The Al Realpolitik Institute of Sulfur Mining & Extraction

[they don't love you like i love you]

Then why don't we do that?

And what would be the reason to ban him?

I'm sure you guys can think of something.

But you're the one advocating it, so what's your rationale?  Or do you think the mods should just adopt a "we don't like this, so we'll ban the person" policy?  (I know some of you people think we actually do this, but I assure you, we don't; I will admit that it'd be much easier if we did.)

Bigotry, trolling, attempted fraud on membership (pushing his scams), violation of members' privacy, chronic disregard for the input of formers, some more trolling, non-family friendly material, excessive hyperbole, etc, etc.

Don't forget multiple sock accounts, abusing the reporting system, lying about his identity to moderators…..

Oh wait, that was Simfan.

[Simfan34]

Do you still believe homosexuality is a choice? If so, that could arguably be a bannable offense...

Wow, did you really just say that?

I will ask this again.  Believing what the Bible, which is inerrant and infallible, says about homosexuality is now a bannable offense?  I guess there is no freedom of religion and beliefs in this place anymore.

This is a private website, not a government entity under any kind of obligation to uphold the First Amendment in its dealings with its members. This line of argument demeans us, it demeans you, and most importantly it demeans the Bible, by implicitly positing that it isn't worth actually analyzing or critically but faithfully engaging with in any way and can't stand up to the slightest amount of such analysis or critical engagement from those of us who don't belong to whatever cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs subvariety of snake-belly Low Church Protestantism it is that you do. Simfan, Harry, and I are all Christians and we all think this is an absolute joke. Positing Biblical inerrancy doesn't have to be a form of theological concern trolling, but it is as often as not.

Exceptionally good part underlined.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Do you still believe homosexuality is a choice? If so, that could arguably be a bannable offense...

Wow, did you really just say that?

I will ask this again.  Believing what the Bible, which is inerrant and infallible, says about homosexuality is now a bannable offense?  I guess there is no freedom of religion and beliefs in this place anymore.

This is a private website, not a government entity under any kind of obligation to uphold the First Amendment in its dealings with its members. This line of argument demeans us, it demeans you, and most importantly it demeans the Bible, by implicitly positing that it isn't worth actually analyzing or critically but faithfully engaging with in any way and can't stand up to the slightest amount of such analysis or critical engagement from those of us who don't belong to whatever cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs subvariety of snake-belly Low Church Protestantism it is that you do. Simfan, Harry, and I are all Christians and we all think this is an absolute joke. Positing Biblical inerrancy doesn't have to be a form of theological concern trolling, but it is as often as not.

Exceptionally good part underlined.

That is a great post, but I do enjoy 'me some good old fashion cuckoo for cocoa puffs snake belly low church protestantism.

I also really want to attend the Haitian evangelical church up the street from me; it's called "The House of Power" or something awesome like that. I imagine they do some kick-ass Pentecostal style dancing.

[Simfan34]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

I hope so!

[DC Al Fine]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

I will take a liturgical Protestant service over that stuff any day of the week. It's much more pleasing to the eye and ear.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I wouldn't vote as I would require both hands to hold the shotgun in my mouth.

[Simfan34]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

I will take a liturgical Protestant service over that stuff any day of the week. It's much more pleasing to the eye and ear.

Yeah, handwaving is the worst.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

I will take a liturgical Protestant service over that stuff any day of the week. It's much more pleasing to the eye and ear.

Yeah, handwaving is the worst.

You guys are so boring? Why do you hate snakes and big hats and hand waving and random cries of AMEN at inappropriate moments?

[Simfan34]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

I will take a liturgical Protestant service over that stuff any day of the week. It's much more pleasing to the eye and ear.

Yeah, handwaving is the worst.

You guys are so boring? Why do you hate snakes and big hats and hand waving and random cries of AMEN at inappropriate moments?

Because it isn't actually a church service.

[DC Al Fine]

Do they wave their hands there? Ugh.

I will take a liturgical Protestant service over that stuff any day of the week. It's much more pleasing to the eye and ear.

Yeah, handwaving is the worst.

You guys are so boring? Why do you hate snakes and big hats and hand waving and random cries of AMEN at inappropriate moments?

Because it isn't actually a church service.

Indeed, where is the word and table in such services?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Do you still believe homosexuality is a choice? If so, that could arguably be a bannable offense...

Wow, did you really just say that?

I will ask this again.  Believing what the Bible, which is inerrant and infallible, says about homosexuality is now a bannable offense?  I guess there is no freedom of religion and beliefs in this place anymore.

This is a private website, not a government entity under any kind of obligation to uphold the First Amendment in its dealings with its members. This line of argument demeans us, it demeans you, and most importantly it demeans the Bible, by implicitly positing that it isn't worth actually analyzing or critically but faithfully engaging with in any way and can't stand up to the slightest amount of such analysis or critical engagement from those of us who don't belong to whatever cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs subvariety of snake-belly Low Church Protestantism it is that you do. Simfan, Harry, and I are all Christians and we all think this is an absolute joke. Positing Biblical inerrancy doesn't have to be a form of theological concern trolling, but it is as often as not.

Exceptionally good part underlined.

That is a great post, but I do enjoy 'me some good old fashion cuckoo for cocoa puffs snake belly low church protestantism.

