very dangerous heresies in the church and these heresies are sending real people to a real hell.
Does this sound prideful? Or does it sound like someone who is concerned for me?
Finally an admission that a loving attitude is a Biblical command. If only we could see that command being obeyed.
I just spit out my lunch again!
Chris R. give me one example, from any of the Big 3, showing them being concerned with those going to hell.
In my thinking if you really are concerned about those going to hell your message should be more about sharing the gospel and not stabbing at what you percieve to be heresy.
If we all REALLY believed people who could be saved were going to a literal hell we all would pray more, witness more, give more, study more, cry more, and generally behave in a much more urgent and sacrificial way.
The emporer has no clothes.
Tim,
Again, if your definition of “love” excludes strongly and forcefully calling a spade a spade then your definition is wrong.
I would like to quote LOVE INCARNATE to you. Tell me if you’re offended.
“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
“Woe to you, blind guides”
“You blind fools!”
“For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness”
All of these words are in red letters in my Bible. Are we to assume that Jesus didn’t care about the fact that these men were going to hell? Of course not!! It was precisely because they we’re heading to hell that Jesus pulled out his rhetorical two-by-four and knocked them in the head with it. Jesus is LOVE in the flesh and he loved every one of those Pharisees enough to bleed and die for them. Contending for the Faith is dirty business. Jesus himself showed us that.
Someone here rightly pointed out that the error of the Pharisees was legalism. But what you guys misunderstand to the danger of your own souls is that Legalism and Fidelity to the Truth ARE NOT the same things.
Legalism is when you are trying to be saved by your own righteousness and law keeping. Stubornly persist in this error and you’ll be lost for eternity.
Unwavering fidelity to the truth and defending the truth against error is neither legalism nor Phariseeism. That is what all Christians are called to do.
Your definition of Love is too narrow.
Your definition of legalism is mis-informed.
Your concept of truth is laughable.
And Your Jesus is too small.
Wow, Chris – I would have written almost the exact same comment to you and Ken over at CR?N, except that they don’t allow comments there…
Jesus’ words were directed at folks exhibiting the exact same behaviors on display on CR?N…
Chris R.
You’re no apostle..and neither are carping “experts” of Pyro.
Also…next time your friends take people to task for “coarse language” I’d like to see you jump in and take up an opposing view… unless of course “growing a pair” isn’t coarse when it’s found in the mouth of your allies.
As far as “not offending people”…that’s a line if I’ve ever heard.
The issue isn’t not offending, the issue is no sense of proportion, no concern for UNNECESSARY offending.
The “offense” of the gospel isn’t a free pass to not be mindful of when you might just be being a real ass. (not calling anyone in particular names here…just sayin’)
I don’t get why that distinction and concern is “politically correct” or “wishy washy”…
avoiding unecessarily inflammatory emotional ammunition is WISDOM…not compromise…
But then again…when you’re dealing with people that want a Christianity that looks only like one 150 year period of culture their style ends up equalling their substance.
hence the critique raised from ODM’s.
Just something to think about…
Chris – You have made broad, sweeping, and general statements that are so nebulous how do people present evidence to the contrary. Why don’t you pick three specific topics about which you sveerly disagree and allow them to provide their perspective?
The “Your Jesus is too small” is without defined parameters. What specifically do you mean?
Chris,
Part of it comes down to Phil’s definitions, which are rather polar (to say the least).
Granted, you can walk up and stick your thumb in the eye of someone you disagree with, theologically (as Jesus did with the Pharisees – i.e. the legalists of his day), or you can choose to use the wrongful theology as a launching point for telling the truth (as Paul did on Mars Hill)…
The typical ODM-watchdoggie response to any/every disagreement is a thumb in the eye…
Chris R,
All those words you quoted from my Jesus were directed at religious authorities, you know people who were deciding to narrowly who was in and who was out.
I’ve asked about a billion times but here’s one more. Why is it you justify your actions on a sliver of Jesus’ ministry and ignore all his other commands and actions as well as the commands of the apostles for love and unity?
Also RE: Quoting LOVE INCARNATE…
Those critiques were raised to the professional religious folk who were driven by control and a concretized view of God..the established “church”…
that would be you and your friends Chris.
