The New York Times writes today on the controversy surrounding Every Tribe Entertainment's End of the Spear movie. While most news about this is old, they did include an interesting piece of information about the controversy.
I had to read this two or three times to fully process it. It was simply too unbelievable to be true. Of course, in the NYT, it might well not be true. But that's another post.One Web log, nossobrii.blogspot .com, written by Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, stated in a Jan. 13 entry: "Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men's houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy."
Greg Clifford, chief operating officer of Every Tribe, said the company, based in Oklahoma, had alerted the F.B.I. there about the Web log. The F.B.I. did not return phone calls yesterday about the matter.
Greg Clifford from ETE, notified the FBI because someone said not to firebomb them. How did that phone call go?
_________________________________
Umm, Hello??? Is this the FBI? Um, Yeah ... Um, I'd like to report that the president of a fundamental seminary who is an obscenely smart fellow with a great sense of rhetoric published his personal blog in which he said that no one should firebomb us over our choice of Chad Allen. Can you please look into this?
Um, sure. What would you like us to look into?
Well, he said that people shouldn't firebomb us.
Yes, I understand that. What would you like us to look into?
His comment that people shouldn't firebomb us, that firebombing would be an overreaction.
And what's the problem there?
Well, that's threatening?
It's threatening?
Yes, he threatened us by saying that people shouldn't firebomb us?
What exactly is the threat?
That people shouldn't firebomb us.
That's a threat?
Of course. He used the word "firebomb" and "these men's offices" in the same sentence.
Didn't he also say that it would be an overraction to "firebomb these men's offices."
Yes.
Do you want your offices firebombed?
No.
So this blog agrees with your position that your offices shouldn't be firebombed?
Um ... um ... sorry, call on the other line. Gotta run ...
_________________________________
You know, I can't imagine any graceful way to get out of that conversation.
Have we really lost all sense of rhetoric in communication that we don't understand the nature of Bauder's comments? He said that firebombing would be an overreaction. It was clearly a use of rhetoric that should be understood by anyone who thoughtfully (or even not so thoughtfully) read the article.
Can we not get over ourselves enough to recognize these things?
52 comments:
It doesn't seem ETE's motives are all as pure as they'd like us to believe. I wonder if they contacted Bauder first like they were wondering why Jason didn't contact them first.
Joel,
Exactly my point that I made on SI. Where is Randy Alcorn now?
I think the liberal media delights in the paranoia they have managed to stir up among evangelicals about our rhetoric.
I hope Bauder unleashes. ETE and the Evangelical world has no idea what giant they have awakened. We need him.
Larry,
This is good.
Rev. Bauder has betrayed his core vocation with that remark, and the later one about apologizing to firebombers. Does he mean to reach people with the Gospel?
Our President started the State of the Union address with praise of Coretta Scott King, and all over the nation people remember the horror of her home being bombed. No one wants more of that. No one will listen more closely to someone who plays repulsive games with that image.
Rev. Bauder's nastiness will be associated with name of Christ, and our Lord is not well served by his "humor." He should repent and retract, not add more jokes.
Susan Perkins Weston
Of course rhetroic is dead. It died on the altar of political correctness.
But this in no way exonorates Bauder. What he wrote is perfect for the caricature that the enemies of fundamentalism have of the movement and its leaders. He handed them the club that they are beating us with, so there is no point in complaining about the bruises. Those who know Kevin or know of him understand his comment. Those who don't know him, however, do not have to read too much between the lines to see the negativity they already believe about fundamentalists.
James 3:1ff urges those who want to be teachers for Christ to have a tight reign on their tongues. I haven't spent much time around Bauder or read much of his words, but this is not the first evidence I've seen of his careless bombast.
Personally, I don't think there will be any more fallout from this. But it is a cautionary tale for all who presume to speak on Christ's behalf—especially those invested with leadership of Christian institutions.
