tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5554560951950711341..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: James Dobson's Focus on the Family and...Eschatology?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52177249034904194352007-09-13T22:03:00.000-04:002007-09-13T22:03:00.000-04:00You spelled etiquette wrong.....You spelled etiquette wrong.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62407018540945080262007-09-13T21:19:00.000-04:002007-09-13T21:19:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:---which I never claimed was my sta...Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>which I never claimed was my statement anyway so I'm not sure how it's plagerism<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>A) You didn't put it in quotations.<BR/><BR/>B) You didn't attribute it until TWELVE HOURS after you posted it (and note that in that time there were 6 other comments, three of which dealt specifically with the substance of what you quoted).<BR/><BR/>C) Your "attribution" of it after all that is the vague "from a chalcedon blog" as if this cleared up the issue.<BR/><BR/>How is this NOT plagerism?<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>---<BR/>It was just an experiment to see how much self righteous indignation I could drum up around here!<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>In other words, I've characterized your post correctly the entire time. It's irrelevant to the topic, it's factually wrong, and now you're trying to get off by saying, "Just kidding."<BR/><BR/>You STILL haven't sourced it.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, you could have avoided all confusion off the bat (and still been able to conduct your "experiment") had you simply opened with:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>I read this on the Calcedon blog [link to actual source so we could see if you were telling the truth]:<BR/><BR/>"How can we permit our politicians to continue..." blah blah blah.<BR/><BR/>What do you think of this comment?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>You would have avoided all the problems with this SIMPLE, HONEST, and CORRECT way of presenting someone's views. Instead, you violated all kinds of ettiqute, pawned it off as if it was your own post, and you continue to hide behind your "anonymous" label.<BR/><BR/>Fact is, we cannot tell if you are lying or not. We cannot even tell if you are the same anonymous, or if you're just a different anonymous making stuff up about the first anonymous. In fact, to prove how pointless this all is, I'll post THIS comment anonymously too.<BR/><BR/>But don't worry, I'm the *FIRST* anonymous, but not the second, third, or fourth anonymous. Aren't I so smart! Such a devilishly clever man am I to be able to obfuscate with ambiguity!!!!<BR/><BR/>Yeah. Go play in the sandbox where you belong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71700311476183751182007-09-13T19:05:00.000-04:002007-09-13T19:05:00.000-04:00I'll try to keep it clear for you. This is the fir...I'll try to keep it clear for you. This is the first anonymous--the one who copied and pasted the quote from Chalcedon which I never claimed was my statement anyway so I'm not sure how it's plagerism. I explained that it was from another blog altogether. It was just an experiment to see how much self righteous indignation I could drum up around here! And I never asked for an apology either so no worries there! I'm not sure how vague "i'm not the anonymous from the above post" really is, but sorry to confuse you. I mean you actually didn't have all the info, so I understand the mess. I did sort of enjoy the blustering "how dare you bring such illogic to this blog!!" rhetoric however!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20476427375331744132007-09-13T18:35:00.000-04:002007-09-13T18:35:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:---Whoa whoa slow down Pete! Rememb...Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>Whoa whoa slow down Pete! Remember that I'm the anonymous who cut and pasted the religious right clip. The anonymous who posted the comment you are refering to never said anything about the religious right. We are two different anonymous's! Im sure it's hard to tell anonymous people apart but I did clarify the difference. I dunno, maybe you went to public skool too?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Whoa whoa slow down anonymous! Remember that I was responding to an anonymous who immediately posted a comment to my satirical post directed toward the first anonymous as if he was the same anonmymous who posted the first comment, with only a vague statement by another anonymous who claimed to be the same as one of the anonymouses but not the other. In the process this other anonymous who claimed to be the first anonymous claimed to have copied and pasted a comment from another blog post despite not having provided a link to the other blog post, and despite having not indicated that the original post was a copy of another comment in the first place. The other other anonymous never bothered to differentiate his position from the other other other anonymous. Furthermore, there was another anonymous who posted "The religious right is arguing over the Federal Vision?" as well. Be that as it may, I feel no need to apologize to someone who now admits to having plagarized a quote that has absolutely nothing to do with the context of this blog entry because I got "confused" as to which of the dozens of anonymouses posted the comment here.