[Reposted here because he may very well delete it as he did my previous comment which, unfathomably, he reposted in toto in his next comment telling everyone he deleted my comment]
No, Dan. I am unaffected by your decision to delete my comment. I am not afraid of you, Marty, or Alan.
I have come to a conclusion however.
Based on 200 plus comments back and forth at at least two previous posts here, I don't believe we ARE brothers in Christ. Call me brother if you wish, but I won't respond in kind.
Delete this one too, if you like. Flippantly suggest I'd wet my pants because you delete a comment? Ha! Truth is, you can't take the heat/pressure of being called out for your highly dubious stance on the mechanics of faith/grace, OR your lack of respect for the sanctity of scripture.
2 Corinthians 6:17 says, "...come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."
So, you get your wish; I'm leaving you alone. I'm tired of feeling dirty every time I get caught up in one of your pointless, hollow discussions.
8:52 pm
It may appear I am bitter. I assure you I am not. Am I angry? You betcha. At myself for allowing the rhetoric of heretics to draw me into "pointless, hollow discussions."
I and others have tried very hard to be charitable to Dan and his like-minded fellows. But it has become increasingly clear to me and "others" that Dan and his krewe worship a different god. Now, I'm no Elijah, to call down fire from heaven and lop the heads off of four-hundred fifty priests of Baal/Liberal Theologians, so I'll do what Paul told the Church at Corinth to do. And that is.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
If you want an education in "The Gospel According to Dan," and feel you have the stomach to wade through 200 plus comments, you can check out the following posts and their comments.
Begin here: What are you trying to say, Dan?, you can then follow that one up with: What's it all About?
For the record, I'm not enjoying this. I'd much rather pat him on the back for caring enough about the truth of God's word to urge the unbelieving world to repent of their sins FIRST. Rather than teach them to "follow Christ" [as though that were even possible for the unrepentant soul], then hope they somehow come to be saved.
Truth is under siege. The Word of God is under siege. Some are trying to fight it. Some, sadly, are not.
It's time... long since time... I drew a line in the sand. And I can't concern myself with hurting anyone's feelings. Truth is paramount.
22 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You can say that at your very, very best you have only a glimpse of the truth. You can say that all your confidence is as filthy fricking rags.
You can admit that GOD does not need you to defend God.
You can say out loud that the Bible itself is one thing, and that God God's self is another.
You can say that, despite the box you've painted yourself into, Christ is bigger than your own putrid, pitiful ideas and bigger than your own desperate fears!
You can say that the Bride of Christ is NOT chaste! Because she is a sinner!
So you can quit acting so damned proud. You can admit that I, and Dan, "know" as much as you do! Which is almost nothing.
And you can tear down that plastic dashboard Jude you've put up on the dashboard of your mind, while you're at at.
You can come off your damned high horse, which comes from the devil's effing herd.
And you can EAT DIRT and take it as GRACE because it IS GRACE, and it's all any of us deserve.
That of course is the dichotomy of Christianity's triune god. You have the stern, judgmental demanding Father, and the loving hippie Son, with the absent vaguely caring mother Ghost. Three personalities, one supposed being. No clear guidance which aspect believers are to exalt. You chose the Father. Dan chose the Son. ER might be said to have chosen the Ghost.
The anger and hatred and disgust you show here are not emotions I want. Therefore I reject you faith. Whatever you believe, about the country, and other people is not a positive. I do see how your beliefs could lead to happiness or paradise. How can one be happy after death if one isn't happy in life? How can you reach paradise through judgment and anger and thorny withdrawal. No. Eric you are wrong. The way you are going is not there.
We all have our beliefs. None of us are 100% correct in our beliefs about God and none of us are 100% wrong.
Personally, I believe that you and I have a closer to accurate view of God than ER and Dan, but that is subjective, isn't it?
In any event, you (nor I) will ever change the minds of those who believe what they do just as strongly as we believe what we do.
Whether they or we are wrong, we can only pray for each other, and then, unless we are all too arrogant to accept the truth, we can change our minds, but regardless, only God can change our hearts.
I don't know you well enough to address Bent's complaints about you. I do know that blogs just provide a snapshot of who people are. One could be living a life of joy, giving, etc. while using blog time to highlight the poisons of liberal theology, for example, and people might think that is all you were about.
