Holy Shi’ite Muslim, Batman

I can’t be sure, but it seems that Doug Wilson thinks one can be disciplined for participating in a democracy:

It may be lawful, under certain limited circumstances, to vote for a Republican without fear of lawful church discipline. It can be done. Under no circumstances should you vote for a Democrat, not even the ones who allow themselves to be photographed hunting pheasants with a shotgun.

There is a fair amount of blowback over Jason Stellman’s disposition concerning Peter Leithart. To listen to his critics tell it, he’s not man enough to run Leithart out on a heretical rail, tarred and feathered and straight to hell. He simply wants to declare him out of accord. My sympathies lie with Stellman, of course. This kerfuffle reminds me of those who want to declare all Mormons “cultists,” relatively lukewarm on being content with “false religionists.” With apologies to Walter Martin, in the post-Jonestown-Manson age, I find it difficult to conceive of my Latter Day Saints neighbors who are perfectly good citizens to be the same as antisocial wing-nuts who stock pile weapons, castrate themselves, carve Swastika’s into their heads or commit mass suicide. They’ve got a long ways to go before they can join me at the Table, but I elect to be much more conservative about smearing their names as neighbors. It is true that every cultist is a false religionist, but not every false religionist is a cultist. In the same way, everyone who is a heretic is out of accord, but not everyone who is out of accord is a heretic. Whatever else we can say about heretics and cultists, I sure get the sense that these are power words loosely used anymore to beat chests at least as much as they are words used to properly delineate certain groups.

For any who are as painfully nostalgic as I am, here is a reprisal sure to please.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Friday fun. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Holy Shi’ite Muslim, Batman

  1. Anon says:

    Zrim — Do you know the definition of a straw-man argument?

  2. Anon says:

    Can you please state for the record your definition of a straw man argument?

  3. Zrim says:

    You haven’t sworn me in yet.

    But I think it’s to misrepresent another’s position and refute the misrepresentation, thus giving the illusion of having refuted the actual position. Or something like that. I don’t know, I’m neither an apologist nor lawyer.

    Can you state for the record who you are, Anonymous? You sure are on lotsa blogs.

  4. Anon says:

    You left out the part about intent. A straw man is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone else’s position for the sake of refuting their argument.

    Can you please show me where Wilson stated that one can be disciplined for participating in democracy?

  5. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    It’s the part where he suggests that church discipline is possibly in sight for voting Republican, and is surely the case for voting Democrat. Those are the major parties in our democracy. I have voted for candidates in those parties before and consider my voting participation in our democracy. Thus, it would seem to me, that if I wanted to seek membership in Moscow I would probably have to repent of my voting record.

    The other reading is that the Bishop is being facetious. In which case, he is mocking what some of us take very seriously, namely freedom in Christ, which includes political freedom. Either way, Wilson’s out in left field.

  6. Anon says:

    I asked you to show me where Wilson stated that one can be disciplined for participating in democracy and you showed me where you inferred that he stated it but you did not show me where he stated it, so I’ll ask again. Would you kindly show me where Wilson stated that one can be disciplined for participating in democracy?

  7. Andrew says:

    Anon – you can’t possibly believe that language only conveys meaning via “explicit statements,” can you?

    Time to jump on board the linguistics train and notice that meaning is conveyed by things like non-verbal communication (not relevant in a print medium of course) and implication (to name a few).

    Even if you think this is just pie-in-the-sky ling discussion, you should know better… language doesn’t work this way. It never has and it never will.

  8. Anon says:

    Andrew,

    No, I don’t possible believe that and it’s silly of you to infer that from the one simple question that I asked Zrim to answer but which he refuses to answer.

  9. Andrew says:

    Zrim wrote:

    “It’s the part where he SUGGESTS that church discipline is possibly in sight for voting Republican, and is surely the case for voting Democrat.” (emphasis added)

    Since you’ve noted that explicit statements aren’t required to convey meaning, I think he answered it here.

  10. Anon says:

    Andrew,

    Come now, just because I denied that language only conveys meaning via explicit statements does not mean that I believe language conveys any meaning you may want it to convey on any given occasion, and I’d really rather not let my simple question spin off into an exercise in sophistry.

    So I return to my original question to Zrim: Would you please show me where Wilson stated that one can be disciplined for participating in democracy?

  11. Andrew says:

    Sophistry indeed …

  12. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    If you think I’m evading your question it’s because you’re being way too wooden. But the literal reading of Wilson is “vote Republican and you could be disciplined (depending), vote Democrat and you should be.” So maybe what that means is that specific ways of participating in a democracy are subject to discipline. Better?

    But how about you try your hand at interpreting Wilson’s words. What do you think he means?

  13. Anon says:

    I prefer wooden to dishonest in matters of representation. Give me the exact words in all their wooden glory and let me interpret them without your embellishments. And, excuse me, but it’s not my fault that you misrepresented Wilson. This was an act of your free and depraved will, as was the strawman that you neatly framed around his quote.

    It’s easy to pick on strawmen, isn’t it?

    Let’s move on to your next misrepresentation. You wrote, “To listen to his critics tell it, he’s not man enough to run Leithart out on a heretical rail, tarred and feathered and straight to hell. He simply wants to declare him out of accord.”

    After all my posts on Stellman’s blog, including my own interpretations of my own words, can you please show me where I wrote anything that comes close to your interpretation? I only ask this small favor because I went to great lengths to clarify my position and, despite my clarifications, both you & Stellman (and I don’t know who else as I’ve not been back) have misrepresented me so that you can argue with a strawman.

    Oh, and this time you should think twice before you appeal to the “wooden” defense because I know what I wrote, I know how I clarified my position, I know what I meant, and I know the specific request I made to Stellman ignored which he ignored to score a few cheap shots. Just like you.

  14. todd says:

    “But how about you try your hand at interpreting Wilson’s words. What do you think he means?”

    Anon,

    Still waiting…

  15. Anon says:

    I have not read the post and I won’t. But knowing his style, he’s using exaggeration to make the point that the Democratic Party has lost all virtue and the Republican Party is not far behind. It’s hyperbole and nothing more.

  16. todd says:

    If you have not even read the post how do you know what it is or isn’t?

  17. Anon says:

    Please give me a break. If Wilson meant to make the point that he believes in disciplining those who practice democracy, he would have wrote it and Zrim would have had something to quote. But since it took Zrim all afternoon to finally begrudge me a semi-honest answer, I am certain that he quoted Wilson out of context, which rules out Zrim’s interpretation.