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2763419842634438752007-09-13T14:52:00.000-04:002007-09-13T14:52:00.000-04:00Geez Peter Im sorry I didn't post up to your satis...Geez Peter Im sorry I didn't post up to your satisfaction, Well I was educated in public school I didn't grow up a christian, sorry I couldn't tell the nature of your satirical post. It seemed as though you didn't think our freedoms were taking a hit. Im not the anonymous that sent the post as he stated in his second post. Im not as smart as you, God has not gifted me with the ability to think like you, maybe my Post was silly in your eyes but it affects me how it affects me. All your points are way better than mine and I appreciate your position and clarity with which you answered. I appreciate the work you guys at triblogue do, presenting tight arguements for your positions on things. If I haven't thought clearly about something I don't mind being corrected. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91225444133619996222007-09-13T12:21:00.000-04:002007-09-13T12:21:00.000-04:00Whoa whoa slow down Pete! Remember that I'm the an...Whoa whoa slow down Pete! Remember that I'm the anonymous who cut and pasted the religious right clip. The anonymous who posted the comment you are refering to never said anything about the religious right. We are two different anonymous's! Im sure it's hard to tell anonymous people apart but I did clarify the difference. I dunno, maybe you went to public skool too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65650656346740102752007-09-13T10:37:00.000-04:002007-09-13T10:37:00.000-04:00Gene,I wouldn't be too bothered by Dobson and othe...Gene,<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be too bothered by Dobson and other like him. Every day more Americans are getting an understanding of people like him and how far out on the edge of the spectrum they are. Ironically, people like FoF are much less interested in Christ than they are forcing their desparate opinions upon us. While the failure of the Bush administration (in virtually every aspect) is recognized (now) by the vast majority of Americans there remains a shrinking number of Christians who remain gullible enough, still, to think that Bush has it right. Dobson and his ilk are part of that group of misguided political toadies. As far as morals and ethics are concerned, Americans don't need FoF to do their thinking for them.<BR/><BR/>BarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70976081493982921562007-09-13T01:29:00.000-04:002007-09-13T01:29:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:---I think that anyone who thinks w...Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>I think that anyone who thinks we have more freedom than we used to is blogging way to much.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I think someone who doesn't have the basic reading comprehension to realize that I never said "we have more freedom than we used to" is a product of publik edjukashun.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>More than other countries yes but that is hardly the point<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>No, that is <I>exactly</I> the point. Assuming you're the same anonymous my satirical response was directed toward the first time, you came in here whining and complaining about the religious right not doing what <I>YOU</I> want them to do because of an issue <I>YOU</I> perceive to be of vast importance which is, in comparison to the real events that occur in this world, not even rising to the level of trivial.<BR/><BR/>My satire doesn't say the US Government is perfect. It points out the stupidity of your coming on here and simply asserting that the religious right has the wrong focus based on some unnamed rights that are being trampled. You haven't named a single right that has been oppressed in the first place, but leaving that aside, even if the worst of the Daily Kos were happening, this country is still freer than any other country on Earth right now.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>trivialize it all you want Peter but the government has its nose in our business more and more<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>In principle I don't disagree. What I disagree with is your notion that the religious right needs to make <I>THIS</I> their issue.<BR/><BR/>Why should the religious right care about whether a business gets taxed? Render unto Caeser and all that, ya know.<BR/><BR/>As a Conservative, I agree that Bush's domestic policies have been dismal failures. But as a Christian, I have more pressing concerns than whether or not you think you're being fairly taxed.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>I don't want to trade privacy for safety<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>This is such a naive sentiment. You can only make that statement because you are <I>already safe</I>. If you didn't live in a society that gave you such a high degree of safety it would be impossible for you to say that. As it is, you show contempt on the safety already provided by our country in saying that you'd value privacy over safety. But if someone was trying to harm or kill you, you'd quickly find that your privacy is of secondary concern to ensuring your well-being.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>and because they are not busting in our houses unwarrented now doesn't mean it won't happen eventually<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Which was the point of my satire. Today a stern look...tomorrow Gitmo. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF DOOM!!!!