They purport to be “leaders” and ‘experts”…
no one here does…
this is the voice of resistance to institutionalized power that uses God and your version of Jesus as bludgeon on their own family.
My father was a pastor…he always said…”you can’t beat the sheep. they won’t eat if you do.”
You folk are the ones claiming to be the “pastor-teachers”, watchers on the wall, ad nauseum ad infinitum…
you asserted the position, thus you all have a pastoral responsibility to us as your brothers and sisters to not ‘beat’ us when we disagree.
you have the burden that is incumbent on you and your “calling” to the ministry of watching and protecting.
that’s why the attempt to level the same critiques back at the DOODM’s is not legit.
We never claimed a “calling” that “seemed good in the Lord, beloved flock”…
You declared the “standard”…and now the measure with which you measure is applied to you.
Talk about “growing up”…
Good Lord, have mercy.
Tim and NC,
Once again you are TOTALLY dodging the issue.
The fact that Jesus pointed his wrath at “religious people” doesn’t let a single one of you off the hook. Your point is a complete non sequitur!
Fact: the Pharisees were in sin and mired in false religion.
Fact: Jesus let the Pharisees have it with both barrels and even called them names.
Fact: Jesus was love in the flesh.
Therefore: YOUR notion that what the ODMs are doing is “unloving”, “uncaring”, “unkind”, and UNChristLike is FALSE.
The ODM’s are following Jesus Example! They are NOT ignoring the rest of Jesus teaching. It is NOT unloving to boldly contend for the truth.
Let me give you another example using your own words. You said:
If the sin of the Pharisees was that they were ‘narrowly deciding who was in and who was out” then JESUS himself was the BIGGEST PHARISEE of them all!
Again Here Jesus’ words and notice how NARROW HE IS BEING.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6
“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.†– John 8:24
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.” – John 8:44
“They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?†Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.†– John 8:19
“So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.†– John 8:21
Furthermore, Jesus Christ commands the teachers in His Church to rebuke those who teach false doctrine.
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to REBUKE those who contradict it.” Titus 1:9
If your notions about being ‘loving’ were true then Jesus himself is the most unkind and unloving person I know of. He is a narrow minded religious teacher who ‘narrowly decides’ whose in and whose out and he command the teachers in the church to REBUKE people who do not narrowly hold to sound doctrine.
Tim, your fight isn’t with the ODMs. Your fight is with God Himself.
“Tim, your fight isn’t with the ODMs. Your fight is with God Himself.”
See, Chris, that is the kind of hyperbole that suggests that God is on your side. You provided numerous Scriptures and were making your point but you couln’t resist that last zinger. I could take issue with some of your doctrines and claim you were fighting against God.
That is uncharitable and unscholarly. Since Spurgeon did not believe in Baptismal regeneration was his fight with God. You see, stay on topic and maybe something could be accomplished or at least understood.
Chris R.,
Do you even realize the arrogance of those statements?
Jesus was the perfect Son of God who could see people and situations for what they are. To claim that we as humans can see things as perfectly and make perfect judgements about them is nothing more than pride. Actually, it’s the orginal sin of Adam and Eve – the desire to discern things the way God did.
Also, I find it completely ironic that you totally miss the point of Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees. If anyone had sound doctrine, they did. The weren’t steeped in false religion, they just missed the point of Judaism. In fact, Jesus told the people that they should listen to what the Pharisees taught. Why would He do that if they were teaching false doctrine? The Pharisees’ problem was that their doctrine didn’t change their hearts.
Chris R,
Now you’re creating a strawman.
When have I, or anyone writing for CRN.info ever taught salvation through anything but Christ? Notice the use of words like “too narrowly”, and the lack of words like “limiting the Kingdom at all”.
I imagine your biggest problem is that we’re not adding works to teh gospel. After all if you’ve got the cross, and you don’t have all the trappings of the church from 100 years ago, then you’ve really got nothing.
At one point in time I thought you were at least a little more reasonable than the “Reverend” Silva. turns out you’ve mixed up tradition and scripture just as much as he has.
wow…
So now we’re denying the gospel, the exclusivity of christ?
Talk about dodging the issue and making it into what YOU want it to be…
God doesn’t want your sacrifices or ours, Chris R.
He wants our hearts…
And having my heart doesn’t mean I have to be committed to 19th c. versions of church methods, styles.
THAT’S the point Chris R.
