(A TRIBUTE TO YESTERDAY'S COMMENT-THREAD)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
DEFINITIVE
Available now from Kress Biblical ResourcesWestminster Bookstore
Search This Blog
Finding THAT article
Must-Have Books
DEFINITIVE
Available now from Kress Biblical Resources
Amazon also has it. See details at Kress
Also available at Logos
WTG at Westminster
Available on Kindle and in Logos
View readers' favorite Kindle excerptsThe Rules
|
Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.
See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.
If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(339)
-
▼
July
(30)
- A quick beef
- "Tongues" across the water: response to Adrian, pa...
- Worldliness: lax doctrine's first evil fruit
- "Tongues" across the water: response to Adrian, pa...
- Back to bidniss
- HT: Stephen Hesselman
- "Tongues" across the water: response to Adrian, pa...
- Red herrings: tongues of angels
- Grace fully sufficient
- On the virtue of simplicity
- We Win a Warnie (part deux)
- meme!
- Only "only"
- A note about the stuff in the sidebar
- My boys (unintentionally) give me a righteous slap...
- The Great Exchange (Part 2)
- The Great Exchange (Part 1)
- About that series of posts I keep promising . . .
- When an apostle "gets hot"
- An update on where I am right now
- Poorly-equipped, but well-placed (plus an aside on...
- Cran Berry Sauce
- God's glorious goodness
- Bad day
- Update on Jeff Williams
- How to deal with posts you don't like—and the flip...
- Back to our roots
- All wet: an essay about miracles
- Labels: love 'em, hate 'em
- Toying with the gospel
-
▼
July
(30)
- "tone" (48)
- 50 words or less (75)
- apologetics (95)
- apostasy (49)
- atonement (33)
- bible (61)
- blogspotting (31)
- book review (77)
- bumpable (51)
- Calvinism (59)
- catholicity (sic) (11)
- centuri0n (539)
- Classic posts reposted (47)
- Commercials (20)
- compromise (38)
- contextualization (32)
- da Gifts (118)
- Dan Phillips (952)
- death (15)
- depravity (20)
- Detritus from the combox (11)
- discernment (37)
- discipleship (98)
- doctrine (22)
- Dose of Spurgeon (636)
- doubt (23)
- Elijah (17)
- emerg* (33)
- emergent (81)
- epistemology (2)
- evangelicalism (37)
- evangelism (79)
- fads (42)
- faith (43)
- gambling (11)
- Gospel (185)
- grace (30)
- heresy (55)
- hermeneutics (49)
- household chores (15)
- Jeff Williams (16)
- justification (31)
- like ministry (22)
- local church (154)
- love of God (29)
- mawwiage (42)
- merciless beatings (42)
- missiology (19)
- Mystery Quotation (15)
- Next (44)
- paradigm-shifting (17)
- pastoral ministry (121)
- pastoring (17)
- PCRT 2009 Sacramento (13)
- Pecadillo (27)
- penal substitution (10)
- Phil Johnson (614)
- Po-Motivators (35)
- politics (46)
- PostModernism (100)
- preaching (92)
- Proverbs (64)
- redneck atheism (15)
- resurrection (18)
- Sanctification (86)
- sin (27)
- sola fide (20)
- sola Scriptura (65)
- stay or go (23)
- temptation (14)
- The Truth War (33)
- theology (69)
- Titus + Timothy (32)
- TIWIARN (128)
- truth (61)
- unity (25)
- wisdom of God (27)
- worldview (25)
- WYWTWIWYWTT (34)
Disclaimer
 |
| The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always. |
Copyright Notice
©2006-2018 by Phil Johnson and the PyroManiacs. All rights reserved.
37 comments:
Now that is going to keep me from going to sleep, I can't stop laughing! BTW, just got done reading "dead right" from 2005 again, then came here, I can't stand it...rofllllll
I just saw J Frank Norris, no, no, stop it! It hurts!
Is the old guy Frank supposed to be Frank in about 20 years or so?
Brad
I don't appreciate your condoning the abuse of octogenarians.
Two chuckles and a belly laugh!
Good one!
Josh
My head hurts...
"Is the old guy Frank supposed to be Frank in about 20 years or so?"
I was thinking more 20 years ago. :D
Oh, that's too funny! I'm just glad I had nothing to do with that mess. I'm a virgo; I don't believe in confrontation.
Having graduated from a Fundamentalist Bible College, I felt strange reading the comments from both sides of the controversy over "being offended" by the punkster girl's picture. Why?
The Fundamentalists I knew in school threw around phrases like, "that offends me" or "that is offensive" as if those phrases were beaded necklaces at Mardi Gras.