<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>the constitution that protects us is eroding year by year. Whos's to say we are untouchable from a totalitarian regime.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>We're never "untouchable" from a totalitarian regime. One could <I>always</I> spring up.<BR/><BR/>But Christianity doesn't stand or fall on America being a free country. America could become the next Nazi Germany and it wouldn't change the truth of Christianity, nor would it change the responsibilities that Christians have to live by.<BR/><BR/>Again, as a political Conservative I empathize with your position and agree that the Constitution is being mistreated by the left and by many who claim to be on the right. But this doesn't mean I'm going to go into a blog post that's not dealing with Constitutional issues and anonymously try to hijack the comments by whining about how the religious right isn't doing the correct politicial action in America.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32927158118241630282007-09-12T22:57:00.000-04:002007-09-12T22:57:00.000-04:00I actually just cut and pasted that comment on fre...I actually just cut and pasted that comment on freedom from a chalcedon blog just to see what sort of reaction it would get. Interesting. I'm a different anonymous than the previous post too by the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72540584516792785052007-09-12T22:37:00.000-04:002007-09-12T22:37:00.000-04:00I think that anyone who thinks we have more freedo...I think that anyone who thinks we have more freedom than we used to is blogging way to much. More than other countries yes but that is hardly the point, trivialize it all you want Peter but the government has its nose in our business more and more. As a business owner I know first hand. I don't want to trade privacy for safety, and because they are not busting in our houses unwarrented now doesn't mean it won't happen eventually, the constitution that protects us is eroding year by year. Whos's to say we are untouchable from a totalitarian regime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54336733872951530782007-09-12T21:09:00.000-04:002007-09-12T21:09:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:---Our freedoms are vanishing quick...Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>Our freedoms are vanishing quickly AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT STILL SAYS NOTHING!!<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>This is so true. Why, just the other day I was crossing the street and a police officer had the gall to look at me and point at the "Don't Walk" sign I was disobeying. This completely disrupted my train of thought, which is a total invasion of my privacy. He ruined my day completely.<BR/><BR/>This is just a step, my friends. A step down the steep cliff into totalitarian regimes! Today I get a glance for breaking a trivial law--tomorrow, GITMO!<BR/><BR/>And the religious right says NOTHING! I mean, sure it's one thing that the religious right doesn't even bother to complain when eighteen South Korean Christians are kidnapped by the Taliban--I mean, it's the Christian's fault for trying to fulfill Jesus' command instead of obeying the South Korean government's command to not go to Afghanistan. That's fine and dandy to ignore because, face it, it's their fault for being kidnapped. And the guys that were summarily executed...they had it coming for violating international law. So the religious right has a reason to ignore that.<BR/><BR/>But I'm a freaking AMERICAN, not some Korean person. And I have the right to walk across the street whenever I feel like it, and I shouldn't have to watch over my back to see if some pig is gonna glare at me inappropriately for such a stupid offense. Don't they have donuts to eat or something???<BR/><BR/>That such an absurd travesty should happen to me--a born and bred AMERICAN--is proof beyond all doubt that my freedoms have been eroded to the point that I might as well already be in a gulag.<BR/><BR/>There, I said it.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19639749244322365352007-09-12T16:34:00.000-04:002007-09-12T16:34:00.000-04:00Oh, and today it was more of the same. We did get...Oh, and today it was more of the same. We did get to hear Rosenberg talk more about his book and more about Ezekiel. We also learned that Dobson is happy that the CIA and others are turning to Rosenberg, it seems, for information on "the end times." <BR/><BR/>Rosenberg did say we are to learn (about the end times of course), pray, and send. This, of course, was not enough, said Dobson, we must vote as well, with the caveat that Dobson isn't telling people who to vote for - as if we don't already know. Dobson was sure to tell Rosenberg that his action plan - the Great Commmission no less - was incomplete unless we vote. <BR/><BR/>What I'd like to know is <I>how</I>, other than keep an eye on Iran and support the Iraq War, this has to do with <I>the family</I> in something more than these vague ways. What we heard is how Islam is threatening to <I> America</I>, but I'm an American, but I'm also a Christian. Islam is the enemy of the Faith and the Church, not simply "America," and "America" is by no means synonymous with "the Church" or "the Faith." I'd like hear them talk about how to interact with Muslims in the marketplace of life. How do we share the gospel with them? How do we deal with them apologetically? Nothing was said.