Many of us are have plenty of room to grow on this score. Some abandon orthodoxy in a misguided belief that true charity conflicts with the truth that's recorded in the Bible; I have a tendency to be less charitable than I should in defending Christian doctrine. But I do know quite a few Christians who are very committed to truth, very loving toward all their fellow man, and -- not coincidentally -- quite happy and joyful people.
That we sometimes lose sight of our duty to be charitable in our equally clear duty to defend the truth as we understand is not a reflection of any inherent flaws in Christianity: rather, it's a reflection of our need to continue growing in maturity as Christians.
And, Bent, I would argue that your dichotomy of the Trinity is based on a common misconception that could easily be corrected by a closer study of the Bible. The Father who is supposedly defined by judgmentalism promised redemption even as He punished Adam and Eve, commuted Cain's death sentence, and repeatedly forgave and restored a wayward Israel. The Son who is supposedly a loving hippie repeatedly warned about judgment in His parables about the wheat and the weeds, the sheep and the goats, and the narrow way and the broad way.
There is no tension among the three Persons of the Trinity: each has a different role in the Godhead and in our lives, but all are perfectly just and infintely loving.
A couple things do amaze me.
First, for all your insistence that any confidence in what the Bible teaches is literally demonic pride, I notice that you seem awfully sure about grace.
Second, I notice that you never seem to get around to criticizing those on your side of the political aisle for the bold confidence they have in their beliefs. Dan Trabue is so confident that, for instance, civilian casualties in war is "always always always wrong" that Dan has no qualms putting that belief in the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself.
Did you compare Dan's confidence to filthy fricking rags? Why, no, you did not.
Dan, I'm standing here behind you.
Finally, your criticism of other people's confidence never seems to affect the confidence in your own denunciations of other people. Even when you share in the idea that we all know "next to nothing", you know that ELAshley's pride is a high horse that "comes from the devil's effing herd."
The belief that we can know almost nothing about God is implausible on its face, but it's clear that your adherence to that belief is an absolute farce. Your hypocrisy is both so obvious and so frequently on display that I'm not sure which is worse: the possibility that you're aware of it, or the possibility that you're not.
If you really think that so little about God is knowable, you wouldn't be so prone to calling down the fire and brimstone of God's wrath on those who dare to disagree with you.
It might be worthwhile to post the comment explaining the futility of attempting to continue the discussion:
------
Dan, I'm not sure why you deleted ELAshley's comments. It cannot be that you forbid unsupported attacks against one's fellow Christians, because you have been guilty of the same thing in this very thread, in accusing ELAshley of not knowing how to respond to your loaded question, and making that accusation without a shred of evidence.
I see. Invoking the "idunno" ploy.
It cannot be that you forbid snarky comments that are utterly irrelevant, because just as you deleted ELAshley's comment for the first time, you inserted an irrelevant personal comment of your own:
I'm guessing he'll wet his pants.
And it can't be that your concern is keeping the discussion focused on substantive disagreements and misunderstandings and not personal attacks. You could have simply explained how you think I have misunderstood your earlier request not to draw any assumptions at all. Instead of stopping there, you decided to make it personal by saying I have a "pisspoor track record" of drawing conclusions from what other people write.
I would love to focus on the substance of our disagreement, starting with your claim that civilian casualties are "always always always wrong." The Old Testament clearly records that God occasionally commanded the nation of ancient Israel to engage in total war. You have previously speculated that these passages were inserted by wicked men in order to justify atrocities by deceitfully attributing them to God's will, and I have never seen you renounce this theory in the face of Jesus Christ's clear affirmation of the entire Old Testament to the smallest penstroke. You claim to be constructing your conception of Jesus Christ from what's recorded in the Bible, but this affirmation of Jewish Scripture -- in the Sermon on the Mount you claim to revere -- flies in the face of your claim about what is "always always always wrong" and I have never seen you adequately address this discrepancy.
I would love to focus on that, but I will not do so here, at least so long as the standards for what is permissible here remain so unclear.
This is your blog, and you have every right to moderate it as you see fit. But not every excerise of one's rights is morally right, decent, honorable, or even comprehensible.