The fact that you and your ilk REFUSE to see that that is THE ONLY CONTENTION REALLY RAISED HERE is part of what this site exists for.
But nice try…
Nevermind nobody here has ever claimed that their methods, etc. are on par with God.
Talk about a God-complex.
They have you there, Chris R.
I think it’s time to admit you did wrong.
Just my opinion. But it might be a fight “between you and God”, who knows?
Fight fight fight! Hiss, scratch, thud.
Come on =(
Beloved flock, it seems good in the Lord that you stop believing you have apostolic authority to speak with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as St. Paul or as God in the Incarnate Christ.
It also seems good in the Lord, that the Master sees fit to show us the brilliance of your tactics in that you accuse us of missing the point and dodging as the means to thy own dodging and refusal to admit the issue.
O beloved flock of the Master! How long will thou not see that “missing the point” is merely a mistake and has no reflection on the heart, but refusal to face the point is a sign of manipulation and self righteousness.
Hey ya’ll
I don’t even need to comment on any of your ‘counter points’. You responses AGAIN show the silliness of your thinking.
I stand by what I’ve said.
Ah, yes, the old “I’m right because I said so” response. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
wow.
that’s like “taking your ball and going home” while accusing people of “taking their ball and going home”…
Phil, you nailed it.
And it reveals once again what I’ve always said:
This is NOT about doctrine, truth, whatever…
it’s about control.
Bow to us and our way of saying things/doing things.
We’ll claim the highest court of appeal, God.
And put you in an untenable situation from the outset.
amazing how Chris R’s “counter point” demonstrates the emptiness of his thinking.
I never expected him to flame out with a whimper like that.
We should pray for him. Bless and do not curse.
Joe
Joe C, you’re right.
You guys crack me up! Chris R won this debate hands down!
He showed that your definition of love is narrow and untrue and he did it by using your own arguments. I thought it was masterfully done! The fact that you guys don’t see it is the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks.
Are you guys really that dense or is this an act? Really, I want to know.
You guys need to create a comedy troupe and tour the country. You should call yourselves the Logical Fallacy Players.
I guess Jersey Boy is in High School, as well, thuogh he still hasn’t passed Logic 101…
It feels so great, and I know it pleases God, when we pray for people to be blessed overflowing, when we pray for our brothers to be built up and edified in the love of the Lord, and that this love would overflow out in to their lives. It’s just wonderful to ‘let it go’ and just bless someone in Jesus name.
Let’s all lay down our pride and do just that.
It’s great! This is what Jesus would have us do.
Joe
Jersey,
As for Logical Fallacies, Chris R’s “win” was basically an attempt at Proof by Assertion, an employed logical fallacy…
Who cares if Chris R won, Jersey boy?
Let him win, let him think he won, I don’t care.
Are we supposed to be slaying and winning against our brothers in Christ as if Jesus and Truth was a contest? You missed the point entirely.
Who cares if anyone won? I’m praying for EVERYONE. No hard feelings.
Joe
The entire subject is a mystery. How can God be love and yet send people to hell? We try and explain it by using judicial terms but our explanations fall short. I cannot understand how God can but the Word teaches me He does. Why would God create Lucifer knowing He would cause so much trouble? I don’t know, I just know He did.
We know the surface today and only when we are changed will we know fully. How does God hate evildoers and yet love them? How does God hate Esau and yet love Him? These are mysteries which should be approached with much more care than some do. Heaven forbid anyone should say “I am not sure about that”, that would mean burning at the stake.
Chrsi R. was all over the map, he probably had some good thoughts but he was more interested in winning than communicating. And he is one who believes God shows His redemptive love arbitrarily. What kind of love is that? Finite.
Nice Ad Hominem Chris L.
I happen to have a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and I am a College Professor who teaches courses on logic and debate. I plan to utilize pieces of this debate in my lecture tomorrow. Tim Reed’s arguments will serve as the perfect example of what not to do. While, Mr. Roseborogh will serve as my example of exactly what to do.
It is obvious that Mr. Roseborogh has training in debate, logic and apologetics and the rest of you don’t even know when you’ve been checkmated. It is just so damn funny! I couldn’t write comedy like this even if I tried.
I don’t believe you Jersey Boy.
Sorry.
=/
Joe
Wow, Jersey.