<BR/><BR/>No, we were told that Rosenberg represents "biblical Christians." So, amills and postmills aren't "biblical Christians?" These sorts of comments peppered the broadcast, and, tomorrow, Wayne, Rosenberg isn't going be on. Rick Santorum is going to be on...another day of politics on FoF.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54212415720123256142007-09-12T14:35:00.000-04:002007-09-12T14:35:00.000-04:00On the contrary, Wayne, this isn't about my eschat...On the contrary, Wayne, this isn't about my eschatology. It's about the use of a particular eschatological POV for political ends.<BR/><BR/>If Rosenberg is incorrect, then God did not, in fact, include Ezekiel 38 - 39 for us to prepare ourselves, so having him present eschatology on the program is 100 percent irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>What he's doing is playing up a particular eschatological POV in order to further his own political agenda.<BR/><BR/>Surely we can discuss Islam apart from Ezekiel. That, Wayne, is the point. Hanagraaf is quite right, dispensational eschatology is sending Jews to Israel <I>believing full well as mass extermination of them is coming </I> and nobody bothers to stop and think that they are promoting another Holocaust.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56059235233256796182007-09-12T12:40:00.000-04:002007-09-12T12:40:00.000-04:00You listened to 15 minutes of what will be 2 hours...You listened to 15 minutes of what will be 2 hours of presentation. Don't you think you may have just jumped the gun a bit. Come back to us after you have listened to the rest, and then we can discuss your views on eschatologyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67844077837640462602007-09-12T12:39:00.000-04:002007-09-12T12:39:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:How can we permit our politicians t...Anonymous said:<BR/>How can we permit our politicians to continue to lie to us in saying that the war on terror is a war for freedom? Our freedoms are vanishing quickly AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT STILL SAYS NOTHING!! They are absolutely silent on these issues. They're arguing over federal vision nonsense, postmodernism, cultural relevance, the religious intent of the founding fathers, and rallying support for unjust war!<BR/><BR/>There, I said it<BR/><BR/>***************<BR/><BR/>Well, for one thing you're leveling a lot of vague, unsubstantiated allegations, so you've offered us nothing to respond to.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38541964352554506932007-09-12T12:01:00.000-04:002007-09-12T12:01:00.000-04:00The religious right is arguing over the Federal Vi...The religious right is arguing over the Federal Vision?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69180009777950391022007-09-12T11:10:00.000-04:002007-09-12T11:10:00.000-04:00How can we permit our politicians to continue to l...How can we permit our politicians to continue to lie to us in saying that the war on terror is a war for freedom? Our freedoms are vanishing quickly AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT STILL SAYS NOTHING!! They are absolutely silent on these issues. They're arguing over federal vision nonsense, postmodernism, cultural relevance, the religious intent of the founding fathers, and rallying support for unjust war!<BR/><BR/>There, I said it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34578187011791241662007-09-11T19:42:00.000-04:002007-09-11T19:42:00.000-04:00It ties in the following manner:"Radical Islam" ha...It ties in the following manner:<BR/><BR/>"Radical Islam" has 12 letters.<BR/>"George W Bush" has 12 letters*.<BR/><BR/>(Anyone who thinks this is 11 letters doesn't realize that W = "double U" = 2 letters.)<BR/><BR/>This would seem to make an equivalence between the two, but for one mitigating circumstance.<BR/><BR/>"Family" has 6 letters.<BR/>"George" has 6 letters.<BR/><BR/>6 is 1/2 of 12.<BR/><BR/>Bush is 1/2 of a family--Laura is the other half. "Laura" has 5 letters, just like "Islam"!<BR/><BR/>Therefore, the 1/2 of the Bush family that is Islam is Laura, and George is NOT Islamic at all.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you look up Ezekiel 12:6, you will read: "Put them on your shoulder as they are watching and carry them out at dusk. Cover your face so that you cannot see the land, for I have made you a sign to the house of Israel."<BR/><BR/>This passage is clearly a call for George Bush to put Muslims on his shoulder and carry them out at dusk (i.e. "the Iraq war").<BR/><BR/>Clearly, anyone who doesn't understand this is obviously unregenerate.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22394138371096622202007-09-11T17:11:00.000-04:002007-09-11T17:11:00.000-04:00That's what he said, and then he talked about Ezek...That's what he said, and then he talked about Ezekiel. I think that was his basis.<BR/><BR/>The whole point was "God has revealed these events so we can be ready" by supporting President Bush and keeping an eye on Iran, etc.<BR/><BR/>How this ties into "Radical Islam and the Family," I don't know.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36340155285620187982007-09-11T16:52:00.000-04:002007-09-11T16:52:00.000-04:00I sat in my office today and listened. Rosenberg ...I sat in my office today and listened. Rosenberg was talking about how God reveals certain events that are going to happen to certain countries so that we can be ready. What? I'm not sure what he based this on. Sounded mostly like more newspaper eschatology.<BR/><BR/>He did say that we don't know the time of Christ's return though.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01410144337505012175noreply@blogger.com