Comments on: Does Anyone Really Care That History’s Greatest Monster is No Longer a Southern Baptist?

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:59:55 +0000

Especially if Todd were to brew his own brand of beer…

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:57:44 +0000

OH! I almost forgot: Bless your heart, Icka-roo.

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:56:37 +0000

Ah, good for YOU, Icka-roo. Too busy to post.

By: Icarus

Icarus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:49:44 +0000

Yo Simon,

Mostly A, some of B, and there’s quite a few C,D, and E answers that would work.

In case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t exactly been around the few days. I’m so sorry your need to be instantly validated and/or gratified wasn’t fulfilled.

I’ll try to work a post up for you in the next couple of days.

In the mean time, feel free to “go eff yourself”.

By: Icarus

Icarus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:44:36 +0000

“Finally, I find it highly ironic that some of these (Erick included) fundamentalists are so enthralled with Sarah Palin.”

Why?

Who among this group’s strongest supporters would object to snow machine riding Todd Palin running the country?

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:00:08 +0000

Welcome to Peach Pundit!

By: rightofcenter

rightofcenter — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:18 +0000

I hate for religious discussions to crop up on political blogs, mainly because I think it diminishes religion to put it on the same plane as politics. That being said, this entire thread really “chaps my cheeks.” I am not, and have never been a Southern Baptist or a Baptist of any kind. However, being a Southerner, I have to deal with way too many of them because they have a disportionate level of influence in this region. While Eric may not be a Baptist, his sentiments here could well have been written by one. And it is so against the spirit of Christ that it infuriates me.

I am a member of a congregation and a denomination that does not set limits of gender on leadership. While we believe the Bible is the true, inspired word of God, we are not literalists. In our opinion, literalists are like the Pharisees and miss the ultimate truth because they are so busy searching for the rules. Ultimately, to each his or her own, I say.

Personally, I have seen and met many incredibly gifted female pastors and leaders. I would have a hard time believing that God granted them these great gifts if he didn’t intend on them using them.

Finally, I find it highly ironic that some of these (Erick included) fundamentalists are so enthralled with Sarah Palin.

By: Daniel N. Adams

Daniel N. Adams — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:06:56 +0000

Another thing that amuses me about this Post (with update) is that Erick deleted the part that he thought might “offend some peoples sensibilities” when it came to his prejudgement of President Carter’s arrival at the “pearly gates,” but had no problem with offending women that ‘don’t know their place’…, I guess it’s one step to the left and one step to the rear, head down and speak only when spoken to…we’ll have to let Erick clarify to know for sure, since he lead us to believe his position is opposite to that of the ex-President’s.

By: rugby

rugby — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:48:50 +0000

I’m just guessing because A) He seems to have a life outside of PP but chiefly B ) half of your rebuttals were about stuff where you just stopped reading his post or chose to ignore part of it.

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:05:53 +0000

HEY, ICARUS!!!!

Why don’t you get your tail on here and respond to my rebuttal to your accusations?

By: Romegaguy

Romegaguy — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:26:09 +0000

unless it is a Sunday, Shep

By: Daniel N. Adams

Daniel N. Adams — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:24:13 +0000

That’s a good one too… there’s a lot of them, like the one about Fundamental Baptist, unlike Methodist, never having sex while standing… just not relevant to either Erick not reading his own links or hoping no ones else does before commenting.

However, to the joke you mentioned, let hope we get to add “… on a Sunday afternoon.” to it one day.

By: Dash Riptide

Dash Riptide — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:42:15 +0000

There is nothing hotter than a woman wearing a man’s dress shirt and nothing else. Preferably mine.

By: Jason Shepherd

Jason Shepherd — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:38:43 +0000

Are pants now considered exclusively men’s clothing? I don’t think God ever designated what is men’s or women’s clothing so the actual definition can change over time. Of course, some sects do layout specific gender roles for things like pants and dresses.

By: Jason Shepherd

Jason Shepherd — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:33:43 +0000

I thought that joke had to deal with smiling at each other at the liquor store?

By: MSBassSinger

MSBassSinger — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:34:49 +0000

Let’s not give Erick such a hard time. I don’t think Erick thought the fact that Carter isn’t in the SBC is “new news”. It’s the senile Jimmy Carter who brought this back up in the media recently, not Erick.

It looks like to me that Erick used absurdity to illustrate the absurdity of this embarrassing, incompetent ex-President when Carter unjustly attacks a portion of the Christian Church he hasn’t been a member of for years for Carter’s own gain (publicity). I guess that makes Carter one of those folks who violates Bill Simon’s issues 1 and 2 above.

By: Red Phillips

Red Phillips — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:22:47 +0000

It turns out Erick was not the only one to interpret this as new news. Read this.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4140

By: MSBassSinger

MSBassSinger — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:51:52 +0000

Bill Simon wrote:
1) They espouse self-righteous crappola regarding their attempts at ramming their brand of religion down the throats of everyone else via trying to use GOVERNMENT (e.g., George W. Bush, Christian Coalition, et al.) to do so.

2) They violate their religion’s very own principles in the name of running for political office (e.g., Ralph Reed, et al.)

I agree on both. Government has a responsibility to enforce the level of morality that is in natural law (which descends from and coincides with much of JudeoChristian morality) and which also, if not legislated against, has a demonstrable negative effect on others.

Thanks for your kind words, and if you knew me, you’d know I have little respect for those who misuse the name of Christ for their own political or personal gain. If a person is truly a believer, how they live their life now will say so, and only then will their words carry weight. I have no problem with those whose past is anywhere from “less than perfect” to “despicable” – it is what their life is now and for the recent past.

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:21:30 +0000

:::SIGHhhhhhhhh!::: Those old posts were truly the good 'ole days on Peach Pundit. When we didn't have to contend with a freaking limit of 3 levels of outcropping of REPLY threads...

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:11:39 +0000

MBass,

2) “Bless your heart” is in no way “You can go to hell”. I don’t know who told you that garbage, but that isn’t what it means. It is a polite way of changing the topic so as not to offend the other person by arguing with them, and express at least some level of friendliness.

You appear to be a very good-hearted and honest soul. I believe that you truly believe that this is what it means.

However, I have heard from people from entirely different sects of Christianity…and…all of them have relayed to me that…well…in actuality, the phrase is more along the lines of a MUCH rougher statement, and I softened it in my above answer to you.

And…let me make myself perfectly clear: I have absolutely no distaste or dislike of Christianity, or, for that matter, of any other religion. My best friends in this life ARE Christian.

What I DO have a serious issue with is people who engage in the following acts with regards to their religious faith:

1) They espouse self-righteous crappola regarding their attempts at ramming their brand of religion down the throats of everyone else via trying to use GOVERNMENT (e.g., George W. Bush, Chrisitian Coalition, et al.) to do so.

2) They violate their religion’s very own principles in the name of running for political office (e.g., Ralph Reed, et al.)

Any questions?