Your stated reasons for having deleted ELAshley's comments directly contradict your own behavior toward us. Because it is impossible to ascertain what comment you will delete next, or what other behavior you will permit for yourself but deny others, there is no reason for me to trust that even my most measured arguments here will remain undeleted, much less be allowed to "stand for themselves."
-----
I'm honestly not sure how profitable it was trying to have a discussion there in the first place. I stopped commenting for some time because of the discrepancy between his speculation on the Old Testament (summarized above) and the conniption fit he would throw when someone would question his love and devotion to the Bible. I probably should have known better than to think that what I described then as pathological behavior would be clearly bound to within certain subjects.
It's not. Jeremiah Wright accuses the U.S. government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide, and it's his critics who are guilty of lying and villifying.
And by all accounts, Dan doesn't esteem the cross of Christ as absolutely central to Christianity. When asked whether there's a relationship between His death and our salvation, he gives lenghty replies that do not ever clearly answer the question, and although those replies indicate that he rejects any direct, causal relationship, the only appropriate response is to thank his evasive comments as if they were clear, and to pretend that his defiance against the Bible's clear teachings about why Jesus died (indeed, Jesus own explanation in the Upper Room) is really as orthodox as it gets.
This pastiche of Matthew 25 is yet another instance of Dan's passive-aggressive attacks against those who dare disagree with his political views, blasphemously invoking Christ as a rhetorical weapon in an argument as loaded as the question, "When have you stopped beating your wife?"
His hypocritical decision to delete abrasive comments from only one side of the aisle greatly diminishes the one reasonable hope in continuing to comment -- that reasonable unbiased observers would see the discussion for what it really is. Rational responses from theologically conservative Christians and poltically conservative Americans are now no longer merely ignored, misconstrued, and attacked: they is now no guarantee that they won't be "disappeared."
Dissent has now been shown the door, most emphatically.
Especially among Liberal thinkers. The very ones who claim to love and defend the 1st Amendment do not themselves defend it for all people. Liberalism pollutes everything it touches; the 1st Amendment, the Constitution... Christianity. And the lengths to which Dan goes to AVOID answering simple, straight-forward questions is symptomatic of Liberal craft and deceit.
The snarky comment I made at Dan's place about 'how many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center....' was an expression of bewilderment that Dan's definition of Faith/Salvation was both completely at odds with, and devoid of the truth. Contrary to what ER emphatically believes, we CAN know for certain a good many things.
Now, I don't know whether Dan is a Christian or not. Judging strictly from his own words, I'd bet 'not.' But that is not a statement of condemnation... just an observation based on the fruit of his heart as expressed by his printed word. I've tried to confront that error, but he is too wise in his own eyes... too wise in his own craftiness, as Job and Isaiah say. And I don't have near as much patience as do you.
We are told in Romans 16:17-18 to "...mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which [w]e have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." That is what has become patently clear to me in recent days concerning Dan specifically.
Dan's Church may very well bend over backward to help the less fortunate, but if Dan is an example of what Jeff Street teaches, I wonder how many people slip into hell each year because Jeff Street perverts the plain, simple, and knowable truths of the Bible.
If Dan IS saved, I fear for him. Not because he'll end up in hell, but because of everyone he teaches to be like him; people who are NOT saved, and never GET saved because of his message. There's blood on all our hands, but I worry for the amount of shame he may very well feel when he stands before the judgment Seat of Christ. I worry about MYSELF too, but I can only do what I feel led to do, which does NOT include 'taking down the plastic Jude from my life's dashboard,' as ER so eloquently suggested. I must continue to warn and many as I can, and expose error wherever I encounter it. That's what I can do for myself, but all I can do for Dan is pray.
I am further comforted by the fact that the little persecutions I receive from Payne Hollow's host and guests, as well as ER and others, at least shows me I'm doing something right. Jesus did say I would be hated, and despised. And I can live with that so long as He lives within me. To be loved by the world is to be at enmity with God. If the world hates me, I at least remember that it hated HIM first.
Thanks for your input, Bubba. There's generally not much controversy here unless Dan or ER show up, but you're just as welcome here when things are peaceful as not.
For that matter, so are Dan and ER.