What nastiness? What negativity? With due respect to the commenters (thanks one and all), some of whom are friends and some of whom I don't know, what did Kevin say wrong?
He said ETE has an agenda (maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong), but they don't deserve to be firebombed. He said we should not overreact.
It sounds to me like he is saying this is not a matter of firebombing. What is wrong with that? How does that contribute to a negative stereotype? He says that we should not overreact (something distinctly non-fundamentalist in many ways), and says that firebombing would be an overreaction.
What is wrong with that?
Kevin's style is not mine, and Kevin probably wishes I had never brought this up ... although Kevin probably has no idea, now that I think about it.
Kevin's style is not mine, but this was simply funny: Person A complains because Person B says it would be wrong to firebomb Person A's offices. Why wasn't Person A writing a letter of thanks? That's my question.
You're forgetting the word "probably". That one word was an incredibly unwise choice.
But that's my point about missing the rhetorical device. (No offense to you, Wendy.) We use rhetorical devices all the time. We understand them in their context.
I thought Kevin's response was a bit strong. I thought he said more than he should have. But this comment was certainly not the problem, as I see it.
Wendy,
Isn't understatement a rhetorical device too? By using the word "probably" he emphasized the absurdity of such a reaction.
Pat
He wrote a comment that, if interpreted in light of a knowledge of Dr. Bauder, makes complete sense to those who know him. He also wrote a comment on a public blog to be read by any Tom, Dick, and Harry who stumbles across it that says it's PROBABLY not a GOOD IDEA to FIRE BOMB these guys. It's just poor stewardship of our words to say this in a public forum in today's world. It's not PROBABLY not a GOOD IDEA. It's absolute sin to even consider such an action.
What really concerns me here is that people seem to be suprised or horrified that others would take his words the wrong way. Are we that out of touch with our culture? Do we not understand the ramifications of alluding that there might be some circumstances in which fire bombing someone's house IS a good idea in the name of Christian fundamentalism?
This can be easily resolved by Dr. Bauder. Just correct any false impressions left by the statement.
Larry, I just caught your comment. I guess I would take issue with the idea that the corporate "we" understand rhetorical devices. In takes alot of context for the average reader to fully understand rhetorical devices. Many do. Many don't. We can't limit the conversation to only those who think in the same fashion as Dr. Bauder. Doesn't that smack of elitism?
I am not sure there is anyone who thinks in the same fashion as Dr. Bauder. I am not even qualified to carry his briefcase. But I do like him even though we would disagree on some things. I am sure that is inconsequential to him. I enjoyed hearing him speak at a conference here last fall.
But for my dollar, I don't see this issue as one of elitism. To me, it's just common sense, but perhaps the sense that is common to me is not to others.
He did comment on his blog that I was one who "got it," and so I take some comfort in that.
In the end, you and I have disagreed on more important things than this Wendy.
What is really interesting to me is that Kevin's blog got a lot of traffic today addressing his meanspiritedness. The irony is that the attacks were far more hateful and incendiary than anything Kevin said. It shows how greatly hypocritical the opposition is. They are the kings of the double standard.
I know we agreed on something once, Larry. But I can't remember now what it was.
:-)
Good stuff.
As a former Christian I'm shocked & appalled at the casual disregard both Larry & Kevin show for the effects their words can have on others. People who claim to follow the will of God because of words written in a book should know that words have consequences, both for good & ill.
If someone were to be inspired by Kevin to actually bomb ETE or the nearest available surrogate gaybar, how well do you suppose your defense of "but I said -not- to firebomb them!" would hold up to a jury of your peers at your trial? How well would your conscience hold up? Would you feel any responsibility at all or would you simply shrug & say "not my fault he didn't 'get it'"?