Do keep in mind I'm referring to doctrine more than style when I say that. Bushie's church actually seems quite staid and normal stylistically. Doctrinal elements that I'd consider 'cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs' include, in no particular order, Biblical literalism (bonus points when John 6.55 is somehow exempted from this in order to support an ultra-memorialist understanding of the Eucharist), young Earth creationism, complementarianism to the point of believing that the gender roles of first-century Israel are themselves binding on present-day society, soteriology that's sola fide to the point of antinomianism (which is perhaps the biggest single problem in Bushie's life), excessively gracious interpretation of the idea of the priesthood of all believers, insistently stressed belief in double predestination (as opposed to just having it in the doctrine somewhere and not making too huge a deal out of it on an everyday basis), and premillennial dispensationalist eschatology. None of these are on their own quite enough to make an entire church cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, but a church that exhibits two or more of them in my experience almost always is. Bushie's church teaches at least three by my count, maybe more. Note that the presence of all of them creates a truly bizarre mishmash of stereotypically Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed elements that collapses under its own self-reflecting ponderancy forthwith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds like a good time, though not in a way that I, being as High Church as I am, would consider a particularly religious experience.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There's one item in Nathan's list (but only one) that might apply to my church though it's a pretty subjective standard so in his view none might. Guess which one.

[traininthedistance]

There's one item in Nathan's list (but only one) that might apply to my church though it's a pretty subjective standard so in his view none might. Guess which one.

I'll guess "excessively gracious interpretation of the idea of the priesthood of all believers".  Seems pretty easy unless this is a trick question or something.

[they don't love you like i love you]

That's it. Though it depends exactly what he means by that but lack of a formal "ordination" procedure seems like it'd qualify.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Yeah, your church is a little whackadoodle in that respect but the fact that you don't have any of those other traits means you're more or less okay by me. You are ultra-memorialist but since you don't claim to be Biblical literalists in the first place that doesn't bother me as much.

There's a too-liberal cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs spectrum as well as a too-conservative one but your church seems to be Trinitarian so I doubt it would check many of those marks either.

[Simfan34]

Church today was actually disgustingly New Rite. The music all sounded like some jazz club and they were actually clapping during the dismissal. I just left at that point. It was completely inappropriate and lacked solemnity. The only nice thing about it was the fact the deacon was smartly dressed in a traditional cassock and surplice, which was right up my alley.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Re: Joe Donnelly

He's gonna be Tea Partied in 2018.

He wouldn't be in the senate if not for the Tea Party

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, the notion that routine genital mutilation of babies ought to be a crime is a bad joke. And in order to be free, the religious simply must cut off parts of babies' penises. Anything less would be tyranny. Un-Inksing-believable! Shall we bring back the castrati as well? Virgin sacrifice? Suttee? Divine rule of monarchs? As Nathan says, some must suffer to appease the religious.
If you want to alter your penis, I have no problem with that. It's yours, after all, and none of my business. All I'm asking if for other to leave alone the penises of babies. I don't think that's much to ask.

Not to interrupt your hysterical and frankly worrying straw-manning of the position on this--that it's the parents' business and that the benefit of the doubt in a society with freedom of religion should generally go to those who want to when possible avoid prosecuting aspects of religious practice as felonies instead of those whose preferred set of priorities for making policy on the subject makes the analogous provisions of the Volstead Act look like kum-ba-yah multiculturalism by comparison--that most sensible people hold, but do you genuinely consider circumcision a comparable violation to the other things that you're mentioning, or is it just that degree and scale have no meaning to you?

Damn Nathan, kill'em.

[Simfan34]

Scott needs laid.

So do Simi and Gully.

Says the man who makes fun of a woman he doesn't know in his sig by calling her a 'slut' (not to mention once stating rhetorically here to her 'Make me sandwich'. I believe the word 'Bitch' might have been involved).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Scott needs laid.

So do Simi and Gully.

Says the man who makes fun of a woman he doesn't know in his sig by calling her a 'slut' (not to mention once stating rhetorically here to her 'Make me sandwich'. I believe the word 'Bitch' might have been involved).

That doesn't take away from the fact that Grumps is probably getting laid (not that the rest of you aren't, but still, that was a weak response, especially from Gully who has a way of really firing back with witty retorts).

[IceSpear]

I'm sure you and your I-Phone, your Netflix account, your four bedroom gated subdivision home, and your fathers 2012 Subaru will be among the first of the "bourgeoisie" up against the wall, Phwezer.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Scott needs laid.

So do Simi and Gully.

Says the man who makes fun of a woman he doesn't know in his sig by calling her a 'slut' (not to mention once stating rhetorically here to her 'Make me sandwich'. I believe the word 'Bitch' might have been involved).

That doesn't take away from the fact that Grumps is probably getting laid (not that the rest of you aren't, but still, that was a weak response, especially from Gully who has a way of really firing back with witty retorts).

Whether or not someone "gets laid" has no bearing on the fact that they have the maturity of a 12-year-old.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I believe Sanchez's point is that "says the man" usually implies some sort of pot calling kettle black.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I believe Sanchez's point is that "says the man" usually implies some sort of pot calling kettle black.

Yeah, it was expressed poorly. Gully just failed to deliver in his usual style.