Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from nakedpastor delivered straight to your inbox
Rob Bells said “bullshit” on Andrew Wilson’s radio show.
This image immediately popped into my mind.
I found out about this from Tony Jones.
I love how the interviewer asks what seems to amount to “have you gone liberal or do you still affirm the faith?” Like, you can’t be liberal and still affirm the Christian faith.
If you could really see into peoples hearts, you find most the attacks against Bell are about pure jealousy, that his books sell more than theirs. It hurts because they thought they were his peer. What did the Bible say happened to Lucifer?
On a different note: did you catch this Femen protest?
No, they’re just nothing special… bit like all that Harry Potter nonsense.
Yes, you CAN be liberal and affirm the Christian faith. And you can be conservative and affirm the Christian faith.
Jesus is frying MUCH BIGGER fish than politics.
Oh you make me laugh David – nice one!
Reminds me of a time I went white water rafting with a church woman’s group and said “sh!t” as we plummeted down some rapids. The look I got made the rest of the trip unbearable….lol
Bullshit can be said on the airways without violating any FCC regs. It is NOT considered a cuss word by our Federal Government, fyi.
Bahahahahahahahaha!!! Oh, man. That one made me laugh out loud! Thanks for the laugh, David!
Of course you can be liberal and still affirm the Christian faith, but I’m confused by liberal Christians. Bummed even. The ideology of liberalism/progressivism is based on atheism. That’s why you wonder if a Christian still affirms the faith when they’ve “gone liberal”
I honestly don’t get the obsession with so called “profanity” by the religious right. I mean after all, swear words are nothing but sounds pieced together like any other word and typically convey harmless enough intent. Even my very tightly strung and VERY religious grandmother found nothing wrong with referring to typical farmyard droppings as shit. Same meaning as poop, sounds a bit like shoot. What the hell is the difference? Seems to me the only offensive words are those used to harm others, which can be of any variety and certainly not limited to what is deemed vulgar. I think we are so sin obsessed that we even have the need to arbitrarily identify perfectly fine words as “sinful” just so we can find another reason to look down our noses at other people and feel superior.
Well I say THAT is bullshit!
How do you figure it is “based on atheism”?
Actually I said the ideology of liberalism is based on atheism…..and it’s because liberalisms answers to questions are based on there being no God.
An example…..is a baby human 4 weeks after conception? What is liberalisms answer….and why?
Hmmm…you’ve lost me, Dennis. I think liberalism like conservatism, is a large umbrella and when we start pegging people as one or the other, we do them an injustice because we’re no longer interested in what they believe as an individual as we think we’ve got them all figured out based on a label.
Actually there is a rather strong biblical case which can be made that supports the notion that God does not consider a 4 week old embryo a person either so your premise is totally based on a false analogy. I myself am a blend of liberal and conservative values. I would submit that your generalization is based upon a very biased stereotype. And your first response seems to presume I misspoke (I didn’t) and is a false statement. SOME liberals are atheists just like some conservatives are. However that subset of individuals defines neither liberalism or conservatism.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
I would recommend you spend a little time educating yourself.
“I would recommend you spend a little time educating yourself.”…..Why in any debate there has to be this I’m-smarter-than-you mode? Anyway……that definition sounds more like classical liberalism not today’s version of social liberalism. If you notice in my original comment I combined “progressivism” with liberalism. That’s today liberalism and Wiki can say what they want but when you look at liberalism/progressivism in action it’s not hard to see what you described is not reality. Also, I never said all liberals were atheist. And I know some conservatives are atheist (Ayn Rand, James Taranto). I said the “ideology” of liberalism is based on atheism. That’s why it’s disappointing when Christians practice todays liberalism. They’re supporting the enemy. So……what’s the scripture that you mentioned?
Again, I said the “ideology” of liberalism is based on atheism. It’s the foundation of the thought. Its where the answers to life’s questions come from. Hence…abortion, government(humanism?) is the answer to mans problem, humans are animals, the earth is god, etc.
“Again”, nothing in my response indicated I missed your statement at all. And “again” you fail to demonstrate any substance to your claim that “the “ideology” of liberalism is based on atheism.”
“Actually there is a rather strong biblical case which can be made that supports the notion that God does not consider a 4 week old embryo a person either so your premise is totally based on a false analogy.”
What’s the scripture?
Exodus Chapter 21 provides distinctly different penalties for the death of an unborn child (a fine if you will) and the death of a person. Other passages that discuss the topic include Jeremiah 20, Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, Job 3:16-19, Psalm 58:3-8 among others.
And for a better and very thorough discussion on the topic…
Now before you jump to simply repudiate these position pieces stop and understand my point. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with them but rather that very sincere Christians believe the bible supports a pro choice position, hence the claim that atheism is behind the view is false. Furthermore you have not defined or shown with any substance anything which would support your claim that the “ideology of liberalism” is based upon or springs forth from an atheistic worldview. NONE!! That statement sounds like nothing but unsubstantiated talking points handed down by fundamentalist pastors.