It was as if "being offended" was some sort of sacred, holy state of being that could not be overridden, not even questioned; it was absolute. In reality it was just a verbal device Fundamentalists employed to maintain their version of social order--and keep others "in line."
Since moving into the Evangelical camp, so to speak, I have come to appreciate the emphasis on Biblical reasons for accepting or rejecting things, not just taking umbrage at whatever does not fit one's view of social worthiness.
Ironically, to adopt many of the "standards" of the Fundamentalists I have known, one does not even need to know the Bible. One just has to hang around with the Fundamentalists and adopt the same attitude toward whatever they are "offended" by, and one becomes a member of the club in good standing. And of course, the standards are unquestionable because, in their minds, they are certifiably Biblical.
If something makes me uncomfortable, I tend to ignore it or go elsewhere. Something about forbearance and not wanting to strain out gnats motivates me. Oh, and having been a fellow student among Fundamentalist kids for those four years in Bible College, I saw that all the extra-Biblical "standards" did nothing to prevent fleshly indulgence.
impacted wisdom truth wrote:
"It was as if "being offended" was some sort of sacred, holy state of being that could not be overridden, not even questioned; it was absolute. In reality it was just a verbal device Fundamentalists employed to maintain their version of social order--and keep others "in line.""
I've been there too. They say they are offended then quote Scripture saying not to offend a brother. What they don't realize is what the Bible means by not offending a brother. Offend in the Biblical sense does not mean "shock" or "dismay," as they take it. It means to lead another Christian to sin against their conscience (to "stumble"). What the Fundamentalists are "offended" by does not tempt them to sin at all and doesn't fall into the Biblical category.
So, to paraphrase Luther, "Offend [in the Biblical sense] boldly, but boldly still love." I think the comic book cover qualifies.
That was waaaay too funny! And, I am a regular over at SharperIron. Great job, Phil! :)
"Go away! Go away! We don't want you."
Sure you don't. Whatever. You know good and well that Shepherds Conference would have like 38 people if the fundamentalists decided to boycott.
Heheheheh
Frank,
Don't you think mid calf is a bit high for that ladies skirt? Oh, and the anti-vegan prisoner's suit it torn provocatively. Needless to say I am offended.
al sends
*Looks at Sams' icon*
AH!
The dog! He's got THE Dog!!!!!
Ack!
Ladies and gentlemen, Phil Johnson has picked up the stick and he is approaching the nest of angry hornets... he's moving the stick... moving the stick towards the nest, and... yes! He has poked the stick into the nest, and is shaking it! He's shaking it hard, and he's laughing!....
The angry hornet's nest has already been stirred by the administrator of SI. The post has already been started there at: http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2627
I was going to say, "I'm offended", but somebody already got that joke, then somebody else got that joke, and now it would be beating the joke to death to say "I'm offended."
I thank my lucky stars, however, that Phil did not pick a cover in which the offense was also related to alcohol. Or dancin'. Or cussin'. Or girls that do.
Dan: it's funny how he laughs when he does stuff like this, no?
Mister Larry,
I've been needling fundamentalists for several years, and they almost always respond with grace and good humor. There are some wackos in their midst who are exceptions to the rule, of course, but most of the regulars at SharperIron.org have my utmost respect.
Few longtime Pyro readers will miss the stark contrast between the fundies' response to being lampooned, and the response (not so long ago) from a certain group of tipplers who are well known for dishing out more than they can take.
Note, too, that the teeming hordes of postmodernized innocent bystanders who were absolutely traumatized when an image depicting violence was employed as satire against a group of iconoclasts have not raised a peep of protest when the exact same joke is made against the fundies.
I said at the time that most of those protests were mere posturing and that no one really believed I was promoting (or even downplaying) domestic violence.
I rest my case.
Oh, That was Mr. Johnson not Mr. Turk who posted that anti-vegan comic. I redirect my outrage at the larger target. Metaphorically speaking...
Al sends
OK. I guess I should be seething, belligerent, seeing red, angry, overheating, overwheening, ticked-off, freaking out, foaming at the mouth, . . .
But, that guy that is saying "Who's the weaker brother now?" O man, that has absolutely cracked me up. "I've got your label . . ."
I'll be in California next week. You'd better be watching for two guys wearing stripes. JOKE, JOKE, JOKE. Don't call Jack Bauer or anything. I'm just kidding.
Like I said on SI to some of the nervous "young fundamentalists":
One side says the other side is legalistic, nuts, pharisaical, overwheening, etc. We say they are loose, left-leaning, new-evangelical, worldly, etc.