And Larry, as to your pathetic "opposite day" defense: it's one thing for a person to speak in moderation against someone else's extremist rhetoric, but when you're the one who brings up the idea in the first place, you don't get to play that card.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Ah, religion. The last acceptable form of bigotry. Isolationist behavior. Extremists who have more in common with the extremists we're calling terrorists than anyone wants to admit. Sad to see these "Holier than thou" attitudes.
IMHO all of this righteous behavior and religious posturing is caused by low self-esteem. It's not much different from the grade school bully who thinks he's better than everyone else and pounds on other people to try to prove it to himself.
I agree with the last poster. Shame on you. Why don't you spend your time trying to make someone's life BETTER instead of worse. THAT would be following in Christ's footsteps according to the Bible you selectively quote. You're giving OTHER Christians a bad name!
I note that in all of your times where you dismissively note that he said that firebombing would be an overreaction, you, um, lied.
He never said that.
He said it would "probably" be an overreaction.
You never once used the word "probably".
There's something seriously wrong with you people - that you're in an environment where it's even remotely necessary to say such things, and that you personally intentionally misrepresented the crux of people's negative reactions to it in a dismissive and disingenuous manner.
You people are supposed to be followers in the footsteps of God in human form. Let your yes be yes & your no be no. "But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile." - Matt. 15:18. The mere fact that so many people are reacting so strongly to Kevin's words -proves- that there is a way to construe them to incite violence against gays.
Play out the scenario for me: if some nutcase were to be inspired by Kevin & throw a molotov cocktail at the offices of ETE, what should Kevin say to the judge? "Your honor, he just didn't read my post closely enough"?
Does anyone speak English anymore?
To the anonymous one who has a "humble opinion": Better than IMHO, would you please use IMSRO-In My Self-Righteous Opinion-I am "Holier than thou" because I only give Christians a good name. How did your post help this guy who's getting his name plastered all over the blogosphere? How did you make his life better today?
Scalefree, you probably should not belittle anonymous. (But if you do, anonymous better not come after me!)
Let me break this down in the simplest terms possible. People fear your words. They fear that your words will give someone the idea of making a bomb & using it against them. It's no accident that John starts his gospel with "In the beginning was the Word", because words have power like that. Take responsibility for your words; accept that words can move people into actions even if you didn't mean them that way.
If none of this moves you, try applying the Golden Rule & tell me with straight face that you wouldn't be in the least bit worried if this whole mess had started with me telling people that firebombing your family was "probably" not a good idea.
I'll tell you what, here's an offer. If you can honestly (or dishonestly for that matter) tell me that every time you read the phrase "firebomb your family", you don't feel even a little knot in the pit of your stomach, I'll declare you winner of the whole debate -and- go to church every Sunday for a month. Mind you, I'm a notorious apostate who hasn't set foot in a church (except for weddings & funerals) since abandoning the faith more than a decade ago.
See, that's the power of words. Do you get it now?
A book on my shelf is titled "Whatever Happened to Common Sense." The New York Times has constantly showed that it did not flee to their newspaper. Some of the posters here, who would try to squeeze out some sort of spiritual outrage toward this remark, certainly are not where it resides. Kevin Bauder used rhetoric that was not inapproprate under the circumstances. He should stand tall understanding that giants eventually get attacked by the puny people who feel threatened by that which they cannot understand.
Scalefree:
I don't know who John is, but if words are that powerful, explain to me how apostasy is possible.
Apostacy is possible because even powerful words aren't always true. John is the one in between George & Ringo.
Interesting comments overnight. What it shows is that hate and intolerance comes far more from the other side than from mine. I would never say the kinds of things that have been said to me. Of course, this is something we have always known, but it has been demonstrated here and in the comments on Kevin's blog.
We also see that people read into words whatever suits their fancy. When someone wants to look for trouble, they have no problem finding it.