    My interpretation, however, is consistent with Wilson’s worldview and is an honest interpretation of the two sentences that Zrim quoted.

    How much you wanna bet that my interpretation fits perfect in the post, assuming you read it?

  18. Anon says:

    Todd & Andrew — Will either of you concede that Zrim misrepresented Wilson?

  19. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    1. Oh, so you’re that Anon, from Stellman’s place. You were adequately answered over there, so I won’t re-hash any of that. I’m as allergic to repetition as I am woodenness.

    2. Won’t read the post in question, and yet you say you’re certain I quoteed him out of context? Wow. Well, it’s a verbatim quote, so….

    3. Using freedom in Christ to make a hyperbolic political point? Sorry, but there are those of us who take our freedom in Christ pretty seriously, including political freedom. Abusing that virtue to score political points is really un-Reformed. I can’t emphasize that enough.

    4. You’re still makinjg way to much hay over my interpretation. But it was meant to by hyperbolic because Wilson’s words were, once again, reckless. Hyperbolic is way better than reckless and irresponsible. If the Bishop thinks these parties are losing their virtue, it might be better to say that instead of playing fast and loose with Christian liberty. Don’t you think?

  20. RubeRad says:

    Hey gang, just wanted to register my take on all this.

    (a) Anon is a nutcase; Wilson obviously inferred that voting democratic should fear church discipline. With that obvious talent for twisting words though, he would probably fit in well in the FV.

    (b) Wilson is a nutcase.

    (c) I don’t really see what the rest of your post has to do with the Wilson quote. What’s the tie-in between church discipline for votes not approved by pope Doug, and Stellman/Leithart, Mormons, and Sesame Street?

  21. Zrim,

    Good post and right on target. Anon doesn’t have the guts to self-identify, so apparently has nothing to say unless he show you to your satisfaction that revealing his identity will earn him retribution from the pope of Moscow.

    As to DW’s quote, power is never satisfied until it’s absolute. Idaho Taliban-wanabes.

  22. Anon says:

    Zrim —

    1. Stellman answered a strawman just like you. That’s how I started this thread.

    2. “Won’t read the post in question, and yet you say you’re certain I quoteed him out of context? Wow. Well, it’s a verbatim quote, so….” Yes, and you already conceded, “So maybe what that means is that specific ways of participating in a democracy are subject to discipline.” Yet even this is not a faithful interpretation of Wilson’s quote. It does not matter if I read the rest of the post because you’ve backed away from your original interpretation. You can’t reclaim it now. You should have admitted your mistake up front instead of backing away from it and then trying to recover it. Very dishonest.

    3. Your third point about freedom in Christ is irrelevant because you’ve already conceded that you misrepresented Wilson. At this point we’re trying to determine just how badly you misinterpreted him (though it doesn’t surprise me to see back away from your concession).

    4. Interesting that you not only ignore my interpretation of Wilson, but now claim it for yourself. But claiming hyperbole to explain away your post this late in the game is a bit disingenuous.

    5. You did not answer my request regarding your misrepresentation of my comments. Wilson’s quote is only relevant to me to establish your pattern of misrepresentation. You misrepresented him and you misrepresented me. That’s twice in one paragraph. Taking your freedom in Christ a little too far for my comfort.

  23. Anon says:

    RubRad —

    a. Your improper use of the word “infer” tells me that you’re ignorant and illogical.

    b. I may be a nutcase (ad hominem) but you’re stupid (ad hominem). The difference between our two ad homs is that I supported mine and you asserted yours. Twisting words? It’s clear that you two inserted words into Wilson’s post to give it a meaning that is not there and so far none of you have interacted with my interpretation of Wilson’s words which is actually based upon the words themselves and not anything I supplied.

    c. Your third point reinforces your ignorance. Next time you should stick to the facts or butt out. I’m sure that my language is not too direct for this blog, because you have resorted to abusive name-calling.

  24. Anon says:

    Reformed Musings —

    Ad hominem argument, disappointing coming from a man in your position. I have nothing to show Zrim because I could care less about satisfying him. He is a dishonest man and therefore untrustworthy (I’m not sure what other word to use in the face of two obvious misrepresentations that he refuses to correct).

    By the way, I noticed that you gave the same argument I made when you disputed Stellman referring to Leithart as godly or good or whatever blessing he bestowed upon him, when you wrote something to the effect that a godly man would not put his church through this unnecessary contention when he knew that in the end he would end up in the CREC. I made that argument, but I suppose it’s invalid because of my guts or something. Bad logic. Bad faith. But I wonder if you’ve reconsidered your position.

  25. Anon says:

    Zrim —

    I have answered everyone’s arguments as best I can and really don’t want to get into it with them.

    I only want you to account for this quote, “To listen to his critics tell it, he’s not man enough to run Leithart out on a heretical rail, tarred and feathered and straight to hell.”

    Please account for it with my words taken in context from my comments, including any clarifications I offered.

    This should be pretty simple if you quoted me accurately and it will be down right impossible if you did not. So have at it.

  26. You guys are a hoot. Loosen up. “breath in, breath out.” Ah, isn’t that better? Now…go over to Doug Wilson’s blog, (don’t forget to breath) and read the post (in context), and imagine a jovial pastor sitting on the back porch after a good meal talking to some of the men in the church. Now, isn’t that better? Sounds like something your grandpa might say…and that you would laugh at…knowing he’s *almost* halfway serious.

    Cheers,
    Daniel

  27. todd says:

    Daniel,

    We are all aware the Bishop of Moscow is not actually going to check voting records and formally purge all Democrats from the membership rolls. That is beside the point. But with Wilson’s legalistic rhetoric I bet you wouldn’t have one brave soul in the church admit out loud that he votes Democratic (if it is possible for a Wilsonite to do so). And let’s not get started on the freedom to school as one chooses. There is more than one way to scare people into outward conformity, besides formal church discipline.

  28. Anon says:

    I am about to do something that no one on this thread has been able to do. I went back on my word and I read Wilson’s post. I did this because it obviously stumbled everyone on this blog who apparently can neither read nor comprehend. And I was right.

    Zrim quoted Wilson out of context and tortured his words beyond recognition. Zrim wrote,

    “it seems that Doug Wilson thinks one can be disciplined for participating in a democracy:

    ‘It may be lawful, under certain limited circumstances, to vote for a Republican without fear of lawful church discipline. It can be done. Under no circumstances should you vote for a Democrat, not even the ones who allow themselves to be photographed hunting pheasants with a shotgun.’”

