CENSORED!!!!
I have been Censored!!!! Emergent No has ban me from posting any comments on their site. I pointed out a couple of things about how harsh they tend to be as well as their comedic self contradictions about their understating of a woman's role to be submissive and not in authority over men, yet they reprimand men and "teach" hem all the time through their blog. I also told them they did not really have a foot to stand on as they critiqued McLarens book, I just told them they might want to wait until it comes out so they could actually know what it says before slamming it. I guess they did not like that so the abomination that causes desolation has been cast from the Holy Temple of Emergent No. Oh Well.
Pax
Stephen
posted by Mary Liz Ingram @ 9:56 AM
5 Comments:
Stephen could it be your use of foul language while commenting on how mean hearted those ladies are caused the censorship? And in the mean time let me say even the most Christ hating of men I know of would not use that language in front of their wife let alone someone else's.
You know, "Square" I would agree with you if Emergent No would have censored me after the first post, the one in which I apparently commited word genocide. No they did not do it after that they waited for three more posts to be logged and then they pulled the plug. No, I have another theory, I brought up some things that made sense, and in a microcosom of biggotted unbridled slander things that make sense are not usually welcome. As far as your comment about the language, the word bitching is not that big of a deal. I am not apologetic in the least for using that word, what they do is bitching, moaning and complaining. They do not carry constructive conversations, they make authoritative truth claims and are very millitant in regards to their exclusivist theology. I have rarely seen grace love and peace on their site. And by the way I read the post to my wife before I posted it and she chuckled, some of us do not take ourselves so seriously. I believe this is the last I am going to address this issue, I feel myself becoming argumentative and that is not a road on which I want to travel.
Pax
Stephen
Stehen; It is not my intention to be argumentative but to point out the use of vulgar language is not the way to get a point accross.
James 1:26If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. ESV
I am not questioning your commitment to Christ by the use of language however, any hope for understanding can be lost when it is used. What I have found helpful is after a couple of discussions if a person is still unmovable is to leave that person alone and pray for them. The only thing further communication does is require them to dig in heels deeper. I still remain friends with that person but will not engage in that subject. Just a suggestion.
God's peace be with you. †
Square,
I appreciate your comment, I do however question your interpretation of that verse. Does bridleing ones tongue mean that they do not curse? I see no reason why that is so, our societies obsession with the role of profanities is very contextual. I interpret the verse with the focus on "controling" the tongue. This is much of the reason why I first commented on the NO website. I said nothing without control, but because some deem the word I used as a profanity some feel the need to repremand me. Which would be worse using a profanity in a conversational manner, or berrated people often without ever using profanity, and even using church and biblical language to do so. That was my quam with the No site. It it the tool or how we sue it that matters?
Pax
Stephen
sorry, use it, typo
Stephen
Post a Comment
<< Home