So, should Christian liberals distance themselves from liberalism simply because of how some have used it in the past? I consider myself liberal (in some of my thinking), but do not start with atheism as my base. I believe in God and He is my starting point. I think liberals and conservatives (religious ones, anyway) find their great differences to be founded in hermeneutics. If one takes the Bible as being inerrant, that will drive much of what they think on an issue. If however, one holds to a non-literal view of the Bible (or parts of it), that also will shape their thinking. It doesn’t mean that one believes in atheism to think that some parts of scripture are not literal.
BTW – It is sad that the atheist provides a much more accurate and honest analysis of the bible…but not surprising considering the shoddy textual analysis which is often put forth as biblical exegesis by the fundamental right.
“.. that very sincere Christians believe the bible supports a pro choice position, hence the claim that atheism is behind the view is false.” That doesn’t prove it’s false at all. That’s my point…….I’m bummed when Christians practice liberalism. They’re supporting the enemy. And those scriptures you used…..really? If there is harm to the baby the man gets death! If there is no harm to the baby it’s a fine. And Ecc 6:3 is not even worth debating because you know it’s not even talking about this subject. Jeesh. Psalm 139 13,14 – For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made
As far as your claim that I haven’t “defined or shown with any substance” is not true. I gave you one and your weird defense that abortion is biblical doesn’t erase it. The bible nor God ever advocate abortion. But I’ll give you another one by asking a question again. Is man an animal?
I think that Christians should distance themselves from liberalism because liberalism “mind” is wrong. It’s worldly thought. It’s the enemy’s thought. You can tell when liberalism answers a question. Such as….is a fetus a human baby? Or should the government take something from one person by force and give it to someone else? Does it matter if two gay men want to adopt children? Can humans destroy the earth by burning oil? Can we display the 10 commandments in a court house? The list goes on.
Clearly you didn’t even read the position pieces I referenced because they TOTALLY repudiate your statement that your abortion point is any kind of proof. This is a opinion piece not based upon factual evidence. you are entitled to your opinions of course…but when you make a declarative statement such as a ideology being based on atheism you are outside the realm of opinion. This is a false statement.
Is man an animal? Of course he is. Is man different from the rest of the animal kingdom and set aside by God? Yes I believe this is true. What is your point?
“The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life. ” From one of the links I read you said I didn’t read. And it’s wrong and I told you so and you ignored it. Exodus 21 does not say “man”. It says “men” fighting. If men “who are fighting hit a pregnant women” and nothing bad happens to the baby…..a fine. If something bad DOES happen to the baby….death (vs23). You’re saying I have no proof and all you’re doing is quoting someone else who is wrong. Come on…it’s not that hard.
And man is not an animal. It’s in the bible you should read that instead of some “wise in their own eyes” (also in the bible) person writing an article to suit their own OPINIONS.
Do you believe in God?
To presume that God agrees with you on each of the items in your “list” which “goes on” represents nothing short of the height of naive arrogance!
The proper translation is the woman has a miscarriage and no “further” harm comes to her. In fact several translations have explicitly translated it such to remove the confusion of the previous language. And this verse aside…the substance of the argument most certainly does not rest solely on properly understanding it.
As for whether or not man is an animal…your statement is totally absurd. It is also in the bible that the sun moves around the earth which is fixed and immovable. Unless you are a modern day flat earther (they do still exist) I presume you have allowed science to help you understand what is found in the bible. Of course man is an animal…yet I already stated God made man different than the rest of the animals. Which leads me to your last question…
I find your question as to whether I believe in God, particularly considering our conversation thus far, deliberately insulting.
Funny….I would never be insulted if someone asked me that question. And I know I don’t have all the answers to the mystery’s of God. But I know enough to know that you are interpreting scripture to suit your needs. Sad. The bible does not teach the earth is the center of the universe. Only quacks who want to bend scripture to their point of view use scripture (Psalm 104:5?) to try and prove this tripe. Also, Exodus 21 never says “harm comes to her”. You’re assuming it’s the women the harm is coming to. Why? Why do you try so hard to stretch the meaning of scripture? You really believe God thinks abortion is ok? Really? I wonder at what stage He thinks its ok…..12 weeks? 18? 23? 27.5? 32? 18 7? 27.5 As to your “height of naive arrogance” comment…….I think it’s arrogant to change the meaning of God’s word. You go ahead and believe the atheist/liberal and live like an animal. As for me I was made in God’s image. The dog wasn’t.
Funny thing is…this is exactly what you are doing. The sad part is how you are blind to it.
And based on the number of times He (apparently) committed genocide, infanticide, and abortion, it seems really odd that you ask if God thinks it is ok.
“You go ahead and believe the atheist/liberal and live like an animal. As for me I was made in God’s image. The dog wasn’t.”
This is an incredibly perverse interpretation of what I have said with absolutely no basis in fact or any relevance whatsoever to what I believe. It does not surprise me…but it is indeed sad.