    But Zrim did not quote anything from the remainder of the post where Wilson encouraged everyone to hold their nose and vote Republican in order to kill the ObamaCare law.

    Just in case the hosts of this blog do not understand what I just wrote, I shall say it again. Zrim misquoted Wilson. Zrim twisted Wilson’s words. Zrim put a meaning on Wilson’s words that the context does not support. Zrim read themes into Wilson’s post that do not exist in this universe. But Zrim has the freedom in Christ to do this.

    To be sure, Zrim would rather exercise his freedom in Christ under socialized medicine than vote in a way that may possibly remove the ugliest piece of legislation ever produced by any congress. Zrim would rather exercise his freedom in Christ as the government compels him to buy health insurance under penalty of law than vote in the only way possible to that might kill the bill. Freedom in Christ.

    The point of Wilson’s post was to encourage his readers to vote out the bill and any other reading is dishonest and discredits anyone interested in seeing Wilson brought to justice. If you want to see Wilson brought to justice, then it’s in your best interest not to resort to his methodology.

    PS: The hosts of this blog should be ashamed of themselves for letting this false witness to sit unchecked.

    PPS: Foucachon is an idiot.

  29. Anon says:

    Just in case the hosts of this blog did not grasp this point (which is very likely), I was correct to presume that Wilson was saying the Democratic Party has lost all virtue and that the Republican Party is not far behind the Dems. That was the only meaning possible for the two sentences Zrim that took out of context and when you read the rest of the post, you will agree.

    I hope that the hosts of this blog have the freedom in Christ to correct the record.

  30. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    You’ve made your points, they have been duly noted. I’ve made mine and am not sure what else to say to you. You seem really worked up. Did you miss the Sesame Street reprisal in this post? It might help you calm down a tad.

    Daniel,

    Like I said before, some of us take Christian liberty pretty seriously. Maybe it’s too serious to you, but playing fast and loose with liberty like Wilson does here seems awfully un-Reformed to me. Which is more important, guarding liberty against reckless speech or scoring political points against pols you don’t like? And before you get too comfy up there, looking down on all us in the liberty camp huffing and puffing over Wilson’s reckless speech, remember that we’re not the ones who have to hold town hall meetings in our communities to asuage fears of take over.

  31. Anon says:

    Zrim — as others on this thread said to me, “Still waiting.”

    Having established that you misrepresented Wilson in your strawman (I’m not sure which of your three explanations you finally want me to believe), I’m waiting for you to account for your representation of me. This should take less than a minute if you quoted me accurately.

    Then you can go back to Kermit, which is evidently your comprehension level.

  32. Then you can go back to Kermit, which is evidently your comprehension level.

    OOh, Ooh – the ad hominem serrated edge strikes with a mighty swoop. Zrim, this is where infidels like you cower in fear of the great pope’s nameless, faceless storm troopers – the Jesuits of Moscow. Next comes the comfy chair!

  33. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    Well now you’ve really gone and done it. You’ve misrepresented Sesame Street. Don’t you know Kermit is from The Muppet Show?

    But since you’re such a glutton for punishment, have you seen this Wilson-critical post? It gets anti-oldschoolers like yourself pretty peeved.

  34. Zrim says:

    Bob,

    I comfort myself with having been “disinvited” at the Baily Blog some weeks back. I can return if I publically admit my error and re-interpret a glorified anti-Obama speech as a “sermon.”

  35. RubeRad says:

    Why is it so fun to feed the trolls?

    a. Your improper use of the word “infer” tells me that you’re ignorant and illogical.

    Hey look everyone, Anon caught me in an error and finally said something reasonable! Make that ‘logically implied’ instead of ‘inferred’.

    c. Your third point reinforces your ignorance. Next time you should stick to the facts or butt out.

    I don’t get it. I consider “I don’t really see what the rest of your post has to do with the Wilson quote” to be a factual statement. Are you saying I really do understand the connection?

  36. John Yeazel says:

    Friday fun did not turn out so fun!!!
    To quote Luther- “I simply wrote about, talked about and preached God’s Word, otherwise I did nothing. And while I drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Phillip and Amsdorf the Word so greatly weakened the papacy (or postmodern spirituality, revivalist theology and all forms of moral reform- as represented by Erasmus in Luther’s time- to make it relevant to today’s cultural climate) that no emperor ever inflicted such loses upon it. I did nothing the Word did everything.”

    Anon seems to enjoy calling everyone stupid. The Gospel, when it is properly preached will produce controversy and reaction. Our fate becomes contingent on Christ’s continued work in our lives through the means of grace. I do not know how you can read John chapter 6 any other way. The only thing you can do is continue to clearly expound the Gospel and then watch the fireworks begin. All sorts of accusations and criticisms start being pointed towards your character or whatever else people can find to complain about you. We truly resist the grace of God.

  37. Anon says:

    RM — nothing serrated there. He dismissed me with Sesame Street, I returned the favor. And it’s apparent that you have not read this thread or the thread on Stellman’s blog, because I am no Storm Trooper for the Pope. I am all for the church bringing that man and Leithart to justice. However, I don’t believe it’s in anyone’s best interest to fabricate narratives around false witness, as Zrim has done here.

    If you read the post, which I must assume that no one here has done, it’s clear that Wilson is making an appeal to get out the vote, contrary to Zrim’s narrative about Wilson disciplining members for practicing democracy.

    You don’t need to lie about Wilson to catch. I think you’re better served by catching him in his lies.

  38. Anon says:

    JY — Your bio says, “Strong convinctions [sic] about reality and life in general.”

    Not sure what you mean by “Anon seems to enjoy calling everyone stupid.” I called RubRad stupid after he called me a nutjob. From his style, I wrote to his level.

    Regarding the rest of your comment, you should read the thread before butting in. Just a suggestion to help you feed your “Strong convinctions [sic] about reality and life in general.”

  39. Anon says:

    RubeRad — You should learn from Zrim and not answer when you’re caught.

  40. John Yeazel says:

    Anon,

    The arguments are usually pretty civil at the outhouse- this one seemed to tumble into a whirlpool of accusations and nonsense. It seems that the FV ists have a hard time accepting that they are wrong in any of their theological convictions.

    The political argument about whether someone should be disciplined for voting for a democrat (etc.) seemed to me to be a surface matter that really did not go to the root of the problem. The FV doctrine has been shown to be flawed (it misinterprets and misrepresents the gospel) by a legitimate council and now adherents of the doctrine seem to want to strike back in any way they can. They also are taking shots at 2K theology. What’s next from the FV camp?

