Archive for the 'Commenting' Category

thought I would repeat this comment from prophet Silva on a recent article about his language

“No, I have nothing to apologize for. If that language Jesus prompted me to use offends, then let it offend.”

Enough said.

  • Share/Bookmark

The revamped Slice of Laodicea truly is an improvement over the former manifestation.

The main purpose of this blog is to watch the watch dogs.  We analyze the analyzers.  And when it comes to the regular objects of analysis we’re usually pretty critical – and for good reason.  We are quick to point out their misuses of Scripture, their ignoring of context, their use of partial quotes to skew the intended meaning, as well as their redefining words to suit their own agenda…  given all this it is only fair we applaud the good as well.

It’s not a biblical issue, or a significant change of heart that I can see, but the new Slice of Laodicea allows responses.  And from my experience so far, they are not filtering them to just those that agree.  I think this is good, it is an improvement, and it should be lauded.

So, to Ingrid in particular I would like to say “Thank you.”  Thank you for allowing me and the others, to respond, to clarify, to converse.  I hope this improvement is a lasting phenomenon.

  • Share/Bookmark

Ken Silva has been posting here again.  It seems like every time  he comes around, something new pops up.  here are a few highlight from his comments:

*sigh* As I have said on many, I am not a Calvinist.

Really?  Then why did you publish three articles on your blog entitled “why I am a Calvinist“?  I am sure that was all a big mix-up.  Or, maybe God told you to just be a Calvinist for a few days…just enough time to publish a few blogs, right?

With all due respect I don’t really think it’s wise to question another’s motives.

Really?  It would have been great if you didn’t question Dan Kimball’s motives when he researched homosexuality in the scriptures.  Every day at CRN and Apprising you question the motives of hundreds of pastors and ministers around the world.

It’s nothing personal, I’m just doing my job and trusting the Lord to take care of the results. I have no responsibility about how someone else is walking with Christ.

If you “have no responsibility about how someone else is walking with Christ” then why do you take it on yourself every day to correct others’ walk?  I mean, if it isn’t your responsibility then why have a website dedicated to the walk and ministry of other people?

As a pastor-teacher I am to get alone with God, apply myself to hearing from Him and then doing my level best to deliver the particular message that I happen to have.

Wow… this sounds pretty contemplative and mystical to me.  I mean, there aren’t too many emergent pastors that would say they get personal direct messages from God himself on a regular basis.

I think this all says alot about the “pastor-teacher” Ken Silva.  And the best thing is, he said it himself!

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: beChurch

Comments: John Griffin writes to Slice in regards to their open letter to ‘anonymous’ bloggers (who aren’t anonymous).  He takes probably a better approach than we have, hoping to engage them in face-to-face discussion.  I don’t know how fruitful it will be, but it is a well-thought-out, well-written article that succinctly boils down the essence of Slice.

Memorable Quotes:

I mentioned that the site is not really a blog. Let me explain: there are two kinds of blogs – those that just post news, and those that allow comments. Either one of those methods are fine. But Slice does not function like that.

They allow comments, but those comments are HEAVILY moderated (read censored). The comments that Ingrid and the other contributors tend to post are either a) supporting their positions or b) rude or easy-to-shoot-down arguments from those they disagree with.

Posts that disagree with them and cite specific reasons, scripture and are respectful and designed to bring peace are simply ignored.

The thing that’s made me most upset is that sometimes, they’ll allow you to post something that 10 people jump on – accusing and ridiculing the post. Then, if you try to respond with clarification or humility, they simply don’t post it. They “spin” posts to continue the vitriolic exchanges and don’t even allow you to defend yourself.

If you complain about it, they ban you. If you try to get around the ban, they ban your whole IP range. They’ve made a lot of people very angry using these tecniques – and then they claim to be “persecuted” for their actions – when their unfair, un-Christian approach to things is often at the root.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Lone Prairie Art Works

Comments: Julie decided to conduct a little experiment, taking on the pseudonym George (tho not the insufferably sanctimonious George Cancilla) on the Slice comment forums.  What she found was interesting, and revealing of the silliness of banning people via their IP address at SoL.
Memorable Quotes:

Yes. I lack integrity (scroll down to the discussion on “proxy servers”) because being banned/blacklisted means you don’t even have permission to visit or attempt response. Being banned means assuming the technology is what does the banning and not an internet conscience.

