link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e339/mongrelhorde/favicon.jpg" /> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d18785001\x26blogName\x3dMongrel+Horde:++Just+Plain+Mutts!\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://mongrelhorde.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://mongrelhorde.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d1067759869111460181', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, April 13, 2006

I Read Blogs


A roundup of some interesting bits from the blogosphere (with Davidic commentary):

James White proves that N.T. Wright is even worse than I thought. He claims that even those such as his "friend" Marcus Borg who don't believe in the bodily resurrection are "Christians" who "love Jesus?." And this guy is supposed to be the Church of England's star hitter? Our consistory wouldn't even let him be our church janitor.

This doesn't make Wright useless in an academic sense (his defense of the resurrection and historicity of the gospel narratives contra the Jesus Seminar is helpful), but let's face it: he is not a beacon of light for Christendom to follow. We should look elsewhere for reformation of the church and sound doctrinal development in this new millennium. He is not fit to pastor over souls.

The "catholicity" over at ReformedCatholicism.com becomes an even smaller micro-sect as Douglas Wilson is criticized for being too "James White." If Doug Wilson is not Reformed Catholic enough for these folks, who then can be saved?

In political news, Comedy Central has censored South Park from showing a cartoon depiction of Mohammed. Gutlessness is being brought to new heights these days in the face of such indefensible Islamofascist insanity. If these rioting, slobbering animals can win the war against free speech against the West, then they can win any war they want against the West.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

8 Comments:

  • David,

    You are a nut, disagreeing with Douglas Wilson does not make either one of us any less than brothers and what you fail to realize is that we consider other Christians brothers even when we disagree. There is no "micro-sect" here to complain about. Your comments are absolutely ridiculous.

    By Blogger Kevin D. Johnson, at 9:41 AM  

  • Kevin,

    I wasn't really suggesting you didn't consider Wilson a Christian. I'm sorry you missed the humor in my biblical allusion.

    By Blogger David Gadbois, at 10:44 AM  

  • What was it you were suggesting, then?

    By Blogger Kevin D. Johnson, at 11:04 AM  

  • From what I understand, you would even consider James White a Christian, but you wouldn't consider him a "party man" to your Reformed Catholicism project. Similarly, comparing Wilson to White would seem to have the same implication concerning Wilson, although to a lesser degree.

    My "who then can be saved" comment was a little, humorous jab at the narrow, obscure ideological circle that "Reformed Catholicism" seems to be.

    In other words, you don't have to call those who disagree with you non-Christian or apostate in order to be guilty of a sectarian spirit. The proof is in how you treat us non-"Reformed Catholics" (according to your definition, of course). Y'all have made it plain that we're just Enlightenment-influenced, gnostic, knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectual Fundamentalist closet Baptists here who don't have appreciation for your sophisticated brand of theological nuance. Now Wilson gets lumped in since he didn't pull the party line.

    By Blogger David Gadbois, at 11:52 AM  

  • South Park was censored for portraying Muhammad? Isn't this the same show that has a gutless, wussy "Jesus Christ" as a regular character?

    I wonder why Christianity is the only religion of which it's OK to make fun. The guy who did the voice of Chef, I read, left when they decided to make fun of Scientology, stating as his reason that he didn't think religion should be mocked, but all those years of mocking our Lord and Savior didn't appear to both him very much!

    By Blogger Travis White, at 2:21 PM  

  • I certainly question whether referring to Muslim terrorists as "rioting, slobbering animals" is in the confines of God's Law. While I join you in outrage over those who murder in the name of their false religion, I cannot help but speak out against such language from someone devoted to (so far as I can tell) the same doctrine as myself. After all, no one can blame an animal for killing, but God does and shall judge the men who both kill and exercise hate, as many in the middle east are guilty of.

    That out of the way, being a South Park fan, I was disappointed that their episode was censored, although it did make the episode much funnier. It was a sad move on Comedy Central's part to censor what amounted to a harmless 2 seconds, especially considering that South Park HAS SHOWN MUHAMMED BEFORE! One thing I have always enjoyed about South Park is that it is an "equal opportunity offender". They depict Christian leaders as money-hungry crooks, they depict muslims as looney terrorists, they depict Scientology as a scam (which it is), and none of it is to make a message, it's just for us to laugh at. The point of showing Muhammed was to say "Look, I showed Muhammed. It was him in a rediculous situation, and it was funny. So what?" It would have been a very funny joke, had it been shown.

    I've been watching the Reformed Catholic crowd lately, and I'm as confused as you are with them. I'd say (coming from the Roman Church), if they want to be Catholic, Rome's doors are open. If they want to be Reformed, maybe they should adhere to the decisions of the Reformed tradition and stop insulting everyone in the Reformed tradition and referring to us as "Fundamentalism baptists". I found your blog in one of the comments about the 2nd commandment, and wholeheartedly enjoyed your defense of it against what amounts to idolatry. I made a point to bookmark your blog, and am sure I'll enjoy reading it!

    By Blogger Gavin, at 3:59 PM  

  • HAH! Typical Reformedville crap..."I'm confused about the Reformed Catholicism crowd but doggonit that aint gonna stop me from issuing the standard all too Reformed critique!"

    Whatever...

    By Blogger Kevin D. Johnson, at 1:38 PM  

  • Kevin,

    Gavin and I are not "confused" in the sense of not understanding what you are saying and why you are wrong. We are confused about why you folks would embrace such indefensible error with so much gusto.

    By Blogger David Gadbois, at 4:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home