Where are you teaching and what is your actual name, then? Credentials are pretty easy to make up, you know…
Additionally, even if you’re telling the truth, you should know that you have just created an ‘appeal to authority‘, which I would certainly hope that a Philosophy PhD would understand is a logical fallacy, in itself…
Now, while I will admit that the first comment was an ad homenim attempt at humor (beckoning to the title of the article), the next comment was not: Chris R basically ceded the argument when he made a proof by assertion claim and vacated the playing field. Surely a Philosophy professor would know this? Right?
If not, please let me know the college you teach at so that I can be sure not to waste my kids’ money there…
If you’re such a great debater, you should know that on the internet, stating your credentials (appeal to authority) to show that your statements about Chris R are correct, is pointless.
That can never win a point, or a debate. Because no one can ever verify your credentials. Besides, appealing to your own authority means nothing. You haven’t shown how Chris R won, you just stated he did, and said “He beat you here here and here”. I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Hmmph.
Joe
To Mr. Joe C,
You seem to forget a brutal fact of life. There is a such thing as the truth and conversely anti-truth or lies. From what I can tell you and your friends on this blog spend a lot of time defending people who teach anti-truth while disguising themselves as teachers of the truth.
JB,
Please.
At this point, the only possible lie here is your own “credentials”. If I am teaching “anti-truth” here, please point this out – in detail – and I will reply in-kind.
If these are the words of someone who has a doctorate in philosophy then I’m the Easter Bunny.
Actually, we can verify his credentials. He can tell us what school he teaches at, and I’ll call the school and ask for him. We can check and see if he’s on the faculty list, etc. Email if you don’t want to put your employer out there in such a public fashion.
“Moreover, [no new requirements were made] by those who were reputed to be something–though what was their individual position and whether they really were of importance or not makes no difference to me; God is not impressed with the positions that men hold and He is not partial and recognizes no external distinctions–those [I say] who were of repute imposed no new requirements upon me [had nothing to add to my Gospel, and from them I received no new suggestions]
Paul – circa 54 AD
You’re not scared are ya’ Jersey Boy?
I happen to have a PhD in smelling crap.
Jersey Boy seriously if you teach logic and debate you would clearly see that Chris R.’s premise was flawed from the start.
He can tell us what school he teaches at, and I’ll call the school and ask for him.
He said University of Chicago. Where does the IP address originate from?
Like Mr. Roseborogh I stand by what I’ve said. You rightly have pointed out that stating my credentials was an appeal to authority (good on you). However, I did not state my credentials to prove that I was right but instead, I did so only to refute the claim that I was a High Schooler. Which, I most certainly am not.
Regarding the winner of this debate. You don’t have to take my word for it (or even my credentials) regarding who won this debate. The transcript is here for all the world to see. Go back and read it. Watch the ‘game film’ and see it for yourself. You blokes argue just to argue and even that you do poorly. Chris R proved his points and he did so by using your own arguments against you. If this was a sword fight, then Chris R disarmed you and then killed you with your own sword. In my professional opinion, it was a stroke of genius. But after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, then again Truth isn’t.
I live in Livingston New Jersey.
No he didn’t. He said that is where he got his Ph.D from. The reason I offer to be the one to call is Chris R. knows me and my integrity is not in question despite my affiliation with you people. So this guy should feel free to email me with his name and the school he teaches at, I’ll call and verify and then post here that he or she is not a liar and that he or she truly is all that he or she claims to be.
What do you say, JB?
Error can win a debate by the skill of his debate and not the genuineness of the truth. You seem to rejoice in Chris Rs debating skills rather than the truth you say he communicated. That is flesh.
All truth is God’s and all knowledge comes by his grace. Debating skills should not be applauded, God’s truth should be.
Where you live isn’t the question JB. Where you teach is. Chris R is a friend of mine so email him or call him. He’ll verify my credentials. Then I’ll check with your school to make sure your on the up and up. After that I’ll not call you or harass you again.
His IP is from Bedminster, NJ.
I was saved on top of Garret Mountain not too far from Livinston, NJ. I know the area well.
I’m thinking he teaches at Assumption College for Sisters.
I don’t care where he lives. I’ve offered a very easy, practical non-threatening means to prove his credentials. Why do I have the feeling the only thing I’ll hear is crickets?