I think my main reason for being such a shade on this is to prove a point: banning a person permanently based on a comment or two you didn’t like in the past means you only hurt your readers and valuable discussion. This is a good lesson for me as well.

Moderating comments based on banning IP numbers seems to make the most sense for a highly trafficked blog, but it also means a) you’ll need the technology to deal with dynamic or changed IP numbers, b) that you are essentially marking people with a number (a very unbiblical concept, oh my!) and c) that to weed out true weeds you kill a ton of wheat.

If you don’t want to deal with comments, say you’re turning them off and then actually turn them off. And then quit turning them on again, particularly on the posts where you know you want lots of yes-men agreeing with you. That’s a sign that you “lack integrity” and need to prove your point by assertion.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Musings from Two-Sheds Gomer

Comments: After two young men decided to go Luther on their local church (which Ingrid doesn’t attend, but wouldn’t approve of, anyway), Ingrid decided to make a template of their ‘Theses’ available for other erstwhile vandals to nail to their own Purpose-Driven Church doors.  Brendt, finds this situation a little odd, and writes about it.
Memorable Quotes:

But if Ingrid’s own statements, the comments, and the nature of the post aren’t enough to convince you, perhaps this will. Slice has now made the statement available in a Word format for you to “edit and use if your church is off the rails biblically”. And there are already multiple calls in the (carefully monitored) comments for using these at churches that you don’t even attend.

Let’s not speak directly with those who are in error — they might have opportunity to respond.

Let’s not confront error Matthew 7:3" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:3;&version=50;">in our own midst. If the “offender” knows us, he might know that we’re not perfect.

Let’s not use our own reasoning about Scripture. That would require that we knew what we were talking about.

No, let’s take our cues from a couple of 24-year-olds.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Russ’ Ramblings

Comments: Russ posts a rebut of Ingrid’s ascetic view of dancing, along with laments about missing/unapproved posts. He also notes that the legalistic views don’t take too kindly to contextual use of scripture.
Memorable Quotes:

I do feel badly for these legalists – life seems to have no joy for them, but their Pharisee-like approach I guess makes them feel good. Of course they will deny they are like the Pharisees, they are discerners and out to call out all that is wrong in Christendom. I really should let them go and continue in their holy huddle – they don’t want to listen to other Christians who have a differing point of view.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Fishing the Abyss

Comments: Who will watch the watchman? Chris asks this seminal question about what oversight watchbloggers, like Slice, should have.
Memorable Quotes:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies – who will watch the watchmen? This dilemma has been posed in many ways over the eons, with Plato’s Socrates as the first in written record. According to the wikipedia article on the subject, Plato’s answer was:

they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a noble lie. The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves.

This is all good and fine when we’re talking about civil authority, but what happens when self-appointed “watchmen” in the church believe the “noble lie”? What happens when morality gives way to sanctonimity, and disagreement becomes heresy? Who will watch the watchmen?

Probably the first comment I hear about Slice (after their tone) is their discussion policy, which basically is this: If you agree with the poster, your comment is likely to be approved from moderation. If you disagree with the poster, your comment is most likely to disappear into the ether, unless it can be easily disputed or mocked (and even then, it is most likely to be rejected). Should you persist in your disagreement, you will be banned – or worse.

The pro-Slice comments that do get approved from moderation often get meaner and more judgemental than the original articles – referring to Christian brothers as ‘tools of Satan’, ‘worse than Charles Manson’, ’spiritual pedophiles’, ‘Lucifer’s army’, ‘child molesters’ and much worse.

In a recent Slicecast, Ken Silva said:

There were times I’m writing these articles and I literally turned to the Lord, as if He was standing there, and I said ‘Lord, I didn’t know that. I could not have written that sentence.’ I say that time and time again. I take no credit for this. I’m one of the few who’ll tell you that.

With this mindset, Ken frequently seems to give his words the authority of Jesus or inerrency, and I truly wonder how he would ever know if it wasn’t God that was moving that pen and writing sentences he ‘could not have written’.