One guy, who for some strange reason won't even sign his name, accuses me of being a bigot. Are you afraid of using your name? And how in the world can he call me a bigot? How would he know? Perhaps he knows me, but his hiding behind anonymity makes that impossible to find out. How foolish and absurd. He complains about the power of words. What if someone reads his words, decides he is right, and fails to come to church and hear the gospel message. Will he then accept the consequences of his untruthful statement, that his untruthful statements have turned someone away from the life-giving message of the gospel? Let me encourage you, anonymous, before you call me a bigot, come spend some time with me at my church and in my ministry. Take time to learn before you speak. And use your name if you want to participate here. Your first name will be fine.
He also accuses me of having low self-esteem. How could he know that? The truth is that I don't have low self-esteem. I don't have any at all. I try to live my life biblically, thinking about others rather than self. Low self-esteem is the most useless answer to a problem ever given. But that's another point.
He pulled two baseless charges off the shelf, applied them without any thought, fails to sign his name, and goes away thinking he is more righteous than I.
I would only encourage you to arm yourselves with the truth and with the facts.
If someone said something about firebombing my house, it would depend on the context. Chances are, I wouldn't be worried in the least if it were writing like Kevin's. We need to understand the use of rhetoric. Unfortunately, the use of rhetoric has been lost in this visual age.
Kevin was calling for restraint. So am I. If you would do it another way, then start your own blog.
prob·a·bly - Pronunciation Key (prOb-ble) adv.
Most likely; presumably.
So it would "most likely" be an overreaction, not DEFINITELY an overreaction?
Evangelicals scare me worse than Muslim extremists, and this is coming from the keyboard of a southern Christian.
Study rhetoric and various rhetorical devices such as understatement, hyperbole, and the like, and this will all be cleared up.
Consider your own statement. Are you really more scared of evangelicals then Muslim extremists? Who was the last evangelical suicide bomber you know about? Who was the last evangelical to start an unprovoked war? Who was the last evangelical that hijacked a plane and flew it into a building?
If you are more scared of evangelicals then Muslim extremists, then something is wrong. Get out a newspaper, read the news, and compare the stories of violence from the various groups.
My suspicion is that your own statement was hyperbole. You really aren't more scared of evangelicals then Muslim extremists. You just said that for rhetorical effect.
Is it really all that terrible that a man such as Dr. Bauder would make use of an unfair, illegitimate caricature that the media has already placed on Christian Fundamentalists? For some time now, the media has associated Christian fundamentalism with radical Islam. This comparison shows a total lack of understanding for the historical origin and definition of the word "fundamentalism" as it relates to evangelical Christianity. One who holds to the fundamentals of the faith is different than a terrorist. Dr. Bauder simply chose to satirically use the caricature that the media has already branded Christian fundamentalists with.
Speaking as someone trained by Jesuits in rhetoric, I can smell jesuetical reasoning when I step in it.
Of course, a CAREFUL reading results in advice against firebombing.
But fanatics and fools rarely read carefully, and could easily take that "probably" to mean what they wish it to mean - that a public figure cannot, of course, say what must be done directly.
Have y'all not noticed that some of your congregants, God Love 'em, ain't the sharpest tools in the box? Lot of barkin', no coon in the tree.
Ah say, ah mean Ah Say THAT'S humor! Ya gotta, Ah say, Ya tell 'em when to laugh or they just get all confused and bothered!
As for the arguments from intelligence given here by some of the self-proclaimed intelligencia of fundamentalism; well, yeah, I suppose you do have a lot of practice in thinking around the obvious meaning of the Word, so why not apply it to your own as well?
This whole apallingly silly reaction is due to a complete lack of a sense of proportion. You guys are shootin the message because you are bothered by the sexual orientation of an actor?
Oh, get over it!
Oh, and by the way, I'm sure Madonna would do an excellent job of playing the Virgin Mary. Which is not the same thing, you understand, as actually BEING the Virgin Mary. Or Eva Peron, for that matter.
I read these comments and had to ask myself, "How many of these people ever took an English class?" Forget whether you are a Christian or not. Forget that the Times blew this comment up in to more than it was; they have their own agenda they have to push.
