« Wade Burleson's Complementarianism: An Unnecessary Theological Argument That Is Doomed to Later Destruction | Main | Jerusalem: A Trip to Remember »

Oct 05, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jim Champion

Good to see you expanding your focus today - its not just all about Wade, but the outpost too!

Peter, I fear you are becoming a bit obsessed with all things Wade these days.

I will say that I dont agree with your banning from Wade's blog. I think you typically help Wade define his focus even though you do take off on the tangent when discussing one of his posts.

Have a blessed weekend - I will be in beautiful college station watching the Texas Aggies play the OK State Aggies Gigem Whoop!

peter

Dear Jim,

Thanks for dropping by before the blood rolls. And from whom, may I ask? :^)

I admit, you had me worried. I thought: Gosh! Am I as obsessed with Enid and Outpost as either is with the Convention?

So, here are my last quarter's writing stats so others may judge:

July--11 Posts with 0 about Wade or Outpost

August--11 posts with 1 recorded for Enid and 1 recorded for Outpost

September--16 posts with 1 recorded for Enid and 1 recorded for Outpost

Though it's much too early to tell, we'll go ahead, just to avoid the charge of unfairness, and throw in October to date: 4 posts with 1 about Enid & Outpost, 2 about Enid.

Oh, my stars! You're right Jim! I am completely fallen off my wagon. The first five days of October absolutely demonstrate, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I am now fully consumed and thus doomed.

Is there any hope for me?

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. Jim, since you're a big fan of both Enid and Outpost, why not chart their record over the past 3 months on posts written about SBC leaders or chewing on the convention? Then we'll compare their records with SBCTomorrow. What do you say?


wade burleson

Jim,

Peter is banned from my blog because he crossed an ethical boundary, not to mention a very personal line for me, when he accused me of making fun of the mentally retarded. My beloved niece, whose father is in prison for abusing her, is mentally challenged. Peter's remarks were in very poor taste.

I welcome dialogue and discussion on my blog from people who disagree, including Peter. I do not ban people who personally attack me, including those who repeatedly avoid the issues and go after me personally, but when Peter presumed to know my heart and mind regarding the mentally handicapped, and admonished me on behalf of all the mentally challenged people of the word, he crossed the Rubicon.

I do not know if Peter is obsessed with me or not. I will leaave that to others who read the last four posts he had posted. Maybe one day he will be given grace to see the error oof assuming things about people he has never met, much less know. If Peter will choose to dialogue about the issues before us and refrain from very personal comments that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, he is more than welcome on my blog.


In His Grace,


Wade

selahV

well, how 'bout that? selahV

anonOHmus

how about what, Selah?

anonOHmus

ahnonOHmous: well, it seems to me the stats Peter suggests we consider are fairly tilted to NOT being obsessed over anything. But then I haven't checked the Outposts stats or G&T so I can't fully confirm Peter's position.
But one thing I'd be interested in seeing is the deleted comments from Wade and Peter that prove Wade's allegation on this thread. That would be really interesting to see for the purpose of clarification.

I sure hope that Wade is wrong about his assumptions and interpretations of Peter's words. But I'll never know because I never saw them. selahV

NativeVermonter

It would be encouraging to read a post about the reconciliation of two brothers and how while they would probably never serve together in a local fellowship—they can indeed find agreement on the fundamentals of the Cross. That whether the slight was perceived or real, the forgiveness would be real and would serve as a testimony to those in the household of Faith and to those who are on the wide road to destruction. No cookies until you post at least one nice thing about the other.

John in the STL

peter

Dear Wade,

Welcome Wade. Know you are always welcome here. It is also humbling that you read my some of the posts here.

First, I at least appreciate your actually engaging the little fiasco.

Secondly, Wade, contrary to what some may think, I have no reservations at all in accepting that I am more than capable of being unethical. Not one of us is excluded from that possibility this side of the Gate. I believe you agree with me there, do you not?

If so, my Brother Wade, then I would suggest that perhaps you consider the possibility--regardless of your sincere intentions to the contrary--that it was you yourself who stepped over the ethical line with an obviously, inappropriate analogy of a "Mr. Crowder" (whose identity I haven't the slightest idea for I've never even noticed his comments before) being an 'imbecile' but for him not to worry cause God gave 'grace to little babies and imbeciles.'

