Saturday, November 24, 2012

Satan v. Olson



    Attorney for: Melvin Belli









    Roger Olson


    CASE NO: 666
    (Defamation of Character)

    Plaintiff complains and for causes of action alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Pandemonium. Plaintiff has worked as the Archfiend. Plaintiff has during all this time enjoyed a reputation for unrivaled perfidy, infamy, and iniquity, both generally and in his official occupation.

2. Defendant Roger Olson, is an individual and is now, and at all time mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of McLennan County, Texas.

3. On or about 2011, defendant published Against Calvinism, stating that God was even worse than the Devil.

4. The entire statement “The Calvinist God is worse than the Devil!” is false as it pertains to plaintiff. Plaintiff is a being than which no wickeder can be conceived. Plaintiff prides himself on his unspeakable evil.

5. The invidious comparison is defamatory on its face. It clearly exposes plaintiff to diminished contempt, ill-will, and obloquy.

6. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss of professional ill-repute, and injury to his self-esteem. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages to the tune of hourly disemboweling defendant in ninth circle of hell.

    WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant,
    and each of them, for:

    1. Compensatory damages according to proof;

    2. Punitive damages;

    3. Interest as allowed by law;

    4. Costs of suit; and

    5. Such other and further relief as this court may deem
    cruel and unusual.


  1. Hear! Hear!

    I grow weary of Olson's claim to being merely irenic in his never-ending caviling against Calvinism. Why Horton continues to treat the man with any sort of respect escapes me.

    The facts are clear that Olson is at enmity with any view that would lay claim to the sovereignty of Almighty God.

    Spurgeon was correct and was speaking to the likes of Olson:

    “There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

    There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

    On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

    They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;

    but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

    They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”

    1. AMR: Why Horton continues to treat the man with any sort of respect escapes me.

      Have you not run into the "tone nannies"?

    2. At least it's consistent. Horton treats Olson with grace. Olson doesn't seem to have such inclinations. Maybe it has something to do with the difference in theology.

  2. Haven't seen you in a while, AMR. How've you been?

    - Knight