One of the first things I was taught in my Freshman Lit. class years ago was that we should pay attention when we are reading to context. To understand the meaning of one particular statement, we must see how it fits in with the entire argument.
For example, I could simply take the statement "Evangelicals scare me" and go all kinds of places with that, but I would be misrepresenting Josh, because he meant one particular thing when he said that, and I understand what he was saying.
Please, go read an English grammar. I've seen the word rhetoric on these comments several times. Go look that word up, and then reread Mr. Bauder's article.
GraphicTruth, Your entire post reveals your a glaring lack of understanding of the group known as fundamentalists and the issue of the movie.
Concerning fundamentalism, you side with the media by viewing the whole in light of a few misguided individuals.
Concerning the movie, you expose your own ignorance in regards to the issues that fundamental Christians have raised against it. This ignorance probably stems from reading the secular media perspective which has not given full disclosure or representation of the interview they have conducted with individual fundamentalists. The casting of Chad Allen has been a secondary point of contention. The primary issue has been the message of the movie because it fails to clearly present the Gospel that the five missionaries gave their lives to proclaim.
Please do your research more carefully before posting next time.
Of course, a CAREFUL reading results in advice against firebombing.
If CAREFUL reading is the standard then Larry fails his own test because he conflates my arguments with someone else's & attributes their words to me. If the author of the blog himself cannot live up to his own simple standard, how can he expect others (especially those not versed in the lofty tools of Rhetoric) to do what he himself cannot? Larry, go reread the comments; when you get to mine & the other guy's, the word you should try is "d'oh!".
If you use an incindiary word like "firebomb", you'd better pay extra close attention to how you use it. Kevin was careless & irresponsible with his words. If someone were to be inspired by them I would expect Kevin to be arrested, tried & convicted along with the person who threw the bomb, as the penalty for his carelessness.
As for this:
What if someone reads his words, decides he is right, and fails to come to church and hear the gospel message. Will he then accept the consequences of his untruthful statement, that his untruthful statements have turned someone away from the life-giving message of the gospel?
Yes of course I take full responsibility for the effects of my words. Why can't Kevin?
Kevin was calling for restraint. So am I.
If the people you associate with are so full of violence & hatred that "don't go firebombing anybody, OK?" is something they really need to hear, you've got serious problems in your congregations. It's like the old adage about not putting beans up your nose. Nobody had the least thought about firebombs until Kevin brought it up (at least I hope that's the case; if not, you really do need to have a chat with the FBI).
I honestly don't believe Kevin or you intended any harm to anyone & that you'd be shocked if anyone went & took action of a violent nature. But your carelessness & lack of understanding about the power your words can have just amazes me.
What on earth possessed Kevin to use firebombing as an image of restraint?
I didn't conflate anyone's words. Rather than making two posts, I only made one. I believe, if you look, you will find that they are in different paragraphs.
Secondly, the "people we associate with" are not full of violence and hate. I challenge you to find one story of someone associated with us who is violent, or acted violently. In fact, go to Kevin's site and read his own words on violence. He posted a link to them so that you can see.
Your side overreacted on this because you failed to understand rhetoric. It is unfortunate that it has lasted this long. To me, this was a funny story about someone complaining to the FBI that someone made a comment of protection for them.
Whether you like it or not, Kevin advocated restraint. He argued against overreacting. His comments would certainly be appropriate yet again since many are overreacting to his comment.
Why did he use firebombing? Probably because in past generations, and among some groups of people, firebombing is what you do when you don't get your own way. It would be similar telling someone who has a bad hair day not to go jump off the bridge. It would be similar to telling someone not to go postal. It is a rhetorical device that is easily understood by those without an agenda.
BTW, scalefree, the whole "former Christian" thing was interesting. I wonder why you make such a claim. I think theologically, it is impossible to be a former Christian. What caused you to leave the truth of Scripture?