    I have to admit I am wrong a lot- why can’t you guys?

  41. John Yeazel says:

    Zrim seemed to be very gracious in his response and yet you turned it into something else to fight about. You seem to be nit picking to me or (which is probably the case) you are not admitting that you are perhaps hurt over the whole situation and instead of repenting you are getting angry. That is a common reaction to something like this. I have been there so I know what I am talking about.

  42. John Yeazel says:

    Repentance is a gift of the Gospel- perhaps if you got back to the good news of the gospel the gift of repentance would be showered upon you. Hit me with your best shot Anon- everyone wants to know who you are!!!!

  43. Chris Sherman says:

    I read it much the same as Zrim. Not sure how else one could read it.

    Any chance of asking Doug Wilson to explain?

    His choice of words were poor if his intentions were to, “get out the vote”

  44. Chris Sherman says:

    FYI Kermit was one of the original Muppet characters on Sesame Street.

  45. RubeRad says:

    But I am glad to repent of my errors, especially those that are unintentional and only trip up those who are so wooden that they can’t understand what they read.

    My problem was deciding between Prov 26:4 and 26:5.

  46. RubeRad says:

    I thought of dropping a comment at Blog & Mablog, but then I would have to take the trouble to register an account there. Funny, there’s a higher fence to comment on his blog than to commune in his church!

  47. John Yeazel says:

    Anon,

    Well, if you are not a “stormtrooper for the Pope,” then will you please explain the theological perspective you think from. I would venture a guess and say a Reconstructionist. The Reformed can be very confusing though- there seems to be more variations than I can count on my two hands. Although that could be said about Lutherans too. Maybe it would be better for both to stick with their confessions. Two cheers for the Reformed doing just that in the Leithart case.

    Your volatile rhetoric just begs for nasty remarks back. I’ll stick with my get back to the good news of the Gospel and repent remark- even though you are not a stormtropper (at least that is what you say but who knows, your anonymous).

  48. Anon says:

    JY — “Civil” argumentation in my book does not include false witness, misrepresentation, and straw men. FV is not a subject of this thread.

  49. Anon says:

    JY — You’re in over your head. Quit before you sink. Then call Oprah.

  50. Anon says:

    According to this thread, Zrim’s explanation of his post has changed quite a bit. He went from defending his freedom in Christ to “it was all hyperbole” and none of you noticed. The funny thing is that you can see him morph as I stayed on point, insisting that he account for his misrepresentation. The funnier thing is that all of you are still stroking him for his original meaning and none of you noticed him change, so he never had to correct the record. I think Kermit might be above everyone’s comprehension level on this thread.

    Try this:

    “I do not like green eggs and.
    I do not like them Sam I Am.”

    But seriously folks, my initial point was that Zrim misrepresented Wilson to frame a straw man. My objective was to show him that he misrepresented me to frame another straw man. Zrim played coy and gradually went from “Wilson is attacking my freedom in Christ to practice democracy” to “It was all hyperbole.”

    Not very honest if you ask me and he still has not accounted for his misrepresentation of my words. I don’t think the hyperbole defense will work because he expressed sympathies for Stellman, who is a little truth challenged himself.

    Maybe the two of them should post the date of the big pity party everyone has planned for Stellman because he has to put a good & godly man out of the church and we should all feel sorry for him on account of that. This must vex his soul day & night. Brings me to tears.

    Stellman belongs in the CREC if he does not understand that as a pastor he needs to protect the sheep. But he wants us to feel sorry for him because he has to remove such a good & godly man from the communion. Brings me to tears. And it stirs Zrim’s sympathies.

    How pathetic.

  51. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    I realize I’m taking my life into my own hands here, but I have a question.

    A private emailer vouches for you and explains your experience amongst the Muscovites. In a word, these are extraordinary experiences, and for the sake of the point I will assume they are true. And if they are true, boy howdy, you experienced nothing short of tyranny. I am befuddled, then, as to why you are trying to score pedantic points against this no account blog as it criticizes your tormenter. Do you understand that the point of this post and the one that has followed is about tyranny versus liberty? Again, assuming it’s all on the up-and-up, your liberty was trampled by the tyranny of Wilsonittes. Yet you want to protect him here for a few lousy trees.

    Perhaps this is a case of victim still under the spell of his victimizer?

    P.S. If you think Stellman belongs in the CREC you’ll have to account for his work against Leithart. How does someone who wants to put another out of the PCA on these grounds get into the CREC? Your thought patterns are very strange indeed.

  52. John Yeazel says:

    Anon,

    I came into this debate not knowing it had a history and not really reading all the posts closely- you got me Anon. I have to laugh at myself and enjoy your sarcasm at what you said here

  53. RubeRad says:

    Zrim’s explanation of his post has changed quite a bit. He went from defending his freedom in Christ to “it was all hyperbole” and none of you noticed.

    I noticed, and I don’t understand it. I read the whole Wilson post that forms context around the quote, and I’m not convinced it’s hyperbole. I recognize that Wilson has his own particular brand of wit. But from the rhetoric I have seen from Wilson, if it somehow came to light that one of his sheep voted democratic/voted for Obama/materially supports and campaigns for the health care bill, I honestly believe he would be called to repentance, or suffer “lawful church discipline”.

    at least that is what you say but who knows, your anonymous

    And by the way, I have no issues with you protecting your identity, but why don’t you make it easy for us and adopt a handle that would help us tell you apart from other random drop-ins? How about StormtrooperAgainstThePope, or AngryYoungMan, or NukeMoscowTilItGlows, or FederalLasik?

  54. John Yeazel says:

    After rereading the posts I have to admit your argument is valid and Zrim has not really answered your original inquiry about misrepresenting Wilson’s quote and taking it out of context. However, I still see Zrim’s point about Wilson and it probably could be supported in other things Wilson has said. He just chose a bad example and you caught him at it. Remember this is blogging and not a formal legal proceeding. False witness, misrepresentation and straw men are part of humans daily dialog with each other. It goes under the name of radical corruption. That is why I go to Church every Sunday. It seems one would go crazy pointing out logical flaws in what people say all the time- does not an element of mercy have to be extended in all exchanges we have with others?

  55. John Yeazel says:

    Anon,

    One last remark- I have a book by Wilson which uncovers all the fallacies we make in dialoging with each other. The name of the book is How to Argue Formally or something like that. I never made it through the whole book. I have also always wanted to go through R.C. Sproul’s teaching series on constructing proper syllogism’s but never made it through that one either.