Actually, his IP has switched at least once, and it is a similar domain registration as Val, James, Simon Johnson and Abigale…
These folks must all hang out at Starbucks…
JB,
Why don’t you show us how he disarmed us and killed us with our own weapon? Then I might believe you that he won. But all I saw was logical fallacies and missing the points.
Don’t say “go look for yourselves”, since we’ve all been part of this debate the entire time. We’ve already looked. We were there. Why don’t you show us where he stabbed us dead?
Joe
And then consider how Christian it is to stab other Christians dead with our words in a ‘contest’. If indeed thats what he did.
Which way will you have it? He lost, and is wrong, and sinning, or he won, and is sinning by smearing Christians and cursing them (swearing) by slanderous words?
Oh, I think this is a logical fallacy too, but hey, if the professor gets to do it, so can’t I. Oh my gosh, another fallacy. I’m on a roll.
I should work for ODMs.
Joe
When he said,”You Blokes” I immediately thought of Valentine. So Val, if that is you, give me a call and we’ll clear up your cred’s.
He’s awfully close to Chris R’s location.
Chris R’s IP traces to San Clemente CA.
Jersey Boy’s traces to Yorba Linda CA
Abigale’s traces to Cypress CA
Val’s is in Pasadena CA
Simon Johnson’s is in Corona CA.
Gee, anyone see a pattern forming here?
Abigale’s was particularly suspicious given how it sounded like a parody of us by a watchdoggie and then Chris R immediately jumped in and then the original article commented on was edited right after I noted that it was actually butchered scripture to identify it as scripture.
Joe C,
What I think is an absolute riot is the fact that you guys never question your own assumptions and position. You act like the only possibility here is that a fellow Christian has stabbed you in the back through his superior skills and that that was somehow an unloving and uncharitable act.
Here is the missing option. You fellows are wrong and Chris R did you a favor by defeating your silly logic and Biblically untenable position. You’d be wise to ‘change your minds’. That is after all, what the word repent means.
OK- I’ll interact with just the pyro-post:
It’s built on a false dichotomy, that there are only two types of Christians.
Neil
I was looking at the commentary for 2 Corinthians 3 for my middle school bible study and found this.
Just found it interesting thats all.
K, thanks Jersey Boy for your edifying remarks.
The entire purpose of this place is to question assumptions though, by the way.
Missing option…I’m wrong. Do you honestly think I hadn’t considered that?
Wrong about what though, because my my count the number of subject addressed on this forum are…well..don’t know how many!
I think you should go back and read my comments on this comment forum. LOL.
Besides, how did I become the whipping boy all of a sudden. Well, it’s kind of exciting actually, to be called out by the ‘big boys’. And a Professor. That’s out of my league.
Love,
Joe
Let’s see – blow-by-blow:
Chris P (December 5, 2007, 10:14 am): The Pharisees weren’t legalists, they were legalists
Chris R (December 5, 2007, 10:45 am): Your commentary was lame (no proof), You didn’t answer Phillips point-by-point because you’re sinful and in error (no proof); Get your head out of your butt; why don’t you ‘grow a pair’ and prove what authentic Christianity is
Tim (December 5, 2007, 10:57 am): I did deal with their content (followed by summation of content); your use of language (’grow a pair’) seems to be hypocritical for the site you work at; why are you asking for point-by-point refutation?
Chris R (December 5, 2007, 11:48 am): You are wrong (no proof offered); “grow a pair” isn’t worldly because Paul said it (NOTE: even though this argument didn’t wash when the shoe was on the other foot two weeks ago) and you deserved it; you are defending evil and heresy (no proof offered)
Rick (December 5, 2007, 11:53 am): The article might have contained some truth, but it was covered up in prideful blether (proof offered, biblical comparison given);
Tim (December 5, 2007, 11:58 am): You missed the point by trying to justify your insult while ignoring the content of the piece. Hyperbolic comment (’you’re the president’); reversal of Chris’ logic to show its ludocrisity (if that’s a word)
Chris R (December 5, 2007, 12:04 pm): Calling out heretics is true Christlike behavior; Loving your neighbor is pointing out his error; You are defending evil and heresy (no proof yet given on this charge)
Tim (December 5, 2007, 12:07 pm): You don’t know what the definition of “liar” is and you have been playing semantics (hearkening back to Chris R’s calling Tim’s “none of the ministries…” quote a lie because their might be at least one legitimate target in the plethora of ODM victims); You are legalistic and hypocritical (proof offered)
Rick (December 5, 2007, 12:12 pm): tooting your own horn is prideful and hubris, which was the primary fault in TP’s article (proof offered)
Chris R (December 5, 2007, 12:19 pm): Pithy nothing-statement (missing forest for the trees); straw-man fallacy (’you believe that offending someone is the unforgivable sin’).
