Wednesday, November 18, 2009

ah, those tolerant libs (update)

The Hills article has posted a correction, so it's fair to put it here.

DeGette says Stupak won't have the votes to keep his amendment

She also said that religiously-affiliated groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had pushed for the Stupak provision, should have a place in the process, but not the final say.

"Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she said. "I've got to say that I think that the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups should have input."

Note: An earlier version of this post misquoted Rep. DeGette as saying the bishops should not have input, but when in reality, she said they should. The post was updated at 6:00 p.m. to correct the quote. We regret the error.


While I do think the corrected statement a bit strange in light of the first statement about separation, without any other proof I'll accept that there was an error that was corrected.

9 comments:

chadholtz said...

This is "dance_with_god"

Well, as if to prove the difference between emergents and other segments of Christianity, I was just banned from Crosswalk for arguing a position that was apparently unacceptable to the czars at CW.

Talk about intolerance!

The folks at CW are the epitome of what emergents are pushing up against. The fear shown at CW over divergent views, as if it will topple their very faith, is pitiful.

Isn't perfect love supposed to cast out all fear?

Oh well. Probably just as well. This makes it easier for you all to set up your "holy huddle" and pat yourselves on the back.

jazzact13 said...

For those who may not know, here's the debate at Christianity.com Forums (which I think is the same as Crosswalk).

http://forums.christianity.com/The_Rise_of_Extreme_Tolerance_-_Emergent_Church/m_4632265/mpage_1/tm.htm#1

For an idea of just why chadholtz/dance_with_god may have been banned there, you may want to check out these loving and tolerant words, directed at yours truly, which he posted there. They are in post #17.

"If this conversation were happening in the 1st century people like you would be crying out to crucify Jesus because he associated with all sorts of people. He ate with tax collectors and sinners. He had a zealot and a tax collector as 2 of his disciples. Even a traitor."

I think that qualifies as an ad hominem attack, Mr. Holtz. Something you likely agreed to not do when you signed up there.

chadholtz said...

lol jazz.

that's not an ad hom attack. It's an observation.

And probably quite true.

And that is not why I was banned - it was for another thread entirely.

It does go to show the total lack of tolerance and grace by sites like that (and this one). And again, that isn't an ad hom attack - just the truth.

jazzact13 said...

So, Mr. Holtz, let's see...

Back in the Christianity.com debate, you said this about me.

--What I should have said when I mentioned heart and humility and love is that one of the key differences between emergents and conservative evangelicals is that whereas I may disagree with jazzact I still consider him (or her?) a brother/sister in Christ.--

But then, you say that this statement is true.

--If this conversation were happening in the 1st century people like you would be crying out to crucify Jesus because he associated with all sorts of people. He ate with tax collectors and sinners. He had a zealot and a tax collector as 2 of his disciples. Even a traitor.--

If this kind of double-talk is what passes for love in emergent, then my distaste of the movement is justified. Keep your love, you have more need of it then I do.

And it was an ad hominem attack, and your attempt to weasel out of it is pathetic.

chadholtz said...

jazz-

I'll just assume you don't understand what an ad hom attack is.

I have no reason to think you are not a Christian who strives to love and serve Jesus Christ as your Lord. I disagree with some of your conclusions about how that is best done and I strongly disagree with your "mission" to disparage and attack other Christian brothers and sisters. That is between you and God, however.

That does not change the truth of the matter that you continue to paint people as heretics and refuse to treat people as a neighbor because of who people associate with. Do you deny that people treated Jesus the same way?

All of your arguments and those of your buddies at Crosswalk (jhupertes is another prime example with his last comment there) amount to nothing more than GBA. Guilt by Association. When you and others are pressed to give direct evidence of how emergents deny the lordship of Jesus Christ "all the time" (your words, not mine), you run away or cry "ad hom attack!"

It's the same tired game again and again. Your lack of tolerance towards others is evidence that you place yourself in some seat of judgment that you have no right to be in.

jazzact13 said...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

When you say that "people like you would be crying out to crucify Jesus", that is an attack on my character.

Plus, it is saying that I am opposed to Christ, which are certain not the actions of believer.

So don't come around here again with your double-speak, I've had enough of it. Unlike you, I don't not say that two opposite statements statement can be true.

jazzact13 said...

And lest you try to play games with my inadvertant double negative in the last entry, let me correct it... "Unlike you, I don't say that two opposite statements statement can be true."

chadholtz said...

LOL.

See? You will continue to play this game. You will continue to whine about what you perceive to be an ad hom attack because that is the easiest way to avoid the real, deeper issue: You have no proof to back up your slander of other Christians.

You say: Emergents deny the lordship of Jesus Christ all the time.

And provide ZERO proof - again and again.

What is so hilarious and so ironic is how you are so up in arms about what you think is an ad hom attack on you, that MIGHT bring into question your love of Christ, and yet this is WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME TO OTHER CHRISTIANS! Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Of course not.

There is too much wood in your eye.

Honestly, I feel sorry for people like you. You live in a world of hate and seem to think that the Church will not go on without you and your blog or your comments at Crosswalk or elsewhere. How sad.

chadholtz said...

To clear it up for you...

Fact: Jesus' strongest accusers and those who feared him and his message most criticized him because of who he associated with. "He eats with sinners and tax collectors" they said.

Fact: YOU judge other Christians by who they hang out with or who they quote in their books.

Fact: YOU and the people who accused Jesus have much in common in this regard.


If you don't like it, then do something about it. Change.

Grow up and decide that maybe that is not behavior befitting a servant of Jesus Christ, one who is called to be a servant to all and change.

Or, maybe you think you are perfect already?