    Your abilities with formal logic are on display here and seem to be valid in my limited expertise in the matter. What bothers me though is that this expertise with formal logic did not prevent Wilson from sliding into some serious errors in his theology and it seems to kind of make you less than likable in a lot of your responses. So, my question is cannot logic be misused and abused? Is there a point where it becomes less than humane to continue pointing out fallacies?

  56. Zrim says:

    Rube,

    I’m not saying Wilson’s post was hyperbole, but rather that my post saying that Wilson “thinks one can be disciplined for participating in a democracy” was hyperbole. It seems I’m being faulted for using hyperbole, but I don’t see why that’s such a big deal in light of the fact that it’s Wilson who champions a theocratic outlook (hmmm, theocracy or hyperbole to mock it, which is worse, hmmm).

    And in the follow up post, I am suggesting that my hyperbole may not be so hyperbolic since some theocratic outlooks would suggest non-participation. But it looks to me like Wilson’s variety of theocracy is to participate in illegitimate nations, mainly as take-over antagonist who might discipline those who participate as pilgrim-protagonists.

  57. John Yeazel says:

    I also have been sidelined with strep throat the last 3 days so my mental faculties are not working at full capacity. That is my excuse for some of my less than careful posts.

  58. Anon says:

    JY — “and it seems to kind of make you less than likable in a lot of your responses.”

    This is ad hominem. The first question you should always ask is “Is it true?” not “Do I like him.” And don’t forget that likability cuts both ways. I don’t like being misrepresented for the sake of a strawman. Everyone here doesn’t seem to mind that. What’s so likable about that?

    “So, my question is cannot logic be misused and abused?” You tell me, but don’t frame your answer logically.

    “Is there a point where it becomes less than humane to continue pointing out fallacies?” Clear thinking is critical. Don’t let the rhetoric bother you. You have to keep asking yourself, “Is it true?” And if you don’t like my rhetoric, ask me to tone it down. But don’t bother asking until you’ve corrected the false witness. To me, that’s not likable.

  59. Anon says:

    Zrim — “nothing short of tyranny.” You call a death camp tyranny?

    “Do you understand that the point of this post and the one that has followed is about tyranny versus liberty?” That’s one point that has changed throughout the course of this exchange.

    “I am befuddled, then, as to why you are trying to score pedantic points against this no account blog as it criticizes your tormenter.” The Scriptures forbid false witness in every circumstance, that is, they do not say you may bear false witness against a wicked person just because he’s wicked. This post is predicated on false witness. If you want to nail the tormentor, then nail him for his torments because lying about him gives him an opportunity to discredit you. I believe I made this point.

    “P.S. If you think Stellman belongs in the CREC you’ll have to account for his work against Leithart. How does someone who wants to put another out of the PCA on these grounds get into the CREC? Your thought patterns are very strange indeed.”

    Stellman’s thought patterns are strange indeed. He carved out a position/narrative that lets him play the noble hero who has to put out a good & godly man against his wishes. Wait a minute. I’m tearing up. The thought of it all breaks my heart. Poor Jason Stellman, he has to remove Leithart from the PCA despite Leithart’s inherent goodness & godliness. I feel so sorry for Stellman. What a terrible thing that he must do. Isn’t it tragic?

    Not at all. Peter Leithart is a smelly POS (this is an outhouse, is it not?). Put aside the FV stuff for a second and let’s assume that the premise of your post is accurate. What is Leithart doing in Moscow unless he is in agreement with the tyrannical regime? Stellman probably believes it’s an accident or that Leithart is trying to salt the atmosphere with his goodness & godliness. Not at all. Leithart is one of them, as the saying goes. He joined them every day praying to his god that he would maim, destroy, and kill us. But poor Jason Stellman. He has to put this evil man out of the church. Oh no. I’m tearing up again.

    Stellman needs to get his priorities straight. (1) Protect the sheep, which includes feeding them & loving them. (2) Everything else is secondary.

    You claim he’s doing this. I respond that he’s doing it in a vainglorious, selfish way. He doesn’t have to join our party but he sure doesn’t have to hang his head. And he can’t have it both ways. Either Leithart is good & godly, and Stellman is wrong to put him out, or Leithart is not good & godly (I’d say evil but none of you seem able to handle the truth) and he must be put out the church. Which is it? Stellman answered this question with the “look at me, I’m so humble in the face of this terrible duty” narrative. I answered the question by saying, “Quit feeling sorry for yourself. Protect the sheep from this wolf. Recognize that this is part of ministry and it’s a good work.”

    And Stellman needs to explain why, if Leithart is so good & godly, why is he putting the PCA through this mess? Stellman can’t answer the question. I answer it with the truth — Leithart is one of them. He loves disturbing the peace of the church as much as he loves to ask his god to kill the brethren. It’s his nature.

  60. Anon says:

    JY — “Remember this is blogging and not a formal legal proceeding. False witness, misrepresentation and straw men are part of humans daily dialog with each other. It goes under the name of radical corruption.”

    Don’t make excuses. The ability to publish instantly is no reason to violate the 9th. God doesn’t excuse slander & libel under the heading of “blogging.”

  61. Anon says:

    RubRad — “I noticed, and I don’t understand it.”

    You have to read all of Wilson’s post and ask yourself, “What is the point of this post?” to which there is only one answer, “The point of this post is to get out the vote to repeal ObamaCare.” Then you should ask another question, “Why would Wilson threaten discipline against someone who votes Republican in the very same post where he encouraged Republicans to vote along party lines?” to which there are only a few answers, such as “He suffers from cognitive dissonance” (crazy defense) or “He didn’t remember that he threatened church discipline against voting for Republicans” (Alzheimer’s defense) or “It was a typo” (accident defense) or “He used hyperbole to make the point that the Democratic party is altogether morally bankrupt and the Republican party, while not bankrupt altogether, still has a few coins left in the vault” (logical, rhetorical defense). You have to make sense of the whole post, not an isolated quote taken out of context.

    “And by the way, I have no issues with you protecting your identity, but why don’t you make it easy for us and adopt a handle that would help us tell you apart from other random drop-ins? How about StormtrooperAgainstThePope, or AngryYoungMan, or NukeMoscowTilItGlows, or FederalLasik?”

    I’ll change my name when the hosts of this blog correct the false witness. Get your priorities straight.

  62. Anon says:

    No takers.

    Good.