The context you placed those words in Wade, were demeaning enough to this "Mr. Crowder." The kicker was your obvious allusion to the mentally handicapped. When I raised this horrid connection, Wade, rather than simply say--"Peter, you're nuts. If you think I've got a problem with mentally-handicapped people, you need to know my own niece is mentally challenged." Or you could have said "Whatever anyone is reading into this know that my analogy evidently did not communicate what I intended"

No, Wade, what did you respond with? Stacking yet another 'humorous' allusion in the very same way.

Consequently, you deleted every bit of the exchange including your own words, which, one might inquire: "But why--if your words about 'imbeciles' did not imply a very bad connection?

Nor did I, Wade, in any syllable, mention what you actually believed 'in your heart' about the mentally challenged community. I argued with your WORDS, Wade, your WORDS, which in my view, were completely, utterly disgusting. Hence, if that's unethical, I proudly stand unethical, my brother Wade.

Come again anytime. With that, I am...

Peter

wade burleson

Peter,

My comment here stands. My father, my sister and three of my church members read your comments and they all believed it was very clear you were publicly admonishing me for demeaning the mentally retarded.

No amount of justification by you, inentional altering either the chronology or the truth , or using many words to divert the issue will negate what happened or how we feel about it.

You, too, are welcome on my blog WHEN you stick to the issues and refrain from demeaning comments and language, particularly the kind that are very sensitive to those families with mentally challenged children.

I am uninterested in getting you to acknowledge what we feel you did. I think it is clear from reading your last four posts that something is bothering you. I am only interested that you focus on issues and refrain from comments that are below the belt.

This will be my last comment on the subject. There is always a spirit of forgiveness in my heart, but I stand by the deletion of your comments when they cross the boundary of poor taste.

In His Grace,

Wade

miss_shunary

Peter - From a simple lay person who likes to read blogs, I decided to comment because I could also see a clear obsession happening. But alas, the first comment beat me to the punch.


I thought that was strange. Here I was going to make a brilliant observation that no one had recognized and it turns out that is what the whole comment stream is about. So much for my insightfulness.


I have read the posts. I have read your "stats". I have read the comments. It is clear that you are obsessed.


Clear to all who are reading here. Not clear to you, of course.


It may be fair to note that I typically enjoy reading here and do not agree with Wade on some issues. So take it for what it's worth.


Good day.

Mary

Peter, as the mother of a "challenged" child I can honestly say I've never found anything to which I would take offense. You've never struck me as that type. Wade's comments are often offensive to me. He really doesn't care. Nor do many of his church members who love to extol his praises. They follow his example it would seem. I do know however that there are many people here who have heard of that blogger from "Enid" and want nothing to do with him or his political agendas. He can have his groupies run all through cyberspace boasting about what a great guy he is - his reputation has gotten out and no one outside Ednid is being blinded by those groupies anymore.

Luke

Peter,

I must confess brother. I too think you are obsessed. I mean, you do this all the time. You've made this a habit. It is what everyone thinks of you. Peter, you indeed are a very obsessed man. I just do not know what we are to do with you Peter. After all, you have been called out by the obsession police. That's it Peter. PUT DOWN the keyboard. Now lift up those hands where they can be seen. Peter! Stop Singing! That wasn't what was meant by put up your hands! No Peter! DO NOT sing "Suspicious Minds"! It does not matter if you do sound like Elvis. Now look at your stats Peter. Peter! Look at your stats and stop singing! It doesn't matter if others post on a topic more than once. That is them MR! Not YOU! Now that we have your attention Peter. DELETE ALL of your previous posts. Yeeesss ALL of them. That way, our position can be justified that you are obsessed, completely and madly obsessed. What do you mean, "what can you write about?"
Listen very carefully Peter, you will only be told this once. Write about Patterson twice a week and we will not bother you any more. It does not matter if that is ALREADY being done. We are the obsession police and you must abide by our views. Yes, you can keep signing your posts, "with that I am Peter". Now move along.

davidbroughton

Hi Peter,

I see a couple of nice looking bulldogs trying to trim some very sharp and some long and ugly spikes off of a nice looking branch.

It looks like eventually they will finish the job as the look determined.

When they are done, they should have a nice smooth limb.

Maybe you and Wade should follow the advice of that great theologian Dave Mason, "we just disagree" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCpQLZs2Eh8 , and keep on blogging.....