Try reading a little church history and you'll find that a whole lot of men have argued a whole lot of things and its certainly been a whole lot rougher at times. I will even admit that a lot that was written about me at Pyromaniacs actually "cracked me up." Kent and I have talked and had some laughs about it.
That is not to say we are not serious about these things. But, in the end life goes on. We preach, love our wives, play with our kids, give out the Gospel, serve our respective churches and the Lord, and enjoy the Lord.
Frank, I am offended that you were offended before I was offended. I'm telling Ma.
Phil, I am offended that you would post not only a comic book showing a prisoner's rippling biceps, thereby probably causing impure thoughts among Internet savvy inmates at San Quentin, but also that you would trivialize an important issue as being offended in a comic book. Are you surreptitously on the take from Marvel or Warner Brothers? The use of the word "tippler" was also highly inappropriate. If someone heads out now for too much gin and tonic, you will be personally responsible.
Besides, I am the only one here permitted to use archaic language. I feel like I am surrounded by a bunch of jackanapes.
And, in fairness to the Fundies, they aren't the ones leading the SBC charge into Prohibition 2.0, right?
LOL
I'm trying to decide who's who...
Somehow I missed the Linscott shot, and now I really am offended. perturbed even.
Well about that Prohib 2.0 thing...in any merger there's an eater and an eatee. Somtimes its not always the biggest critter that does the eating.
I completely missed Chiquita in the background and just about spit-checked the monitor.
HA!
Josh
Good show, Phil. We need a comic cover at least once a month. What do you say?
Oh, man! When I saw the title (Back to our roots), I thought this was going to be a post about pterodactyls.
Good comic cover though!
I am still wondering when you great theologians are going to talk about the important stuff... like whether or not Eve had a bellybutton.
Oh... and don't make me mad. Apparently it is a scary thing to make a homeschool mother mad. Way scarier than making a group of breastfeeding women angry... according to Challies.
I'm sorry... did I just type breast? I hope that doesn't cause the weaker brother to stumble. Sorry... no really.
Holy Smokes! Lisa made a FUNNY!
I ... I think I'm scandalized.
Did preacherman just tell Phil Johnson to, "Try reading a little church history?" WOW!
We have officially jumped the shark.
Ya know, pictures keep changing around here. I'm sure this morning the one in the comic book cover said "Home Sweet Home." Now it has some tart and her mongrel dog.
Is this site haunted?
Phil,
You're both Pyro and a gas. Infinite laughs, I win, you can't beat infinite.
From a worldly point of view, you ought to be very proud of yourself. Really, masterful. Textbook dismissal and ostracization; no one can mess with your genius. Kudos. Bravo. Three thumbs up. Your touch with opposition, maestro, the Bernstein of blogging. And the way you have kept the momentum going (stunned silence; choked...)
I've not read this kind of adoration of a person (you) since a Jack Hyles lovefest. Believe your paper clippings, your headlines. Believe your fortune cookies. Just believe in Phil. Move over Rudyard Kipling!!!
One warning though: Watch for the paparazzi.
Rich Ryan,
You might want to read my post again. Try paying a little more attention to what I wrote this time. Smiles. I wasn't writing to Phil. I was responding to some nervous YF's at SI.
BTW, what if I was writing to Phil? Does he have the "corner" on reading church history?
Doh!
Taliesin wrote: Offend [in the Biblical sense] when he should have written: Offend [not in the Biblical sense]
I shouldn't post that early in the morning. Further evidence is that I just now got "impacted wisdom truth."
p-mcbc,
My mistake, I missed the connection between the SI note and the CH comment.
Does Phil have the corner? Probably not. He's approaching the whole room.
Most of the guys I know did not ask Phil to do CH on their ordination council because he's read more than most of us could even hope to and the really challenging part is that he remembers most if not ALL of it.
I'll go back to, "Nothing to see here, move on" now.
Phil,
Thanks for your personal comments to my post. The thread over at SharperIron was closed due to a few who seem to be eager in taking offense over anything that isn't 'in line' with their thinking, and wanted to gripe even more about the supposedly immodest content of your original posting of a picture of a punked out young woman and a dog. Worse than that, Mr. Brandenburg got the ad-hominem comment of the year ("and Phil is in spin mode, instant revisionism, which is accepted by the mind-numbed kool-aid drinkers who want an admiring glance.") and ended up getting that thread closed over at SharperIron (thank you, Greg Linscott). So much for the spiritually-minded fundamentalists who want to maintain, even enforce, the 'standard' of what's right and what's not, yet they cannot control the tone of their own language.
Post a Comment