    Can someone on this blog kindly second my request that Zrim produce quotations of mine to support his misrepresentations of me?

  63. John Yeazel says:

    Anon,

    Your modus operendi is understandable now- truth is more important than emotional reactions that might result from any kind of exchange with others. However, there should be priority of importance in pointing out others fallacies. Was it really that serious of a false witness- could the accusation perhaps be true with a less ambiguous quote found? It seemed like you were just trying to find an example that you could jump on in order to discredit the person who made the straw man argument or false witness. The tone seemed more than just a pointing out of a fallacy- it was to discredit someones character in a public blog.

    If the false witness was a grave misrepresentation of the Pope’s beliefs then your pointing out the fallacy was perhaps warranted but it seems that there were other intentions involved in your reply. That may be pure conjecture but is worth probing into and one in which you will probably choose to not answer.

    Also, bringing someone to justice should never be an easy thing to do, unless you yourself still think that you are without sin. Your attitude borders on dangerous ground- how do you read Galatians 6:1-2; “you who are spiritual should restore your brother in a spirit of gentleness.” Now if the brother continues to not listen then you turn up the heat, but it should never be something you take pleasure in or like to do. Beware, lest you to fall into temptation and sin.

  64. gospelmuse says:

    Hey Z!

    Appreciate the distinction between…Cultists and False Religionists.

    A charitable and true distinction.

    Thanks for sharing this.

  65. Anon says:

    JY —

    “Your modus operendi is understandable now — truth is more important than emotional reactions that might result from any kind of exchange with others.”

    Not quite. Yes, truth is more important than emotional reactions but I am not advocating for truth shot from the barrel of a gun. I maintained a very direct focus throughout this entire exchange, despite the attempts of others to change the subject or resort to name-calling. Staying direct is good because it keeps people on point and when the name-calling begins, it’s a sure sign that that person is cornered. RubRad, a host of this blog, started with the abusive ad homs and couldn’t figure out how to stop them once he began. Reformed Musings seconded RR but soon disappeared. You almost went there but unlike the others, you made the effort to understand what I wrote instead of believing the groupthink. Todd was unsure and asked me to explain. I don’t remember that he said anything afterwards. Andrew, unlike anyone else, tried to equivocate, arguing that Zrim’s words didn’t really mean what they said. Zrim assessed the arguments and took Andrew’s handoff, arguing that it was all hypberbole, which means that no on this thread understood what he wrote because everyone else understood him literally, word for word.

    In all these exchanges, however, no one resorted to a fallacious answer because I antagonized them. They answered me with fallacies because the honest answer is inescapable and awkward. Zrim misrepresented Wilson to frame a strawman just as Zrim misrepresented me to frame a strawman. No one, including Zrim, has been able to support any of Zrim’s statements, which would be as easy as cutting & pasting if he told the truth. This exchange would be over if someone would cut & paste text that supports Zrim’s representations of Wilson and of me. Pretty freaking easy if you ask me. End of conversation. End of thread. Anon would say farewell.

    JY, please tell me why no one else on this thread has said, “You know, the Bible doesn’t say that blogs are exempt from the ninth commandment.”

    “Was it really that serious of a false witness. . .”

    Looks like you just answered my question. You apparently distinguish between “false witness” and “serious false witness.” Do you make the same distinction between “murder” and “serious murder”? It doesn’t work that way.

    “— could the accusation perhaps be true with a less ambiguous quote found?”

    I am the only person who harmonized Zrim’s citation with the actual blog post. No one else tried. They all echoed Zrim as they patted him on the back. The blog post, when taken as a whole, is a passionate appeal to those who oppose ObamaCare to practice democracy. It is the complete opposite of Zrim’s premise. This is why Zrim backed away from his misrepresentation by arguing he used hyperbole. But how do he explain all his “freedom in Christ” bull? And it’s a funny thing that no one else picked up on the hyperbole in their explanation of Zrim’s post. It’s painfully clear to me that no one wants to admit the obvious truth that Zrim misrepresented the truth.

    “It seemed like you were just trying to find an example. . .” that you could jump on in order to discredit the person who made the straw man argument or false witness. The tone seemed more than just a pointing out of a fallacy — it was to discredit someone’s character in a public blog.”

    Don’t say “seemed” because it weakens your case. You cannot know my motives any more than I can know yours. Always ask, “Is it true?” You can impugn motives later. (BTW: I have impugned everyone’s motives on this thread as well as Stellman’s, largely because no one has stood for the truth. Not one single person has stepped forward to prove me wrong. They act as people who would rather defend a lie (is it not a small one?) than defend the truth. I hope I am proven wrong.)

    “It seemed like you were just trying to find an example that you could jump on in order to discredit the person who made the straw man argument or false witness. The tone seemed more than just a pointing out of a fallacy — it was to discredit someone’s character in a public blog.”

    I stated my intent very early in this thread, saying that I wanted to establish that Zrim framed a strawman with Wilson just as he framed a strawman with me. That has been my only point. These exercises in logic are all off point except to the extent that they bring us back to point. And the point is that Zrim misrepresented the truth. The second point, which is now no less important than the first, is that no one on this blog gives a rat’s sash that Zrim misrepresented the truth. The third point is closely related to the first in that Zrim’s misrepresentation of me was identical to Stellman’s misrepresentation of me. Neither man has the decency to admit that removing Leithart from the PCA is a good & necessary work to protect the saints from a false teacher. Both men buy the narrative that Stellman is some kind of hero because he has to remove a good & godly man from the church. Oh boy. Here come those tears again. I’m feeling sorry for Stellmen and now Zrim. The tragedy of it all! Screw all the godly saints that Leithart screwed, after all, how could such a good & godly man ever screw anyone? Let me tell you, Leithart screwed them right into the ground and he kicked them in the nuts on the way down. He’s a wolf. He wanted/wants me suffering or dead just as he wanted/wants all the other brothers suffering or dead. I have not forgotten. I know others who have not forgotten. And I certain God has not forgotten.

    Look at how Zrim framed his defense of Stellman against the strawman he built around me. He wrote: “He (Stellman) simply wants to declare him out of accord.” That’s all. Leithart’s merely out of accord. It’s not as though those points where he’s out of accord could really hurt anyone. It’s not as though he doesn’t hold baptismal regeneration (you people should hear what Leithart says over the baby during baptism — he’s RC, not just out of accord). It’s not as though there’s nothing else.

