6 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

9 years ago @ http://www.rageagainst... - dear pastor mark: pont... · 0 replies · +10 points

Thing is, Jim, people HAVE tried to come alongside and correct - and it seems to have made little difference. Mark Driscoll continues to belittle and demean most of those who try this, rather than engage in respectful and meaningful conversation.
"Where is the real harm here besides what is on this page." This is not enough? I would have thought that the examples provided at the beginning of the post were evidence aplenty to be going on with.

12 years ago @ Stuff Christians Like ... - Forgetting 1 geography... · 0 replies · +1 points

Some great responses here, especially about the accountability aspect. All I would add is that if you really are called to a particular area of ministry/witness, then do that with at least one other person you can trust to be strong in that situation.

12 years ago @ An Exercise in the Fun... - Dear NHS... · 0 replies · +1 points

Glad to know you are OK. Will keeping praying for you and your family.

12 years ago @ Heresy Corner - Laying down the Laws · 11 replies · +2 points

You mean, I take it, that there is no COMPULSORY military service in this country AT THE MOMENT (if we are being pedantic). There certainly was less than 60 years ago and the law took conscientious objection into account, though it was made difficult to prove. I agree that it would be wrong voluntarily to join the army etc. and be paid and then refuse to fight. What I am saying is that in the case of conscription the absolute demand of the law that people of a certain age who are fit to do so MUST act in a certain way (i.e. perform military service) allows for some exceptions.

For the record I would not wish to defend anyone who expected to be able to tell someone else they were going to hell, or otherwise express hatred. @weepingcross's post below expresses the point I was trying to make.

12 years ago @ Heresy Corner - Laying down the Laws · 13 replies · +3 points

@Robert Longstaff
"religious types are trying to put themselves above the law."

I think that what "religious types" (nice stereotyping there!) are trying to do is to ensure that the law takes account of genuine ethical scruples. The law already does this in a limited number of cases - medical staff with ethical objections are not required to take part in abortion procedures; those who object ot taking oaths in a court of law (or elsewhere) have the option to make an affirmation instead; those with genuine conscientious objections to military service have this taken into account.

"it's an easy route to disenfranchising sections of society because they don't accept your groupthink delusion."

Quite, though perhaps not in the way you intended! Just because you (and maybe millions of others - it doesn't matter how many) do not happen to subscribe to Gary McFarlane's point of view does not mean that it should be dismissed out of hand.

12 years ago @ An Exercise in the Fun... - Simple Four Chord Prog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yep! They are BOTH scary. I thought playing the viola at school was traumatising - I obviously had a very narrow escape...