Sunday, October 31, 2010

A Sad Day

Today, while we remember the tragic but necessary split that occurred in 1517, I am also sad to hear that Ken Pulliam has died. I hope and pray that his spiritual state was different than it appeared. God is merciful and just and will judge Dr. Pulliam as He sees fit. Keep his family in your prayers, please.

There are several posts on Reformation day that I want to link to (just because I link to something does not mean I agree with all that is said):

http://www.patheos.com/community/returntorome/2010/10/31/reformation-day-2010-is-the-reformation-over/

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

http://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/10/31/happy-reformation-day

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/10/30/here-i-stand-3/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+between2worlds+(Between+Two+Worlds)

http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2010/10/happy-reformation-day.html

If you've seen any more good ones, please put it in the comments.

60 comments:

Ryan Anderson said...

re; your comments on his memorial page.

Your faith has made you a bad person. You really should be ashamed.

bossmanham said...

Um, if wishing the best for he and his family makes me a bad person, then ok....

And by what standard are you judging me as bad?

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

Your standard isn't mine. I couldn't care less where I stand on your standard.

And cursing isn't allowed on my blog, so don't bother commenting if you're going to cuss.

The Seeking Disciple said...

He knows now that he was wrong but sad he had to learn it this way.

Hacksaw Duck said...

"He knows now that he was wrong ..."

Seeking Disciple, everything you believe is conjecture, much as you would like to think otherwise. You don't "know" that your doctrines are all true any more than a Muslim knows his are. In light of that, it behooves you to show a touch of humility -- something Jesus talked about often -- and keep those kinds of comments to yourself. You sound very smug.

bossmanham said...

Hacksaw, how do you know what SD *knows*?

Hacksaw Duck said...

You keep feigning ignorance here. SD said that Ken now knows he was wrong. So SD must "know" that Ken is conscious in a place where his error would be apparent.

David said...

Ah, NOW I understand what you mean by "frustratingly dishonest".

cerbaz said...

Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:11)

This is what your bible says and yet you do not show this. Could you not just leave it at being sad for his family and friends. Your remarks make it easier to continue to want nothing to do with christianity. Have you know shame? A good man who researched and thought deeply about what he once believed is no longer with us.

Rhology said...

Boy, Hacksaw Duck and cerbaz certainly get around. One might be forgiven for thinking they're a bit obsessed with ripping anyone who says anything other than "Pulliam was a great man! A GREAT MAN!!!1"

Rhology said...

But will cerbaz explain his reasoning? That remains to be seen.

David said...

Rho,

You're an idiot. People are not objecting to your behavior because you failed to say Pulliam was a great man.

Ryan Anderson said...

Rho and Brennon; I would expect that even idiots would see the difference between not saying "Pulliam was a great man! A GREAT MAN!!!1" and inappropriately injecting your theological opinion on a memorial for him.

But I guess not. You people really are disgusting.

Rhology said...

Please explain your assertion that our comments are inappropriate. We know you feel strongly about it, but go ahead and explain it, please. And separate it out - we're not the same men, and we didn't say the same things.

David said...

Rho,

As you like to say, if you don't know, then I don't know how else to help you.

Rhology said...

Yep, that's what I expected. File under "fail".

David said...

Yep, that's what I expected.

Yep, and that's what I expected from you. When you say "if you don't know, then I don't know how else to help you", that's considered a brilliant argument. When I say the same thing, it's considered a "fail". You condemn your own argument here.

Ryan Anderson said...

Rho; my post contained enough detail for a reasonable person to figure out what I mean by inappropriate. Reread it if necessary, or not.

Rhology said...

I'm looking for a reason to agree with your opinion of what is appropriate, Ryan. Provide an argument or don't. If you don't, though, you sort of give up the right to call yourself on the rational side.

David said...

As I said elsewhere...

You're being criticized for bad taste, rudeness and a lack of sensitivity. There are plenty of venues in which you are free to express yourself, but there's a time and place for this. You're just trying to cut a fart at a funeral.

If someone you loved dearly had just died in a horrific car accident, and I showed up at some sort of memorial event to talk about what a slow, agonizing death it had been, I think that you'd be justified in concluding that I was digusting. If I excused my actions by saying that this is what my faith tells me to do, then I think that you'd be justified in despising my faith as well.

Rhology said...

Now all you need to do is provide connecting argumentation. How what I said is analogous.

David said...

Now all you need to do is provide connecting argumentation. How what I said is analogous.

Someone dies. You want to talk about the suffering of the deceased. Get it?

You made a conscious choice. Why did you act as you did? Why post what you posted?

bossmanham said...

Hacksaw,

Since knowledge is justified true belief, it's entirely possible that SD has that in this case. I am assuming that one of SD's assumptions is conditional; if someone does not have Christ when they die, they die in their sins. If this is the case with Dr. Pulliam, then the sad state of affairs is true.