    But if it’s such a small infraction, why doesn’t Zrim or Stellman tell us why the church should bother to put Leithart out at all? I don’t get it. I also don’t get why, if Leithart is so good & godly, why is he putting the PCA through this process? He knows he’ll leave the PCA in good standing and end up in the CREC. Why doesn’t he just go? Why not say, “Hey, I am out of accord. I minister (if you can call it that) in the CREC in Moscow. Maybe I’ll put a stop to this nonsense.”? If for no other reason, Leithart should leave out of mercy to Stellman, who is clearly suffering through the process of forcing a good & godly man out of the church. Can somebody please wipe my nose? The snot dripping from my nostrils is making a mess of my keyboard.

    “If the false witness was a grave misrepresentation of the Pope’s beliefs then your pointing out the fallacy was perhaps warranted but it seems that there were other intentions involved in your reply. That may be pure conjecture but is worth probing into and one in which you will probably choose to not answer.”

    I noted a few times in this thread that I wanted to establish a pattern. It’s wrong to violate the ninth. Period. It’s even worse to deliberately misrepresent someone in public. Zrim misrepresented Wilson for reasons I do not know. Zrim misrepresented me to prop up Stellman. To me it was easier to establish his first misrepresentation before I made my own case. Did you notice how long it took him to answer my question about Wilson? Did you notice how he changed his story a couple of times in the process? And did you notice how he still has not answered my request that he support his representations of me with actual quotes from me? All he has to do is cut & paste. But there’s something else happening that won’t allow him or anyone else tell the truth on this blog. And some of these guys hold offices in the church!

    “Also, bringing someone to justice should never be an easy thing to do, unless you yourself still think that you are without sin. Your attitude borders on dangerous ground — how do you read Galatians 6:1-2; “you who are spiritual should restore your brother in a spirit of gentleness.” Now if the brother continues to not listen then you turn up the heat, but it should never be something you take pleasure in or like to do. Beware, lest you to fall into temptation and sin.”

    JY — you don’t know all the facts and this is not the proper forum to educate you. Suffice to say that Wilson runs a criminal empire in Moscow. God will get him just as He got Christopher Witmer. SPLAT! And God will get Leithart too, despite Stellman’s remonstrations.

    “Out of accord.” Give me a break.

  66. Anon says:

    To remind everyone — I respectfully request the hosts of this blog or else Zrim himself to substantiate his representations of me by using my words, as I used them, in context, and without embellishments.

    This should be as easy as cutting & pasting, and then I’ll be on my way.

  67. Zrim says:

    Matthew,

    Yeah, it makes it so much easier to tell your Mormon friend he’s not a Christian when he knows you don’t mean he’s a raving lunatic.

  68. Another Anon says:

    Now, I’m a bit slow in these matters, but how can it be a false witness when Zrim starts off the post with, “I Can’t be sure, but…”?

    Having read and re-read DW in context, I have to concur that he indeed is advocating a “get out the vote” message. However, the underlying tones in DW’s blog post could be taken to suggest something less than free participation in democracy.

  69. John Yeazel says:

    Anon,

    I learned a lot through this whole ordeal and will be much more careful in how I blog from now on. You are right, I do not know the whole story of what went on at the Moscow Church and how Wilson runs his empire. I also did not realize you were involved and right in the midst of it all. Thanks for taking the time to reply back- your posts were always thoughtful and very well reasoned out.

  70. Anon says:

    AA — Thank you from the bottom of my teary-eyed heart.

    GOTV, which means that the subject of the post was the complete opposite of Zrim’s bassackwards thesis.

    The problem with the “I can’t be sure” defense is that he went on to defend his conclusion as a matter that he was absolutely sure about, asserting that Wilson was attacking his freedom in Christ to practice democracy, thus eliminating the “I can’t be sure” defense from his list of excuses.

    In my opinion, however, it only became false witness when Zrim refused to correct the record, choosing instead to call it hyperbole, because if it was hyperbole then Zrim would have never declared it an attack on his freedom in Christ. Zrim got caught with his hand in the “Freedom in Christ” jar, but he won’t admit it. He’s gonna brazen it out, as they say.

    AA — Would you please be so kind as to assess Zrim’s representation of my words at Stellman’s blog to tell us if he represented me accurately?

    PS, AA — Make sure you bring some tissues with you when you go to Stellman’s blog because poor Jason Stellman is gonna break your heart with his gut-wrenching narrative of having to remove a “good” & “godly” man from the PCA. Oh, no. Just writing about it makes my eyes swell. My glasses just fogged over. I have to go.

  71. Anon says:

    JY — I appreciate our exchanges and your willingness to defy the groupthink. Remember, “Is it true?” is the quickest way to avoid falling into a fallacy.

  72. Anon says:

    As I await a host of the blog, which includes Zrim, to answer my very simple request that they substantiate Zrim’s representations of my words with actual quotes of mine, I have something else for everyone to consider as they wait with me.

    The real question that the PCA should answer is not whether Leithart is “out of accord” with the PCA’s standards. Rather, the PCA should contemplate whether Leithart should be tried in a PCA court or at GITMO.

  73. Zrim says:

    I have to concur that he indeed is advocating a “get out the vote” message.

    AA,

    That’s what I meant in the follow up post, that it is probably more feasible to say that DW is advocating antagonistic participation instead of withdrawal. But, again, this runs up against 1) pilgrim theology and seems less fetching than 2) a theocratic theology that promotes non-participation because the regime is illegitimate.

    However, the underlying tones in DW’s blog post could be taken to suggest something less than free participation in democracy.

    I think it’s a sort of wink-wink ecclesiastical tyranny, a sort of passive-aggressive way of saying that a better piety has certain political outlooks but not others. I remember being told public schooling would be enough to keep one from being called to elder in a PCA. My guess is that having voted for Obama would be enough to do the same in Moscow (maybe more?). Not exactly discipline, but perhaps a soft form. Sort of like how in fundie churches, if you are known to employ “certain substances or worldly amusements,” you’re not booted but kept off any slates for leadership. Another comparison might be Anabaptist shunning techniques?

  74. Anon says:

    Hey Zrim — two outsiders have had the decency to concede my points but none of the hosts of this blog have. In particular, I have asked you about once a day to support your representations of me with my actual words, but you keep ignoring me. What’s up with that? Looks to me like one or more conflicts of interest have clouded your judgment.

    Conflict #1: You don’t like admitting your error so you’d rather ignore my request. Most people understand this kind of conflict as sinful pride.

