Comments on: When Bad People Need A Crutch

By: Headless Unicorn Guy

Headless Unicorn Guy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:12:13 +0000

I donâ€™t believe that all abusers have the disorder…

But that sort of Egotism does predispose you to be abusive. When you are a GOD in your own perception and all other “people” are just THINGS to be used for your personal advantage/gain/amusement, you tell me that’s not going to turn abusive. How can you abuse NOTHINGS?

Scott Peck used to say that evil people like the church because they can get away with so muchâ€“even in the name of Jesus.

As did Chesterton and Lewis. Because that situation gives Cosmic-level justification for the Evil. “God Wills It! God Saith!”

“Nowhere do we tempt more effectively than at the very foot of the altar!” — Screwtape

By: Headless Unicorn Guy

Headless Unicorn Guy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:07:50 +0000

My church tradition (RCC) uses a special Canon Court called a “Marriage Tribunal” to hash all that out in a quasi-legal proceeding. Comes from inheriting the surviving Imperial bureaucracy when the Western Roman Empire went belly-up plus16 centuries of Church bureacuratic accretion.

I understand going before a Marriage Tribunal to determine eligibility to (re)marry is quite a hassle, and (like court verdicts in general) no matter what they decide, SOMEBODY is bound to be offended.

By: SubmittedToGod

SubmittedToGod — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:55:01 +0000

I DO have class. That’s why I didn’t print my unprintable thoughts.

As for your reply, I’m not sure I understand its relevance to my comments.

By: jeremyjanson

jeremyjanson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:47:27 +0000

â€œIf I were a woman and not a man, and I was told I couldnâ€™t use my giftings or abilities to their full extent in the body or stand in the â€œpulpitâ€ (akin to some churches not allowing women to minister at the altar â€“ which makes me wonder if Protestants have simply swapped the men-only altar for a men-only pulpit) simply because I was a woman, what would I think?â€

Now now now, just because you hold strong principles doesn’t mean you have to have no class. Remember Christ and the women with the expensive oil? Judas (he who steals from the collection box) challenged the supposed “hypocrisy” of it and Christ pointed out how what she did was, in fact, out of love.

By: jeremyjanson

jeremyjanson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:44:23 +0000

And not just that, but under careful inspection you find that it was a case of “trees, not the forest.” Most really bad things justified with or resulting from Christianitis are caused by people looking at individual passages instead of the bible as a whole from Genesis to Revelations, or at least the entirety of each book.

By: jeremyjanson

jeremyjanson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:41:54 +0000

It seems to me that all things from God are conditional, grace, including life, forgiveness of sins, and even, as you see in 1st and 2nd Samuel and the Book of Daniel, the legitimacy of rulers, and likewise, so is the legitimacy of husbands. If you treat your wife in such a horrible manner, you were never truly married to her to begin with, though she thought she was and is thus blameless for her erstwhile sexual error (you, however, are not.) See, as God has decreed, things under God only occur as under God when your heart is in it, otherwise it is illegitimate. When you practice a sacrament, but have no love or faith in it, neither God nor your own heart hold it to your account. Thus, he was never really married to her to begin with, though she was married to him. It’s not a divorce because there was no marriage to start with – she is guiltless of adultery, he is an adulterer.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:58:55 +0000

I know post-modernism is chock full of the smashing together contradictions, but I don’t think being a complementarian automatically rules out being an egalitarian. In fact, that is how I would characterize my own position. Men aren’t women and women aren’t men, but women and men are equal. In fact, this is exactly what we read in Ephesians 5. Reducing Ephesians 5 to wifely submission is a gross exegetical and theological error, an unjustifiable reduction.

Like you, Driscoll has a point. Let’s not forget that he is clearly talking only men who call them Christians. Before “going there,” conversion is necessary.

By: Jenna

Jenna — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:19:53 +0000

The part that makes me uncomfortable about his remarks is that it sounds like he’s comparing domestic violence to consensual premarital sex. To me that seems a little disrespectful to those that have experienced abuse.

By: Sarah O

Sarah O — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:40:45 +0000

Tonjes- I think you have a good point about the problem of delineating between cause and excuse, and the dangers of not doing so. I think conflating the two can bring about a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” affect. On the other hand, if something is consistently used as an excuse,then I think it stands to reason that investigation into what about that particular thing makes it such a convenient or compelling escape.

By: theo

theo — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:19:44 +0000

With 6000+ attenders each Sunday, many of whom are curious non-Christians or new converts, Driscoll is often preaching to the statistics. He assumes the makeup of the congregation roughly aligns with the general population. He says “You guys…” because, statistically, he knows they are there. He cannot possibly know the personal situation of everyone attending, but I am certain that if he were aware of a specific situation he would address it swiftly and firmly.

That said, while agreeing with the gist of his message in this sermon, I son’t care for the tone. I fear he likely harmed as many innocent sheep in the congregation as he did wolves.