He’s the Creator. He knows what we don’t and He sets the rules, not us. I knew you weren’t a believer. Maybe we’ll cross paths again one day…….keep searching.
Now you are blatantly lying. I am a believer and you sir do not represent truth or you would not be so willing to twist and pervert all of my comments. And you still have provided not one shred of substantiation for you silly statement which I challenged originally. You say bullshit…I say Fuck Off!
Well said. I can remember back to when I was a college-aged kid (not too long ago) and wanted to talk to the youth/young adult pastor about something and the senior pastor at the church said “Stacey’s (the youth pastor) car crapped out–ooops, bad language!” The senior pastor immediately got embarrassed, as if she had dropped the f-bomb!
That little anecdote points up the ridiculousness of how we designate some words as “swear” words and make them worse than others. You’re right; there are truly harmful words, and I’m not convinced that ordinary “cussing” words are among them. Those truly harmful words are the ones we use to cut down others (the Old Testament writers referred to gossip, for example as “loshon hara” or “evil talk”, and it was the province of busybodies and ne’er-do-wells). This cutting down is far worse than using any four-letter words.
Tsk, tsk. More “smug intellectual condescension”, Gary?
Moreover, despite the silliness of (for example) claiming that either atheism or liberalism implies that “the earth is god”, Dennis Irwin has a point. Atheism, liberalism, and indeed science, share very important characteristics: the rejection of arbitrary authority, and a reliance (at least in principle if not always in practice) on empirical evidence. Dennis is at least consistent in rejecting all three.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you……”
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, ……..”
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Liberalism is wrong about abortion….because it follows the urgings of the enemy.
If you are a Believer…then I’m sorry for saying otherwise. I do believe you’re allowing poor teaching to influence you. How you come to the conclusions you do on abortion are ridiculous. If we cross paths again I promise to do better following this websites advice: http://creation.com/aggressive-atheists
You know nothing of my conclusions on abortion because I did not share them with you. What I told you was that it is possible to be a sincere believer and come to a conclusion different than yours. Your original claim is still nonsense and you have shared nothing to demonstrate otherwise. In fact you are so blinded by bias that you do not appear to have the ability to even discuss controversial issues objectively.
And now that I have followed the link you have provided I understand fully what I am dealing with. LMAO
First of all you attempt to rescind your accusation of me not being a believer by providing a link on how to deal with aggressive ATHEISTS? As is typical of young earth literalist believers…the information plainly provided means NOTHING…you simply deny it and make up your own truth.
As I said before…fuck off.
ummm…I’ve read some of your previous debates and along with your condescending debating style with me …..you are aggressive. And I just had a desire to give you some of your own medicine. Maybe it will make you think. Killing babies is not bias….especially if your the baby. “How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
23Repent at my rebuke!
Then I will pour out my thoughts to you,
I will make known to you my teachings” ….I wonder if liberalism agrees with this?
Of course I am aggressive with you…you blatantly lie about me and have no ability to reason. And in every response you throw more condemnation at me based on conclusions you have formed out of your bias rather than my statements. This bible verse just now is deliberately intended to insult and mock and you believe you somehow have the moral high ground?
As I said before…seriously dude…FUCK OFF!!!
Not sure if you’re implying I reject science….but I don’t. I don’t believe science and God are separate. Not all science rejects “authority”.
Yes, you do reject science. The scientific evidence is quite clear that human beings are animals; and that anthropogenic climate change is real, and an urgent problem. You denied both, therefore you reject science. Moreover, all science does reject arbitrary authority, as I said – such as the claimed revelations of religion. Logical coherence and capacity to account for empirical evidence are the only grounds on which scientific theories can validly be assessed.
Thanks for debating without the “smug intellectual condescension”, ………”The scientific evidence is quite clear that human beings are animals; and that anthropogenic climate change is real, and an urgent problem.” Quite clear to some…..not so to others. I’ve got my scientist that says your scientist is wrong. I reject science that comes to the wrong conclusion. I must admit I might not understand the term “arbitrary authority” as you do. I’m going to check it out.
No, your “scientist” is not a scientist at all, but a pseudo-scientist. I’m citing the scientific consensus, based in both the cases I mentioned on overwhelming evidence.
Of course you are. lol. With so much overwhelming evidence you’d think they wouldn’t have to cheat to provide that evidence. I’ve never seen such evidence….have you?
Yes I have, it’s readily available – start here for example with respect to climate change, and there has been no cheating – only the theft of emails, quoting bits of them out of context, and systematic campaigns of lies and harrassment against honest scientists. I notice you don’t mention any specific example of cheating – because then, of course, you would have to produce some evidence that cheating has occurred – which you can’t, you’re just repeating the lies you’ve been told.
It’s an easy way to appear pious and it seems that many people need something tangible to angery at for a number of reasons. I believe in the story of the Widow’s mite, Jesus talks about Pharisees boast about all they give…they have to appear pious.
My father’s ultimate condemnation of pious hypocrisy was to describe someone as: “Wouldn’t say ‘shit’ if they had a mouthful.”