It basically continues on this way… JB – If you teach logic at a college, that school should have its accreditation revoked.
From the mouth of a proven liar. How cavalier!
BTW, I believe that all the IPs in question trace back to “Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless”.
Tim – where’s James’ trace to? I accidentally just checked ARIN, which said New Jersey, and when I asked him if he was from there, he said no – he was in CA.
Is it just coincidence that Mr. Professor is from Jersey, but his IP traces out to CA???
I wonder if these guys (or this guy) is just a GCC member trying to play multiple personalities…
*edit* From the mouth of a potential liar.
To answer the original question: YES!
“a fellow Christian has stabbed you in the back through his superior skills ”
Wow, and I thought humility was a core value. I love the “stabbed you in the back” phrase, it’s just so Christian. And the superior skills reference just reveals your fleshly pride and not any humble desire for sound and respectful discourse.
Excuse me while I pull the agape knife out of my back!
Val,
Just call me, and we can work this out. In the meantime, CRICKET, CRICKET
Chris L,
James is in Marina Del Sol in CA, and also traces back to Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon.
Chris R’s is the only one that’s any different in terms of provider, but he is in the same geographic location.
I couldn’t find the Prof’s comment, if you can link me to it I can check it out.
If you check ARIN it just tells you where the corporate HQ is at.
These places are all real close together.
For what it is worth… I don’t think Jersey Boy is a real person and he’s got you guys chasing ghosts. I don’t think his points were charitable or helpful and it depresses me.
I’ve seen you guys complain about comment threads being hijacked. This is a great example of that.
Chris,
If you can recognize that his comments weren’t charitable, why can’t you see that much of what I’ve seen you write has been very harsh and very uncharitable? Unecessarily so.
I agree though, we are chasing ghosts on this one. I’m praying for you and your ministry Chris. May Christ be exalted in your work and life!
Joe
Besides Jersey Boy, is anyone else from Jersey? Someone from here came to my blog. They’re in Jersey at the VA.
Jersey Boy isn’t from Jersey. Or in Jersey while posting.
What I don’t get is what the post over at Pyro is trying to say. Appealing to Jesus’ harshness is one thing, but at least we knew what Jesus was getting at when he condemned the Pharisees. He was saying they were, well, hopeless.
The post at Pyro, though, mixes accusations of doctrinal compromise with complaints over accusations of “poor tone.” Huh? So this isn’t all about false teachers and true apostates? This is also about whether you approve of Team Pyro’s tone? And that’s the basis for a two-tier system of Christianity?
If that’s the case, how can *anyone* justify that as Biblical? I, personally, find the writing (i.e. “tone”) over at Team Pyro nauseous and noxious. Does that mean I’m a “fire-sale” Christian? But then, what if I’m a five-point Calvinist? Where does that leave me?
It just doesn’t make any sense. In the end, it strikes me as an unbiblical caste system superimposed on the Word of God.
(And for what it’s worth, I have an M.A. in philosophy as well as a J.D. Can someone give me a cookie?)
Rick Ianniello is a Calvinist and they (Pyro)Â didn’t put up with him very long. I cannot understand how a blog with that many fancy bells and whistles, hyperbole and satirical posters, and colorful artwork shouldn’t be considered a mega-blog that uses the same theatrical method of communication as they do.
And the intellectual elitism is palpable. Granted they are intelligent and creative and bound to prove it.
-gives MG a cookie-
Good game, see you out there.
Big gulps.
LOL
Joe
jersey boy ain’t no man…
and somehow i doubt he’s had anything to do with the U of Chicago…except maybe be a janitor.
snark, snark, snark….
Wow…. talk about being the exact caricature being drawn.
And the ‘highschool crowd’ will come and start drawing blood now, I suppose…
Yawn, next.