Only God, working through His Spirit, can change the heart and mind of a sinner.
The principal truth that brothers in Christ have to recognize is the supremacy of Christ above and in all of creation, and that no man comes to the Father except through him.
A man can spend time focusing on the minutiae looking to expunge the smallest particle of filth while being completely blind to his true sin, because the heart is full of deceit.
Ultimately we each must face the choices we have made in our lives alone before God. "liberal" theology, "conservative" theology, whatever... What matters is that we repent our sins, ask for and accept his forgiveness, and love one another.
No man can fulfill all of the law, or live by the law and expect not to die by it. Only Jesus could, and he already did it for us.
This is a flawed chain of logic. You are right because you are hated. That's the logic of fanaticism. If he exists the devil and demons would also be hated.
You must look inside to confirm your faith. That's one of the ways I know what I believe is right. Because it resonates within me. I don't need external scriptures or responses to tell me what I believe is right for me.
I have known you a long time, and I do not believe you have found your faith. Look at Marian and Mavis. Look at Ms Ann. Look at Earl. All of these people call themselves christian, yet none feel the need to reprimand and chastise like you. None are despondent and anxious for apocalypse.
Mavis and Marian are both, in my estimation, saintly women. As is Miss Ann. But calling oneself "Christian" doesn't make one a Christian.
And just because they don't appear to feel the need to lament the worsening and coarsening of our culture, doesn't mean they don't stand up to evil in some manner.
I simply can't sit back and just let my light shine. There's too much of an itch in my spirit to get up and shout. I do happen to know where and when I can get away with shouting however; I could never get away with it at work. It's one thing for you and I to viciously argue politics, as we once used to do, but we could never argue faith with the same volume at work as we did politics.
The web is much different. There are still rules to follow, but neither of us are going to lose our jobs by debating issues here.
And since you and I have vastly differing positions on matters of faith and God, you don't see "bad theology" in the same light as I. You don't see the need to defend the truth. Neither does ER. And that's okay.... for you... for ER. But not for me. I worry about all the crack-pot theology that gets propagated around the internet.
I don't presume to have a 100% lock on biblical truth, but I do know enough to recognize heresy when I see it. And because of that, I can't let it slide when I do.
There could be anyone lurking about watching... or looking for truth. And much of what get labeled as truth at Dan's place is at best misguided.... and off the mark. Which makes it all but a wholly ineffective gospel. People who are searching for God should be able to find Him... Dan's gospel, in MY estimation points to a proverbial Velvet Elvis; a`la Rob Bell. And that's a dangerous row for any professing Christian to hoe.
I worry about all the people out there who, as Jesus accused the pharisees, "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, [they] make him twofold more the child of hell than [them]selves."
Dan is . . . well, I'm not sure how to categorize his views. Seems to be a works-based righteousness while at the same time denying the need for that righteousness. And of course, the endless, "the Bible is God's word, except that it isn't" refrain.
Great summary, Bubba. I enacted self-moderation at that site a long time ago.
Bent, Christians have different roles, so you won't ever see pure uniformity. Of course, what we teach and do should always be measured against scripture.
Does this mean I bumped Keyes?
Going away again (just commenting since y'all's was talking 'bout me, thought I'd give you a hand with the label.)
Standing firm for Biblical teaching is not "unChristian" even if emotions run high. Merely standing firm, in fact, is confrontational. Getting serious about that which one believes does not mean being without joy in one's life, merely for being serious.
There does come a time when one must walk away from a discussion, and there are many blog discussions that go on far too long for either side. It won't surprise too many to hear that I feel Eric, Bubba, & Neil to a great job supporting their side of theo-sophical debates (are they good because I agree with them, or do I agree because they're good?). I don't believe the opposition has done as well for their side, mainly because they fear absolutes and committing to anything not ambiguous. This doesn't make us rigid or overbearing in our beliefs. It just means we can accept absolutes and that which is plainly presented in Scripture.
And our level of joy derived from our beliefs is not a driving determination of whether we should believe as we do. Truth is. Yet, joy exists as a result of our beliefs, whether it manifests in a manner acceptable to everyone's notion of joy or not. I don't think I'm taking too much liberty to suggest that Eric would agree with that.
OK, I'm rambling now. sorry.