Larry, for someone who claims expertise in rhetoric, you aren't very good at it. If your defense lies in the superiority of your rhetoric, I'd start looking for a new defense if I was you.
One guy, who for some strange reason won't even sign his name, accuses me of being a bigot. Are you afraid of using your name? And how in the world can he call me a bigot? How would he know? Perhaps he knows me, but his hiding behind anonymity makes that impossible to find out. How foolish and absurd. He complains about the power of words. What if someone reads his words, decides he is right, and fails to come to church and hear the gospel message. Will he then accept the consequences of his untruthful statement, that his untruthful statements have turned someone away from the life-giving message of the gospel?
It's me who's been lecturing you on the power of words & calling you to accept that they can have consequences beyond your intentions. It's someone else who called you a bigot. You combined us into one person.
If an admitted master of rhetoric gets simple details like who said what wrong, what chance do the rest of us have of understanding your intention of warning us away from violence instead of encouraging us towards it?
BTW, scalefree, the whole "former Christian" thing was interesting. I wonder why you make such a claim. I think theologically, it is impossible to be a former Christian. What caused you to leave the truth of Scripture?
I reject your theological framework so the whole "can I be a former Christian" thing is about as relevant to me as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As for why, I decided it wasn't true.
Scalefree,
Your anger is not becoming, not even for a former Christian. The guy posted anonymously said he agreed with teh former poster, which was you. Furthermore, in writing my post, I added to it that caused the confusion you are experiencing.
Second, I never claimed to be a master of rhetoric. Far from it. My whole point was that one didn't have the be a master of rhetoric to understand what Kevin was saying.
Lastly, I was curious about the former Christian comment because I was interested. You made the comment and decided it had some relevance to your comments. I kind of figured you decided it wasn't true. But I was wonderign why, what brought you to that point.
I'm not angry, but I am upset that you continue to dodge my question & refuse to answer it. I understand why; if there was a chance my words could be used to prosecute me for conspiracy to commit arson I'd not want to answer the question either.
But it's not me that's under the gun, it's you. Well actually it's Kevin, but he's not talking & you are so you'll have to do. So I'll ask the question again (& again & again if necessary): if somebody actually goes out & bombs ETE (or some other substitute target, maybe a neighborhood gay bar) & says "I was inspired by that preacher who said to firebomb the gays", what would you say to the prosecutor, judge & jury? What would you say to the victims & their families?
I haven't dodged your question at all. I didn't make the comments, so I didn't feel compelled to answer it. My whole post was only to reference the humor in complaining to the FBI that someone said something in your defense.
But to the point, there is no court, judge, or jury in this country that would find Kevin even remotely liable for the acts of selfish, unrighteous people. There is no way that any reasonable person would construe Kevin's words as an incitement to do anything involving violence. He has made his position clear, and you should accept it. You don't have to agree with him, but he has made his point clear. Kevin's participation in this case would be laughed out of the courtroom. I imagine you know that.
One of the greatest problems of this generation is the complete lack of personal responsibility. If someone goes and bombs something, then they are wrong. No one made them do it, and no one else is responsible. Let's deal with reality; let's not play the blame game.
"Evangelicals scare me worse than Muslim extremists..."
Thanks for jumping on this point Larry. I'm glad that Josh isn't working for the State Department. I just checked out their list of known terrorist groups . So far, no Christian Evangelical groups on the list. Not even a fighting fundamentalist. Of course, next time I go to Greenville, SC, I don't expect my wife to say "Be careful honey...I just wish you were going to Baghdad...these Greenville trips really worry me."
anon- my perception of fundamentalism is informed both by the writings of fundementalists themselves and of course what you refer to as "secular" voices; those Christian and secular viewpoints that take exeption with the fundimentalist viewpoint.
Mostly I feel that fundamenalism tends, as a theology, to "strain at gnats and swallow camels." This is simply a reducto ad absurdum; a case wherein "focus on the family" is not pure enough for the purists.