With Ken, in particular, I have had to call him out for slandering a brother in the faith (see http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529#comment-3225 ) when he has overstepped his God-granted bounds. I hope he will address this issue, but I somehow doubt he will.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: To the Tune of Tim
Comments: Tim was (briefly) a great commenter on Slice, someone with excellent reasoning abilities and obvious compassion. As you can most likely guess, he didn’t last all that long before he was banned for disagreeing with Ken’s company line that Donald Miller is a unregenerate heretic. Tim has an incredibly well-written description of his being kicked out of the ‘lifeboat’ of Slice.
Memorable Quotes:

My most favorite song of his is called “Jesus is for Losers”. In an interview that I saw from the first ever Christian music video program, filmed in Pittsburgh, the host Tom Green (not the MTV guy) asked Steve Taylor how he came up with the song. Steve responded, as only Steve Taylor could, that he was sitting on the toilet reading a magazine about how a porn star became a Christian, and his initial reaction was “Great! That’s just who we need representing…” and he stopped himself realizing that if Jesus isn’t for the people who are living completely opposite of what God wants, and if Jesus isn’t for the people at the end of their rope, and if Jesus isn’t for the poor, the hungry, and so on, then who is Jesus for? He wouldn’t be for me because I have it altogether, right? Unless I recognize that I, too, am a loser (aka sinner).

The responses were either labeling of me or further name-calling of Miller and the church community with whom he lives and worships. Pressing the point further did not motivate the author to return to the actually questions I ask, simply to walk away saying we wouldn’t agree so what? One commentor chastised me for being disrespectful, which was quickly refuted by another saying: “Tim has presented the most coherent, and I think respectful, critique of Ken Silva, a man who regularly disrespects and maligns “ordained pastors” himself, that I’ve seen on here in a while. Give him a break.

I did not receive notice that I have been banned, just that when I try to post, I get an error saying that I am not allowed to comment. So just as there is an avoidance to constructive challenges or dialog, there is also an avoidance now of any dialog.

My first reaction was short anger. This lasted approximately 2 seconds. My next reaction was laughter, not as in a joke, but in a realization of irony that something I said must have been too true. My third, and longest, reaction was contemplation, wondering what is was exactly that I said that got me kicked out of their lifeboat.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: My Bloggy Blog

Comments: Steve recounts his adventures with Ingrid, where she posts on a church comedy night (a Friday family night), gets lots of nasty comments about the church, removes the post (but doesn’t delete it) at the request of the senior pastor from the church in question, and then denigrates Steve, who suggests she should post a retraction.  Comedy gold.
Memorable Quotes:

Ingrid Schlueter and the slicers and dicers at Laodicea , seem to have a twenty four hour watch on things apostate. I wonder how they have developed such a keen sniffer for such things. Well, it’s quite easy, first you need to believe you and you alone have a corner on the truth and anything that does not line up with your truth is of course false, and therefore apostate. Then you write a story about it and accentuate only what you want to about the story, leave out anything that would be redeeming about the church, person ect. your ripping apart. Next have your band of merry men and women all chime in on the comment section, validating your latest slice and dice, and lastly delete any comments from anyone that can poke the preverbal hole in the irrationality of your post.

Find a picture of a church sign that is advertising an upcoming event – Comedy Night – July 21 7PM –9PM and laugh all night. Post the picture of the church sign with the post title of“Lukewarm and Proud of it”. Soon the amen corner will show up and they are all amazed at how Ingrid has found yet another fantastic example of how pathetic the 21 century church is.

Forget to mention that this church in fact has a very sound doctrinal statement that is far from lukewarm. Forget to mention that the Comedy Night was not on a Sunday, but was in fact on a Friday and was scheduled to be a part of a “Date Night” or “Family Night Out” that the church was sponsoring to foster fellowship amongst its members. And lastly disparage the ministry of Christian Comedian Mike Williams, and mention nothing of his marvelous Christian ministry and his testimony where he talks about how God saved him from a horrific family life.

[Ingrid writes to Steve] I will not post any retraction because as I have said already, I stand by my belief that the church of Jesus Christ is no place for fun family outings featuring laugh all night comedians, period.

  • Share/Bookmark