Dave

Mary

Wade said

"......all believed it was very clear you were publicly admonishing me for demeaning the mentally retarded.""


And Peter has admitted to admonishing you specifically for using the word imbecile. No where have you denied that you used this word in the matter Peter has described. As a mother of a son with Aspergers an Autism disorder I have seen him called words like imbecile and retarded. Do you think he thought it was funny? Does his mother overreact when she shed's tears over how cruel people can be? Here you stand a minister of the gospel and you want to defend your use of the word imbecile? Of course you said it that's why you had to delete your posts. You are not mad at Peter for admonishing you, you are mad at Peter because you got caught, but then again you're the one whose church member goes all the internet posting such nonsense like if you don't except the Calvinist view of salvation you're really just an atheist. Ooooh but she didn't use the word heretic so that's okie dokie by you.

selahV

Pineapple anyone?
SelahV

anonOHmus

Selah...yes, yes, I want a pineapple? Will you take all those prickly things off it first?
anonOHmus

selahV

why certainly anonOHmus! that is the least I can do for an unknown Christian in need of a little sugar.
selahV

anonOHmus

Selah:
now you know good and well that you are me and I am you. We are one in the spirit after all. But a pineapple for us is still a great treat.
ahnonOHmous selahV

Scott S.

Peter,

Your post yesterday hit the bullseye. Keep removing "non-essentials" from the BFM and you will eventually emasculate (don't pardon the pun)the SBC.

To be fair to the charge you have become obsessed with all things Enid, you should add the number of times you have commented on SBC Outpost and Wade's blogs. As a fairly objective reader of your comments on their blogs, it appeared that last week you had about all you could take from them. Just my impression.

Grace,
Scott

Jim Champion

I'm back after a busy day -Peter I was just talking about your last three posts. I enjoy your writing and your obeservations. As I mentioned before I am closer to you theologically than I am Wade.

Looks like to me that you and Wade had a basic misunderstanding - it happens to all of us from time to time.

do fall more in line with the outposters and Wade politically- as I think we need reform (I am one of the theological conservative, politically moderates that stayed) and think the CR went WAY to far to the right and is listing further right each day.

If I were the establishment folks I would be more worried about Jerry Grace and his SBC Outhouse blog - he is connecting some dots over there and making some pretty strong arguments about why a SBC agency head should never be pres of the convention.

Scott, when do you think the word innerrancy will ever actually debut in the BFM - thats what you were fighting about wasnt it?

Steve

SelahV.. where were you going to put that pineapple?
I laughed so loud, I stirred the neighbour's dog up!
I guess Wade won't tell you why he banned me.. it began when I questioned his academic credentials,and then later about his divisiveness (drawing a line in the sand) and continued with his response of an angry email desiring the Lord to hurt or kill me.
It progressed on several blogs (Les Puryears' and David Rogers') to threats of legal action.
He is a real fun guy when you get to know him...
and wow does he display love...
well its a display anyway.
Steve

selahV

GROSEY: WHAT? "continued with his response of an angry email desiring the Lord to hurt or kill me." WHO sent you an angry email with such threats? I didn't realize you were banned, too.

It doesn't matter who doesn't love you, Grosey. God loves you. And so do I. And I have a group of emailers who talk to me all the time about you and your wit and your comments. One lady thinks you need to write a book. I agree. It would be so great!

I laughed when I wrote that about the pineapple, too. In fact I'm still laughing at that. I don't know what provoked me. Your comment in the thread just now made me realize the other slant to what I'd posted. Now, I'm really losing control of myself. selahV

Steve

hahaha thanks SelahV,
you can see why I was laughing so hard.
And thank you for your very kind encouragement.
Steve

peter

Dear All,

My. I have been away from my desk most of the day. Dog, it looks like ya'll had a party here. And, though there have been a few snitty remarks, you've done well. I'd give it a B-

Except for that darn Luke. He gets an A+. Luke your creativity breached quantum leap. If I had my Awards to do over, I'd certainly consider you "The Most Creative"

Thanks, all. I'll try to respond to at least a couple of the comments.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Dear Wade,

Glad you came back. I am glad also, that so many of your Church members read something I wrote. Be careful, Wade: they may get my address and log onto SBCTomorrow and read my posts! My obsessive/compulsive condition you've revealed clearly about me, coupled with my now obvious stalker-like obsession with Enid folk may prove to be an unhealthy mix for them, my brother. Better rethink that one...

