tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1970027166278081430..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Let's Not Dance Around the Real IssuesPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82517282283670954882011-08-23T09:49:08.220-07:002011-08-23T09:49:08.220-07:00DJP, thanks for taking the time to reply. I apprec...DJP, thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate you're doing that.<br /><br /><i>So, which of those passages has God showing pornographic movies of people someone actually knows in someone else's head? or shows God sometimes getting it wrong?</i> I am not aware of any. However, am I correct in reading Isaiah 20:2-3 as God asking Isaiah to walk around naked? <br /><br />This in itself seems to be pornographic. How would this fit in with this articles idea the Holy Spirit would never show Driscoll such visions if God has asked people to do lewd things?<br /><br />I don't know Driscoll's track record on accuracy. If he fails at this sometimes, then he shouldn't be mentioning this at all.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060925938767524693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56725340200688502952011-08-22T13:04:06.661-07:002011-08-22T13:04:06.661-07:00(Sorry if I'm mixing up things from the multip...(Sorry if I'm mixing up things from the multiple threads on this. After a few hundred comments at once they all blend together.)<br /><br />I continue to think the most amazing thing about Driscoll's story is the vast superiority of his communication skillz over the Holy Spirit's. Somehow Driscoll is able to communicate these things to the recipient and audience with a few simple words, whereas the Holy Spirit just can't communicate it to him without showing a porno in his head.<br /><br />I never would have thought that the Holy Spirit would be incapable of just saying "Hey, she had an affair with a stranger in a hotel in 2004" or "this guy was molested by his grandfather when he was 2". What a handicap the Holy Spirit must be working under, unable to use simple words, and needing to run pornographic videos through a pastor's mind to convey simple facts. It's mind-blowingly astonishing, but hey, if Driscoll says it (and numerous commentors echo the sentiment), it must be true, right?<br /><br />Wait, no. It's not. It's not any more true than any other aspect of this absurd story.<br /><br />And frankly, if you've been intimating that the Spirit needs to communicate through (pornographic!) mental images, as though He couldn't just <i>say it</i> like you or I or billions of other sentient beings, stop being ridiculous. K thanks bye.trogdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452996348717802065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61586745662024965532011-08-22T10:39:42.922-07:002011-08-22T10:39:42.922-07:00I'd like to add a little personal anecdote to ...I'd like to add a little personal anecdote to this whole MD "porn from God" stuff if I may.<br /><br />Some years ago, whilst I was a younger man who cared little for the direction of his thoughts regarding other folks and sex etc, it wasn't uncommon for my mind to go unchecked to lurid and perverse possibilities about any half-way pretty woman who crossed my path.<br /><br />Thankfully the Lord helped my to train my mind in other directions!!!<br /><br />However, couple what became an almost automatic thought pattern about women with the idea that God speaks and tells us things outside of Scripture...well you can see where that can lead.<br /><br />I suspect (although I cannot prove) that there is a real reason why MD's "sin-cam" is so topically specific. Since he's the man in his church and since he believes God gives him further revelation I think we're seeing the natural outcome of the two.<br /><br />It's hard to not see a fall coming somewhere along the line.<br /><br />I pray not.<br /><br />Besides, can we not remember that being even a little bit wrong, one time, disqualifies MD from being permitted to make these claims, even if continuing prophecy WERE valid today?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27286387690442118312011-08-22T08:03:41.987-07:002011-08-22T08:03:41.987-07:00None of us wants to miss anything in the Bible, Jo...None of us wants to miss anything in the Bible, John.<br /><br />So, which of those passages has God showing pornographic movies of people someone actually knows in someone else's head? or shows God sometimes getting it wrong?<br /><br />Because, of course, otherwise, they're all irrelevant.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39823434664517658642011-08-22T07:46:54.504-07:002011-08-22T07:46:54.504-07:00Has anyone read how it appears God showed Elisha t...Has anyone read how it appears God showed Elisha that Hazael would be responsible for horrible things? And that those things are listed out in some detail, <i> in the Bible </i>? <br /><br />Check out 2 Kings 8:7-15.<br /><br />Particularly verses 12 & 13.<br /><br />The argument comes down to "do the gifts continue?" It's not a matter of what God will and won't show and have people talk about. <br /><br />The bible has some very graphic descriptions of horrible things. Has this been completely forgotten by the authors of this blog? (see Judges 19:27-29 Acts 1:18 for starters)Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060925938767524693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49026296642091045432011-08-20T10:48:10.563-07:002011-08-20T10:48:10.563-07:00Uh, really, Gregory, it just doesn't require a...Uh, really, Gregory, it just doesn't require any more work. The reason for recounting the visions which you give is wholly insufficient context to justify Driscoll's words.<br /><br />Let me paraphrase the post to which DJP linked:<br /><br /><i>Well, okay, I suppose the one exception would be if, in the lectures or notes, Driscoll says,<br /><br />"Okay now, I just realized, Those visions I recounted are chock full of mystical mumbo-jumbo and irresponsible, potentially disastrous implications. Don't even listen to them! <b>Obviously</b> the Holy Spirit didn't put a prurient vision in my head. And even <b>more</b> obviously, neither I nor anyone can go around accusing people of adultery, batter, or for pity's sake <b>molestation (!)</b> and saying 'Jesus told me' unless the accuracy rate of these visions actually <b>is</b> 100%."<br /><br />Does Driscoll say that in the lectures? Perhaps in the notes? Anyone? Bueller?<br /><br />Didn't think so. </i><br /><br />I mean, honestly, Gregory. You have to search real hard for a biblical template to understand this sort of "weird experience"? Really?Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90696503313472469292011-08-20T09:49:16.280-07:002011-08-20T09:49:16.280-07:00Oops. Did it again.