David,

Come now, David, it's not just now. You've been frustratingly dishonest for months now. Since the apologetics 315 morality debate.

cerbaz,

So, could you tell me where in my posts on the subject I have not expressed my sadness?

Ryan,

So where did I inappropriately inject my theological opinion? And what's wrong with that if I did? (hint: you'll need a transcendent source of goodness to ground your claim that I did something inappropriate)

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

Boy, Ryan, I don't know why you think anyone would care about the personal opinions you harbor. Not to mention that it's awful intolerant to shove them down other people's throats. Why should I care what your personal opinion about tact is?

bossmanham said...

Oh yeah, and I said something about the cussing. Namely it's not allowed.

Ryan Anderson said...

Rho; I actually underestimated how despicable you are.

Brennon, that post was for you, so long as you saw it, I'm fine.

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

I notice you're also fine not really accounting for this badness you're accusing me of. Is it impenetrable ignorance, Ryan? I think you're morally despicable for avoiding my questions about where you ground morality. Prove me wrong.

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

According to whom? You? Who the heck are you?

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

According to me, you're on par with a child molester for not answering my questions. Prove me wrong.

bossmanham said...

Again, who are you and why should I care what you think? And as far as society goes, whose society? No one I know thought it was wrong. His niece appreciated the comment. The only people who didn't like it were atheists, and I really don't care what you think.

Also, at one time society thought slavery was ok and that women were second class citizens. Are you saying we should depend on the whims of society?

bossmanham said...

And, Ryan, let's see if you are consistent. When Christopher Hitchens speaks ill of the dead, is it just as wrong as if I had, assuming I did?

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Come now, David, it's not just now. You've been frustratingly dishonest for months now. Since the apologetics 315 morality debate.

Again and again with the false accusations. Back it up, big boy.

bossmanham said...

Yes, you've just enforced my first impression of you. You're another ignorant atheist who is angry and hateful at life and take it out on the internet because you're more than likely an antisocial outcast. You place your blind faith in your atheism and can't explain anything beyond your own personal feelings, again, which are fueled by your atheist anger, which is fueled even more by your sad sad ignorance. And your only out is to call people who challenge that sad ignorance names, which is what middle schoolers do on the playground. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

I also like how you're wasting time commenting when you know I'm going to delete it. This is common for social outcasts.

Also, you haven't been able to even tell me what I did wrong, which leads me to infer you're just a troll with no real discernible complaint.

Have a good day.

bossmanham said...

David,

I will when you do...Little boy? Or were you hitting on me? I can't remember the last time some dude called me that. Creepy.

Rhology said...

Wow, this is becoming a veritable Asperger's smorgasbord. Kind of makes me sad.

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

First, you've been blathering on about my "dishonesty" for months now at different sites and at different postings. You started it, and you've repeated it numerous times. I've repeatedly asked for evidence that has not been forthcoming. So, I believe that you have the greater burden here.

(And you know what I meant by litte boy, so don't play games. Jebus. More dishonesty.)

In the meantime...

You were criticized for your actions with respect to Ken's memorial page.

You responded with "Um, if wishing the best for he and his family makes me a bad person, then ok."

You KNOW that this is not what prompted the criticism. The very best that can be said is that you were being disingenous.

bossmanham said...

David,

You called me big boy. That's creepy.

The charge of dishonesty was strictly tied to the comments on a previous post. You continually asked the same question over and over again even though it was answered over and over again, which is debating dishonestly. You act as if it hasn't been answered to make your side look better.

But this is really dumb to discuss here, because it's not relevant to this post. So all future tirades on this issue will be deleted.

You were criticized for your actions with respect to Ken's memorial page.

You responded with "Um, if wishing the best for he and his family makes me a bad person, then ok."

You KNOW that this is not what prompted the criticism. The very best that can be said is that you were being disingenous.


Then, pray, what prompted it? I've been continually asking this and yet the most vocal accusers have failed to tell me what I did wrong. All I did was wish Dr. Pulliam well and then I wished his family well. How does this register criticism? I tell you, you atheists have the most messed up morality I've ever seen.

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

You called me big boy. That's creepy.

Ooops. I meant to type "big boy" in the last comment. Again, you know exactly what is meant by this. It's a typical way of framing a challenge to put up or shut up. There is nothing creepy about it, you know this, and so your statment that it's "creepy" is more dishonesty on your part.


"You continually asked the same question over and over again even though it was answered over and over again, which is debating dishonestly. You act as if it hasn't been answered to make your side look better."

I was NOT asking over and over to make my side look better. This is a false accusation. Again! I really, really wanted a specific answer to a specific question, and I wasn't getting that answer. If you chose to misunderstand, then I can't help you, but there was NO dishonesty here. You might honestly believe that you answered the question and I might honestly believe that you didn't. No need to accuse me of dishonesty, but you repeatedly have done this.

"Then, pray, what prompted it? I've been continually asking this and yet the most vocal accusers have failed to tell me what I did wrong. All I did was wish Dr. Pulliam well and then I wished his family well."