By the way, Wade, please thank your dad, sis and three church members for me. They get the star by their names: "My father, my sister and three of my church members read your comments and they all believed it was very clear you were publicly admonishing me for demeaning the mentally retarded."

Hurray!, Wade, Hurray! They got my comments precisely. Indeed I most definitively was "publicly admonishing[you] for demeaning the mentally retarded. "What on earth gave you the impression I denied I was?

The mush-gushy language in the first comment you offered to our Jim about me coming on your blog "presum[ing] to know [your] heart and mind regarding the mentally handicapped" is what I most specifically denied and still do.

To the contrary Wade, I dealt with the words you employed as an analogy with a Mr. Crowder, calling them, as I recall, 'morally disgusting', among other things.

Your attempt at humor, calling him an imbecile and suggesting he not worry for God gives grace to 'little babies and imbeciles' stands, for me, as the biggest, bleakest, blackest gaff you've ever offered since I've been reading you. It's totally inappropriate and morally questionable. Yes, my brother, I did publicly admonish you. And, since you are evidently defending it again, Wade, I am publicly admonishing you again.

Here is the crux as I see it and disagree with it as you so wish, Wade, along with anyone else reading this thread. For me, I do not determine truth by counting noses.

The word you chose--'Imbecile'-- is a perfectly good, descriptive word if we're speaking say, of ourselves making a stupid mistake: "What an 'imbecile' I was for turning down that one way street."

O.K. No problem there. Most of us employ the descriptor in that way some time or another. I have.

However, if we employ 'Imbecile' as descriptor of an entire socio-subculture of beautiful but disadvantaged people, that word morphs into a horrid, despicable stereotype unworthy of defense.

Though I have no empirical evidence to prove this, I'd bet money that 'Imbecile' is in the handbook of any state-run school in America as a definitive 'no-no' in speaking of mentally challenged people. Indeed, I do not think it too much to say that 'imbecile' scores virtually head-to-head as negatively provocative to the mentally challenged community as does the "N" word to the African-American community.

Now you said, Wade, "My comment here stands", well, my Brother, so does mine. My conscience possesses no warrant to stand down.

As for the other little things about commenting on your blog, Wade, I must say are much too funny to address at length. To hear grown men and women whine about somebody chasing rabbits or off on other trails, etc busts by britches. If I'm chasing rabbits, why is there a pack of hounds behind me? Why bother to exchange barks if I'm sniffing the wrong trail?

I have a simple solution, my fellow hounds. Do not follow my bark.

With that, I am...

Peter

Wes Kenney

Peter,

It's curious, isn't it, that while Wade maintains that it was your comments that were over the line, he also removed his own comments. If the whole "accountability group" saw nothing wrong, why remove his?

Scott Gordon

Following Scott S. (man with a first name like that, he's gotta be good!)...

I agree that it looks like Peter's had it 'up to here' with Wade antics. Count me in that number, too. While driving in my car two days ago I nearly drove up someone's tailpipe while discussing the latest 'dissentions ans obstacles' being posted from Enid.

BUT, I did find out that our beloved Rev. Wade agrees fully with Dr. Patterson...
on at least two issues! Check it out at my blog, Sola Gratia! (http://sagordon.blogspot.com) [shameless plug, indeed :-) ]

peter

Wes,

I think that's the question of the hour: Wade's dad, sis and three church members evidently validated the appropriateness of his words but the absolute unchristian nature of my words. His innocent 'humor' was washed down the sink along with my 'unchristian puerile'. Naturally, I do not think we'll get a quick answer to that.

Peace, Wes. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Mary: With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about if you say that Wade nor his church do not care. In fact that statement has bitterness in it that should not be a part of any Christians life.

Debbie Kaufman

Steve: You are totally out of line and not telling the truth here, yet you continue. I would suggest that you be a true Christian and tell the rest of the story. Yep, there is more to it than what you are choosing to relay. The truth will set you free Steve.

volfan007

debbie,

where have you been?

david

Debbie Kaufman

Steve: Why is it you want to destroy even if it means dropping morals to do it? I don't understand how a Christian can want to do this, that goes for you as well Peter and others here. I don't understand it. At least try and do it with truth and not falsehood. No true born again Christian has the capacity to do this. Not and be a follower of Christ.