Gregory C. DickisonOops. Did it again.<br /><br />Gregory C. DickisonUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670308848598165138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87392669279646160832011-08-20T09:47:26.214-07:002011-08-20T09:47:26.214-07:00I don't know why my last comment posted as &qu...I don't know why my last comment posted as "Unknown." It was moi.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670308848598165138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2861293249825139172011-08-20T09:45:31.362-07:002011-08-20T09:45:31.362-07:00DJP, that's not really a counterpoint. While a...DJP, that's not really a counterpoint. While an appeal to context can be a dodge and a smokescreen, it can also be an opportunity for enlightenment.<br /><br />Doug Wilson's point has not been an unqualified defense of Driscoll's comments. It has been a call to have a discussion about how to evaluate claims that many people make (including many people we consider sober-minded solid Christians). Driscoll's comments come in the midst of him having that discussion.<br /><br />Isn't it worth knowing how Driscoll evaluates his experiences? If he is saying that out in his TV audience he senses someone with hemorrhoids so send in your donations now, then, yeah, its safe to pretty quickly write him off. But if he is trying to explain to the church leadership how to minister to the flock and looking for a biblical lens through which to look at these "weird" experiences, then dismissing him requires more work.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670308848598165138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22646780196685833412011-08-20T09:09:19.931-07:002011-08-20T09:09:19.931-07:00Gregory: Counterpoint.Gregory: <a href="http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/04/ever-rising-bar-must-one-know.html" rel="nofollow">Counterpoint</a>.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29164736158051512082011-08-20T09:06:22.527-07:002011-08-20T09:06:22.527-07:00Maybe a good place to start the broader discussion...Maybe a good place to start the broader discussion is not just with a five minute clip, but with the entire four-part lecture series and the accompanying 13-page notes. It looks like Driscoll is trying to examine the Scriptures for guidance on how to evaluate a common phenomenon. He has lots in there to interact with.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670308848598165138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28192502775915678932011-08-19T22:21:43.594-07:002011-08-19T22:21:43.594-07:00Thank you for the beautiful tone in this post; thi...Thank you for the beautiful tone in this post; this is what comes to mind...<br /><br />"to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." (Ephesians 4:12-15)Tyronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17970123049581654914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36387254496998869102011-08-19T20:03:56.252-07:002011-08-19T20:03:56.252-07:00One of the so-called new atheists is referred to a...One of the so-called new atheists is referred to as "Darwin's bulldog" or some such.<br />With all respect to Mr. Johnson, as this is meant to be complimentary, the Bible appears to have a modern bulldog, and his blog bites hard.<br />Thank you Sir, for the honest, and God honoring words you pen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8702601575284540902011-08-19T13:46:34.204-07:002011-08-19T13:46:34.204-07:00"It's just not at all the same thing, and...<i>"It's just not at all the same thing, and it's not a matter of subjective categories of judging something of the same type. There is a qualitative and not merely a quantitative difference."</i><br /><br /><b>Tom Chantry FTW!</b>Aaron Snellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08551668915973379312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22581065394352781612011-08-19T12:32:29.677-07:002011-08-19T12:32:29.677-07:00"Out of the same mouth come praise and cursin..."Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be!"Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28339004277887724932011-08-19T11:50:29.826-07:002011-08-19T11:50:29.826-07:00Driscoll admits to error in his "visions"...Driscoll admits to error in his "visions". He is the cursing pastor who uses the Song of Solomon it seems as some us the book of Romans. His anger from the pulpit is legendary and we are to deduce that these other "visions" are true because he says so! I would like to meet the co adulterer. Has Driscoll met him possibly? Did they perhaps discuss this episode? Just wondering if his "vision" was more a remembrance.Chris Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959878163583711565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26290971882631442652011-08-19T10:56:45.236-07:002011-08-19T10:56:45.236-07:00Seein' that Mars Hill is really Mars Rock, I&#...Seein' that Mars Hill is really <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagus" rel="nofollow">Mars Rock</a></b>, I'm wonderin'...