I read the things y'all write, the things you consider important enough to argue over, and the things you take as matters of faith and I feel at one with Christ in having difficulty taking you seriously.
In raising the letter over the spirit, the minutia over the message, in your pompous declarations that you sadducees are superior examplars of the faith than that 'doubting Thomas,', that compromiser, that awful HUMINIST, Billy Graham, you reveal yourselves to be the wrinkled, bitter prunes Christ spoke so disapprovingly of.
The message of the movie, for instance, is not the gospal. It is about the people telling the gospel.
Why do you people always insist on turning good stories into army hygene films?
Consider yourslf taunted in the name of Christ.
Graphic,
I think you are confusing fundamentalism as an idea with what some fundamentalists say or do. They are not the same. I am sure that you probably do not claim the attitudes and actions of those who go by your general name (whatever that is).
You say that fundamentalism strains at gnats and swallows camels. It is true that some who use the name fundamentalists do that, but that is not what fundamentalism is about. Fundamentalism is about, ironically enough, the fundamentals, not the peripherals. The fact that some have become sidetracked is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
If you have difficulty "taking us seriously," then you are not at one with Christ in that perspective. In accusing fundamentalists of raising letter over spirit, you have grossly misidentified the genius of fundamentalism. We fundamentalists take the Bible very seriously, and I will welcome exegesis of the Bible anyday and anytime that someone is willing to participate in it.
Take Billy Graham for instance. Graham has unabashedly compromised the gospel by his declaration that Roman Catholicism preaches the biblical gospel. That is a not a small matter. It costs the lives of thousands who realized that the Catholic church did not teach Christ's message of salvation. The biblical gospel is the crux of what the message is about. Once you give up the evangel, as Graham has done, you give up the right to be called an evangelist. For sixty years, Graham has moved away from teh sincerity and purity of the gospel. He is a man of great integrity and character, it appears. But that cannot offset the compromise of the gospel message. Graham was urged by godly men from many different places to remain true to Christ and he failed. That is not a "letter of the law," or a "minutae."
You say that this movie was not about the gospel but about people telling the gospel. Then tell us why the gospel they were telling isn't in there? I am willing to give the film more slack on this than some, but it is a major point. The gospel for which these men died was turned into a social mission to rid a tribe of violence.
You call us wrinkled, bitter prunes. Why the attack? Why use such unloving language? I don't quite understand why you feel it necessary to call people names who disagree with you. You say the fundamentalists shouldn't do that, but you are guilty of it yourself.
The integrity of the message is affected by the messenger. Would you drink water from a dirty cup? Would you eat prime rib from the alley pavement? Of course not. So why do we think the gospel is less important? To the point at hand, why would anyone even consider a homosexual activist who stands against everything Christ stood for to play the role of a man who gave his life for the gospel that frees one from homosexuality? That makes no sense. The messenger is important.
Lastly, please don't use my blog to taunt anyone, and especially not to do it in the name of Christ. I find that blasphemous to use Christ's name for such an approach to dialogue, and would request you not do it on this sight.
Larry, (and others)
I agree that Dr. Bauder was probably kidding. But to make light of their decision to call authorities (in this day and age) rolls you into the camp of the inconsiderate (if not worse).
As a friend pointed out, is it wrong for someone from Oklahoma City to be concerned about a 'firebomb' comment, even when joking? Let's see--what US city has had a building bombed, by another American? What US city had a Jewish temple 'firebombed' by another American? Hmmm...Oklahoma City. So, their frame of reference might be a little different than Dr. Bauder's, and what is 'tongue in cheek' to one is cause for concern in another.
All you Fundamentalists posting in various web blogs deserve to be sued for perpetrating Hate. I sincerely hope that Chad Allen and ETE have their attorneys printing everything posted and reviewing it for legal action against the ring leaders this hateful blogging.