You wished Dr. Pulliam well? Seriously? Gosh, you're such as generous person.

According to your beliefs, what has happened to Ken Pulliam? Your beliefs tell you what has allegedly happened to Ken Pulliam. Given what you believe your "best wishes" clang hollow. You know it, I know it.

bossmanham said...

Ooops. I meant to type "big boy" in the last comment. Again, you know exactly what is meant by this. It's a typical way of framing a challenge to put up or shut up. There is nothing creepy about it, you know this, and so your statment that it's "creepy" is more dishonesty on your part.

It's typical? Ok, must be why you never see it done. So we're now redefining the word "typical." More dishonesty? You be the judge.

According to your beliefs, what has happened to Ken Pulliam? Your beliefs tell you what has allegedly happened to Ken Pulliam. Given what you believe your "best wishes" clang hollow. You know it, I know it.

So now my beliefs, not my statements, are what is pissing you off? That's funny, because earlier it was what I said that was so dang offensive. And you now claim to know my feelings about the matter now and are claiming I was somehow disingenuous in my sympathy for the relevant parties involved...Seems a bit dishonest there, David, since you can't possibly have access to my mental states and how I feel about the matter.

In any case, your atheist anger isn't because of what I said, but because of what you think I believe. Wonderful, now David wants me to be held accountable for my thought crimes. Should I start calling you O'Brien?

David said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bossmanham said...

Somehow I remember telling you not to bother with any more tirades.

Well, you've argued dishonestly, you've dishonestly accused me of something without proper knowledge, and now you double down dishonestly.

Ryan Anderson said...

Wow... I haven't posted since 5pm. So you made up a post and deleted it for effect (you must be a little crazy). Sad really.

David said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ryan Anderson said...

Oops, well you can see why I would have been confused. I saw David's response before it was deleted and can't for the life of me figure out how it could reasonably be considered a tirade so my theory made more sense. Teaches me to expect you to make sense...

bossmanham said...

Yeah, Ryan, have you figured out what I did that offended your little atheist sensibilities yet? And I deleted David's post, not yours.

And my earlier comment sill stands David. Seems like an awful waste of your time to post when I'm just going to delete it.

David said...

You know, Bossman, I actually thought that you were a little better than Rho. A little more open to reason, etc., but I guess not.

You really stepped in it you when said "seems a bit dishonest there, David, since you can't possibly have access to my mental states and how I feel about the matter". Exactly. Quite right. And the same is true when you call me dishonest. You're making assumption about my mental state, and making accusations based on those assumptions. But rather than acknowledge that, you're going to delete my responses. And you're against "double standards"? Such hypocrisy.

bossmanham said...

David,

You really stepped in it you when said "seems a bit dishonest there, David, since you can't possibly have access to my mental states and how I feel about the matter".

So wait, I can see constant dishonest behavior out of you here, and it's not legitimate to point it out? I can actually see dishonest behavior. You can't see my mental states. I don't have to see your mental states to see dishonesty.

Quite right. And the same is true when you call me dishonest. You're making assumption about my mental state, and making accusations based on those assumptions.

I said nothing about your motives. Maybe you're just really ignorant, though from what I've read that's not the case. It just seems to me you aren't keeping the discussion on the up-and-up because you don't want to lose.

What am I to think when I answer your questions and then they pop up a few posts later when new posters are commenting? It's like it isn't even worth answering you.

But rather than acknowledge that, you're going to delete my responses. And you're against "double standards"? Such hypocrisy.

Mokay. Now, maybe you can come back on a later post and add something to the discussion.

Rhology said...

I actually thought that you were a little better than Rho. A little more open to reason, etc., but I guess not.

Nah, bossmanham has a long way to go to get down to my level.

David said...

Bossman,

"What am I to think when I answer your questions and then they pop up a few posts later when new posters are commenting?"

You are to think that I thought that you failed to clearly answer the question. You have confused my frustration with dishonesty. You can even conclude that I was rude if you'd like, but dishonest? No.

"I can actually see dishonest behavior."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You didn't see any dishonesty, because it wasn't there to see.

Your conclusions about my "dishonesty" were entirely based on your assumptions about my intentions, motivations and mental state. I EXPLAINED why I did what I did, but you rejected it based on assumptions about my mental state.

Your basis for concluding that I was dishonest is the same as my basis for concluding that you were dishonest. It's all based on assumption that one person has made about another. Now, I can admit that I might have made a mistake if you can acknowledge the same.

Rho,

Good point.

David said...

Guess I'm not going to get that acknowledgment. So it goes. Buh bye.

bossmanham said...

David, perhaps you missed this post.

David said...

I did miss that post you linked to as I was looking here for a response and did not expect to see it where it was posted. In any event, I see it now, and I thank you for your re-consideration of the matter. I, too, apologize for jumping to conclusion and for erroneous assumptions about your intent, motivation and mental state. Here's a toast to fewer misunderstandings in the future.