Debbie Kaufman

I took some time off david, for a well needed time of renewing.

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

Why welcome back, my sister. It's too bad you come in swinging.

With that, I am...

Peter

Steve

mmm Debbie... as I have said before your comments are tripe!

Mary

Debbie, it is astounding how absolutely clueless you are. A period of renewal??? You continue to come here where you know you will not find anyone who agrees with you on practicially anything and yet in YOUR EXTRME PRIDE AND ARROGANCE you've decided that you can examine hearts and minds over the internet and thus you are qualified to pass judgement and correct anyone and everyone that you see fit. You know all, see all, and have the right to speak on all matters. What's absolutely sad is that you have no idea how many people are out there lurking and think that your are abosultuely ridiculous in the things that you post on this site. You Debbie are the one who does not act in a Christian manner on the internet. You Debbie are the one who has made an idol out of her pastor to the point that when he is so blantently wrong, as in the point of calling names, Debbie you will come in here and defend him. You are the bitter person here Debbie. Me I'm fine - I know my Redeemer liveth and on this earth will stand and no man is worthy of the complete worship that you have displayed over and over. Contrary to what you believe in your delusional mind Debbie - no church is perfect and if the people at your church believe that it is acceptable behavior for their pastor to go around the internet calling people who disagree with him names like imbecile than your church has got some serious problems.


Peter, these blogs really need an ignore feature - some of these posters are too crazy for words.

Mary

Debbie says:

" No true born again Christian has the capacity to do this. Not and be a follower of Christ."


There goes Debbie saying because we don't worship at the feet of Wade Burleson that we are not even Christians! Sheesh!

Debbie Kaufman

No Mary that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that if you are going to disagree try doing it by telling the truth or if you don't know then say nothing at all. To just shoot off one's mouth with no facts to back it up is just that. Shooting your mouth. That should not be in any believers life. Ever.

Debbie Kaufman

And I assure you it's not me that is clueless. Not by a long shot.

Thanks for the welcome Peter, it's too bad I had to come back swinging.

Steve: I know the whole story, so do you. It's just too bad you won't tell it or else say nothing at all. If you think that's tripe, I have no problem with that, that is your opinion, but I don't think calling for the truth is tripe. I could be wrong though. :)

Debbie Kaufman

Mary: Yes a period of renewal. Walking in the spirit doesn't mean that I let people walk on me or anyone else for that matter. You can feel free to disagree with me, it's the spirit of divisiveness, the speculation, the untruths, the downright wish to have those who disagree with you disappear that I'm anything but clueless about. I realize it won't change you, but it can let you know that I am anything but clueless. Newsflash. We aren't going away. :)

Steve

Well Debbie... if you know so much let's hear it... show me the email that Wade sent to me....
Show me the threats that he made on Les Puryear's blog and on David Roger's blog.
Let's see it you old windbag. :)

Debbie Kaufman

First of all Steve, I'm going to be blunt and ask with all that is holy how you can be a minister of the gospel and speak as you do, so full of hate. I pray that God graces you with His grace. Changing your heart of stone into a heart of flesh. second Steve, I am questioning even answering you. I read it all from beginning to end and no threat was made on your life. None. Yet you insist that is the case. It is not. As I said I saw it all, I know it all, whether you want to believe it or not. You are out and out lying. Period and I go on record saying that. My goodness Steve, this was last year sometime. Bitterness hurts you, it's not hurting me or anyone else but you. Drop it. This obsession of yours is making you sound unstable. Do you not see that?

Steve

Debbie you said "Steve: I know the whole story, so do you. "
I am asking you to prove it. If you cannot prove it, you demonstrate to all of us that you are a liar.

Steve

Still nothing Debbie?
Well Debbie if you know it all, come and show us... print it up here

Steve

I guess you have run off Debbie to feed those kangaroos jumping around in your top paddock...

peter

Debbie,

I say again it's too bad you come back here wanting to swing--not at issues but people. You enter a two week old thread with absolutely no opinion on the issue and instead punch Mary in the stomach.

Then it's "Peter and others". Finally, you bloody up Grosey's nose: he is not an Elect but a Reprobate. And you actually accomplish this without ever mentioning specifically what it is you're talking about.

I suggest you blog about your renewal process, Debbie. Some among us may like to know precisely how not to have a period of renewal.

With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. I think it's about time to shut this old thread down.

The comments to this entry are closed.