    Conflict #2: If you admit the truth, then the ripple effects of your admission would make their way to Stellman who would find himself standing all alone on this point, without your support. Take away Stellman’s strawman and you just might force him to think pastorally instead of heroically, which is a conflict he’d probably address with another strawman. But could your sympathies for Stellman be clouding your judgment? Sure looks like it to me.

  75. Anon says:

    Todd — Still waiting . . . .

  76. todd says:

    Anon,

    As for your conflict with Zrim about words on Jason’s blog, I don’t know about that, that’s between you and him. If you are waiting for a public rebuke of Zrim form me for misrepresenting Wilson on this post, you are going to need to keep waiting. If you’ve read the Outhouse for any length of time you would realize that Zrim always titles his posts using hyperbole, humor, sarcasm, etc…He’s sort of known for that. Hey, half the time I’m not even sure what he is talking about! So sorry, can’t help you there.

    My question about the whole Leithart thing is, why does it make you so upset when people like Stellman still has some respect for Leithart, even when he is bringing charges against him? Most people are not overly familiar with the bizzaro world that is Moscow, Id. They (CREC) are not even associated with our denominations. I actually believe your story because many other witnesses have personally substanciated them to me. But I’m fine with knowing God will bring all things to light at His return, and no one will get away with anything. It is always a temptation to be a Son of Thunder and desire Jesus bring judgment ahead of time.

  77. todd says:

    Sorry for the spelling errors, woke up late and ignored spell check

  78. Anon says:

    Todd — you guys need to stop ignoring the words that I wrote so that you can replace them with words that I didn’t write. No, I don’t want anyone to rebuke anyone anymore than I want anyone to overstate what I’ve written. Strawmen are contagious in the Outhouse. Stinky too. You and others criticized me for refusing to read Wilson’s post. So I read it and, just as I knew to be the case, my interpretation was correct. You people criticized me when you thought you had something, but none of you are willing to admit your error — at all! Where’s all the gloating I saw last week? Even Zrim gloated as though my refusal to read the post meant something. Tell you what, when I read the post it became abundantly clear that none of you read it, including Zrim. Everyone else who came in here from the outside has said that my interpretation is correct, yet the Outhouse Groupthink won’t say it because the whole thing will immediately unravel.

    Regarding the hyperbole defense — it holds no water. Zrim never said it was hyperbole until he already committed to the position that Wilson was attacking Zrim’s freedom in Christ to practice democracy. You can’t defend your position by arguing “freedom in Christ” to back away from your position by saying “It was all hyperbole.” Well, you can do it if you don’t mind looking like an idiot.

    “My question about the whole Leithart thing is, why does it make you so upset when people like Stellman still has some respect for Leithart, even when he is bringing charges against him?”

    S T A W M A N ! ! Repeat after me. “I, Todd, Have just framed a strawman. Please forgive me for misrepresenting you.” Now teach this to Zrim & Stellman.

    Stellman said much more than he had “respect” for Leithart. Stellman wrote a narrative whereby the poor lonesome pastor had to put a good & godly man out of the church. Stellman’s narrative is straight from the Outhouse because he can’t explain what’s so good & godly about Leithart anymore than he can explain why he has pursued this good & godly man to the uttermost parts of the earth. He can’t even explain why a good & godly man who know he’ll end up in the CREC insists on putting the PCA through this process. Stellman has a bad case of Zrim. He’s inconsistent all over the place but won’t see or admit it.

    So I am not upset. I am offended. Get it straight buster. I am offended that Stellman would go to such lengths to lionize himself instead of just admitting that Leithart’s teaching is dangerous, if not heretical. Rather than admitting this, he insists on his pathetic narrative that makes Leithart good & godly and Stellman is the noble hero who must put him out anyway. How pathetic. He’s in the ministry of Christ but calls attention to himself. His ministry requires him to protect sheep from wolves but he’d rather make it look like it’s about him. How disgusting. It’s bad enough for Stellman to act like this but it’s even worse when you guys enable him. And it’s not upsetting. It’s offensive. Get it? Just like it was offensive that I asked Stellman to remove my comments because I didn’t want to cause offense. Not only did he not remove them, he misrepresented them in another post to make himself look even grander. Classy guy, that Stellman. Same class as Zrim. It’s offensive.

    And I’m not a Son of Thunder (what’s with all these strawmen?), unless that means I don’t like being misrepresented, because if that’s a Son of Thunder then you guys are Sons of Darkness.

  79. Anon says:

    Hey Zrim — all you need to do is substantiate your representations of me and I’m gone. It’s as easy as cutting & pasting. In case you don’t know how to do this, cutting & pasting is a simple process where you drag your cursor over the desired text and hit copy. Then you place your cursor in the comments text box and hit paste. If it takes more than three seconds you’re doing something wrong. In fact, it’s much easier than writing a fabrication, as you’ll see.

  80. Anon,

    You’re garbaging up my inbox with this pointless exercise. How about taking this exchange to email and give the rest of us a rest? I don’t take anonymous people seriously unless I know who they are and why they stay anonymous, and neither should Zrim.

  81. todd says:

    Yes, second that – if we are sons of darkness don’t bother with us – have a nice life

  82. Zrim says:

    Anon,

    Offers to sign forced confessions aren’t very tempting, so you may remain as long as you please.

    But, for the sake of your own sanity and hygiene, I’d suggest you find another hobby than hanging out in Outhouses and giving me wedgies and swirlies.

  83. RubeRad says:

    I am with Stellman, in that it is not necessary to demonize Leithart or “rejoice in his disgrace or infamy” (LC145) in order to, with decency and good order, remove him from the PCA.

  84. RubeRad says:

    when I read the post it became abundantly clear that none of you read it

    As I said above, I read it. Wilson’s “hyperbole” is about the same as if you were to meet a serial killer, and he would say as a joke, “I’m gonna kill you!” I.e. I still believe Wilson would bring down the hammer of church discipline in the unlikely event that any members of his church loudly and proudly agitated for democratic causes.

  85. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see how your wife handles you Zrim- she has to have a sense of humor

  86. John Yeazel says:

    That was me not Anon- I am at a computer I am normally not at

  87. Anon says:

    Zrim — Neither funny nor honest but certainly evasive. Class act.

    RM — There’s a button called “delete.” Familiarize yourself with it (I’d start with logic first though).

    RR — Get a clue (here’s a hint, you won’t find it here).

    Todd — Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Then respond to my words, not the words you substituted for mine.

    You people have no idea what you’re dealing with and Stellman will have my sympathies when you all learn the hard way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s