<br /><br /><i>Is the Life on Mars?</i><br /><br />(Cf. 1 Jn 1:1-2.)Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079209570434305168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16267762007912153022011-08-19T10:06:58.138-07:002011-08-19T10:06:58.138-07:00Phil wrote, "...not get diverted into discuss...Phil wrote, <i>"...not get diverted into discussions about specific individuals' hidden motives, their eternal destinies, and the question of whether they are truly regenerate or not?"</i><br /><br />I will certainly honor the request to desist from veering off the subject...<br /><br />...though since Turk violated the request :) -- I would just add that one's SAYING in a document that they believe in justification by faith doesn't make it so. They simply redefine the terms, as the Cardinals did who signed the "Evangelicals and Catholics" document which declares J by F.<br /><br />For the record, I didn't question anyone's eternal destiny nor regeneration.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5816495700834764652011-08-19T07:31:18.464-07:002011-08-19T07:31:18.464-07:00phx
Yes there are always people who are gullible ...phx<br /><br />Yes there are always people who are gullible in any group. In fact, probably the main group I see this attribute in, is atheists. They are incredibly gullible, to the point that they think all the complexity around them just happened by accident, like an explosion in a print shop causing an unabridged dictionary to form. And all because someone told them it was so!<br /><br />However, we can't do much to protect the gullible in that group; all we can do is point out the fallacies of those who claim to be Christian teachers but are mixing other stuff in with actual Christian beliefs.<br /><br />thanks dude.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13125176269839771592011-08-19T07:30:00.853-07:002011-08-19T07:30:00.853-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60129708190934556732011-08-19T07:19:57.267-07:002011-08-19T07:19:57.267-07:00Adam,
I see what you're saying, although I do...Adam,<br /><br />I see what you're saying, although I do disagree with the types of revelations that God would use if He were to do so...it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on that.<br /><br />I do still have one problem with what you said, though. Just because a vision is from Satan or a demon doesn't mean it is false (yikes!)...it just means it is not of the Holy Spirit. And that is the main conern that I have with this whole thing because if Driscoll isn't telling lies about his visions, then I am really left with this as the only viable option.<br /><br />At the end of the day, I am only stuck with the fact that Driscoll is either lying or receiving visions from demons. Either way, that is a cause for concern because there are many people who follow him.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10195621958000718102011-08-19T07:03:38.425-07:002011-08-19T07:03:38.425-07:00Robert, did you understand the last paragraph I wr...Robert, did you understand the last paragraph I wrote? I maintained that we can be skeptical of Driscoll <b>even if his reports are true.</b> That means we can favor the likelihood that his revelations are false, which would be satisfied by the two (theoretical!) options you say I didn't consider. I am not sure why I had to consider them since I made an argument for skepticism against the best possible defense Driscoll could make! I clearly believe that the burden of proof is on Driscoll to defeat any false-making explanation of his utterances. I hope you understand that.Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-816550191516731662011-08-19T06:01:21.243-07:002011-08-19T06:01:21.243-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.sakredkowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15652250985982301492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86591114922814467972011-08-19T05:19:08.040-07:002011-08-19T05:19:08.040-07:00phx:
Such a predator only concerns us, because of...phx:<br /><br />Such a predator only concerns us, because of those he is preying upon, not for his sake.<br /><br />Why would anyone think that the Cussing Pastor would make up visions in an effort to draw attention to himself? lol<br /><br />I occasionally personally encounter people who claim to have visions. Should I assume they are true visions from God? NO. So, should I assume that Driscoll's are? NO.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11880474909846722832011-08-19T04:52:22.414-07:002011-08-19T04:52:22.414-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.sakredkowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15652250985982301492noreply@blogger.com