As an American for equal rights for all, I find all this blog activity disturbing and view such actions as an intentional Hate crime, slander and defamation of character(s).
It is not illegal in the US to be Homosexual or Gay as a natural born sexual oreintation. You all deserve to pay dearly for your inappropriate actions.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to 1) sign your name rather than hide behind anonymity, and 2) tell us where I have been hateful.
What have I said that has been the least bit hateful? I believe in equal rights for all. I think homosexuals have every legal right to live as they choose. That was never the issue in this discussion.
If you think this is hate speech, then I would suggest you put your bias aside and go back and read what was actually said. With a clear mind, you will easily see that this has not been hateful in the least. We have merely expressed our disagreement with a hiring choice that was made by someone else. Last I checked, that is called freedom of speech. In this country, we are allowed to express our opinions, just as you are allowed to express yours. Are you really opposed to freedom of speech, or just using a rhetorical device to try to make your point?
Lastly, I would ask if I should report you to the FBI for your threat towards us about "paying dearly" for what we have done?
Christ is talking to me, and he says that Sam Alito will "probably" overturn Roe Vs. Wade.....Probably.
Clearly we can no longer tolerate intolerance. (Especially not from religious right-wingers.) God bless the United States of the Offended.
Thanks for the entertaining blog Larry. I needed a little levity to break up my study this afternoon. FWIIW, I agree with everything you said in your initial post.
Christ is talking to me
This may be your first problem.
I've read Kevin's apology & I think it's sincere & sufficient. As I said before, I didn't think he had any intention of provoking violence but his words were carelessly chosen. He's stepped up to the plate & taken responsibilty for them, which is what I wanted from the start. It wasn't me he wronged, but FWIW I accept his apology. He still doesn't have comments turned on at his blog (not that I blame him, it would probably be filled with noise & emotion) so I'm saying it here.
Oh & Larry?
Lastly, I would ask if I should report you to the FBI for your threat towards us about "paying dearly" for what we have done?
That'd be "no", because the guy clearly stated how he felt you should pay:
All you Fundamentalists posting in various web blogs deserve to be sued for perpetrating Hate.
Larry: I'd like to report a crime. This anonymous guy in a weblog comment said that we should be sued for something we posted. He said we should "pay dearly".
FBI: OK, and where's the crime?
Rhetoric. It always looks easy, until you try it.
That last one was from me, just for the record.
You just don't get it, do you, Scalefree? My comments were pointing out the absurdity of the whole thing. Of course, I shouldn't call the FBI over that. It would be the most silly, crazy thing I could do.
And that was my original point. There was no threat made in Kevin's post, and only a minor threat made here. If you were comparing the two, the comments here were far more threatening then what Kevin said. Kevin said you "shouldn't" do something. The guy here said he hoped someone would do something. Clearly, any thinking reader can see the difference. Of course, if we had thinking readers, this would never have been an issue to begin with.
If you don't think an encouragement to be sued is significant, then call up insurance companies and find out why people pay for liability policies to cover this type of silly lawsuit.
There was nothing said that could be sued over. This was clearly a non-story from the beginning, hyped by oversensitive people. Let's move on.
I thought his apology was sincere and heartfelt.
Unforturatly, right after I read I came across a news aricle on all of the states that are rushing to pass laws to prohibit protesting at funerals. This is all because of Westboro Baptist Church pastor Fred Phelps hate filled protests at Iraq Veteran's funerals and Coal Miners funerals. He and his followers are so angry about homosexuality, that they don't even let familys morn.
Many concervative Christians probably aren't as bad as Fred Phelps, but are still very angry about homosexualy. Angry enough to forget that anger is one of the seven deadly sins. Angry enough to forget that Jesus said "Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."
I'm not perfect and certainly wouldn't want to be judged by the "condemnation-by-single-bible-verse" criteria that many use to judge homosexuality.
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
Post a Comment