Friday, October 13, 2017

Oh my, the pot [ Deebs ] call the kettle black.

The "Mean Girls" of the discernment blogs, call bullying on Phil Johnson?

"It is about the disturbing tendency of some people to defend their point of view by attempting to destroy another person."

Give me a freaking break.

Look in the Mirror ladies.  Go back and review all the nasty posts you have written about John Piper.   

You have acted like the sorority queens making fun of the thin guys who wear glasses.

And you want to suggest Phil Johnson is guilty of bullying and you are not?

[ Facepalm ]
_________

Update:
  Some comments:

  " but Twitter has not done so with Phil and these other dirt bags (yes, I said dirt bags.....]"

"Why would we expect any different from Phil Johnson and co? Vile abusers and slanderers, savage beasts they showed themselves to be long ago. "

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Wartburgwatch smears the Evangelicals because of Karl Barth

Sigh

Deb - Google is your friend.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/karlbarth.html

Has Karl Barth Been Wrongly Condemned by Evangelicals?


COMMENTER KEN had it right.

"I think it is a little unfair to say of Karl Barth “No doubt the primary reason for the recent focus on Barth is because he fits squarely in the “Reformed” camp.”
I have heard and read lots of the modern day reformed Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, etc., etc. The only one of the modern day reformed I have heard quote him more than occasionally was Sproul. I don’t think you will find Sproul embracing him as reformed though. He was a respected scholar. But the reformed of today don’t claim him other than to quote him for his scholarship. That is my understanding anyway."

T.W.W. has its narrative - Conservative Evangelicals are evil.  Deb tried, unsuccessfully,  to tie Karl Barth's probable affair to the conservative Evangelicals; but it just doesn't cut the mustard.  She was in over her head - she really doesn't know or understand conservative Evangelicals like she thinks she does.

I fully expect "Ken" to be banned in the near future.  He doesn't seem to buy into the narrative.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Dee's Denomination?

Interesting article:

http://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/07/whats-wrong-with-lcms-congregations/

From a different article:  Differences among the Lutheran Denominations:

The Liberal Protestant (like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) can be described as following:
1. Questioning or denying the inerrancy of the Bible
2. Questioning or denying the divinity of Jesus Christ or the members of the Trinity.
3. Acceptance of popular moral or social teachings
4. Movement away from teaching of the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord)
5. Ordination of Women and openly homosexual in the priesthood.
6. Heavy emphasis on Ecumenicism
7. Departure from the teach of Justification through Faith. It is either taught that man can save himself or that man is really not that bad and doesn't need to be saved.
8. Departure from moral absolute truths.
9. Movement toward Universalism.

Confessional Lutherans (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Synod and Church of Lutheran Confession) can be described as:
1. Believe that Scriptures are the sole authority on faith and Christian living. With out error and unified. Therefore, they do not ordain Women or openly homosexuals into the priesthood.
2. The Scriptures are God's revelation, which is Christ, centered with two main messages, the Law and the Gospel.
3. Believe that the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) as well as the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 express the true doctrine of Scripture. Since the doctrines they confess are drawn from Scripture alone, we are bound to them in our faith and life. Therefore all preaching and teaching in our churches and schools must be in harmony with these confessions, and we reject all the errors that they reject.
4. Affirm the doctrine of Original Sin and that man is not basically good not only corrupted by the world and cannot save himself.
5. Affirm Justification by Grace through Faith.
6. Believe that unity in Christian Doctrine is necessary for establishing Christian Fellowship with other Synods or Denominations

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Only the "righteous" can blog

Mark Driscoll, one of TWW's favorite whipping boys, has started a blog on Patheos.  The women are aghast that such a lout as he, be allowed to blog.  After all, he has been royally condemned by many who are far more righteous than he.  Dryly

You can twitter if you choose, your dismay

#hastag; onlytherighteous

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Anon versus Wartburgwatch's attack on John MacArthur

Yes, finally I have found someone who has called some "bull shovel-lings" on this matter- to use the parlance as you have (at the risk of being impolite). 

Now look, as a lawyer, former journalist and ex-military police investigator, I have quite an in-built lie or embellishment detecting instinct, but I can be fooled when its on paper and I can't read other cues (e.g. body language, demeanour, tone of speech, etc). But in this case, the write up done up by one Ms Marci is quite obviously an amalgamation of some kind of input by other writers and contributors (possibly editors) in the way the material is laid out and constructed- both in its arbitrariness and inconsistencies of factual narrative, so much so that I kept sensing that this was one of those messy, recollects that was then slap bang and put together to be deployed for effect and, more clandestinely, to achieve a certain desired "effect". 

I think this blog is the first one to call the content the BS for what it is, and it seems these are all trumped up (no pun intended) as part of a rising/growing leftist attack on conservative Evangelicals both across the land and whilst that is not new, has taken on more insidious forms in the past couple of months ever since Antifa and the Marxist Socialist Left have been engaged in dialectical back and forthing and in the end Christians who stick to Biblical inerrancy and hold to doctrines of Biblical authority and truth become the new "hate groups" to be castigated and censured. 


 I have no doubts that is what this whole thing is about. Lest someone say I have taken away from the ostensible and alleged nub of the alleged matter/case, and say I have turned a woman's right to speak up (cue her emotive title: "Do you hear me?") into yet another spin attempt to make this a political issue, between right and left, I assure you, I am not. 

Christians like me, and I am proud to say I am a Bible-believing one (albeit a sinner no better than anyone else but saved simply by the Lord's sovereign electing grace to reach out and grab me), we have no agenda in being either leftist or right. Our agenda is to be in allegiance to Christ and preach Christ and Him crucified, and His glorious gospel of salvation offered through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, to each one who acknowledges their sin and are willing to repent and seek redemption. 

As Christians we are not about oppressing women, but serving and loving them as fellow image bearers of God. Now, it's one thing for us to be for women and women's rights to equality, freedom and speaking up, and another to completely go down the path of drawing a straw man fallacy and misrepresenting Dr John MacArthur and the Masters' Seminary and College (now University) by broad-brushing them as rabid opponents of all of the above and then take aim at the misrepresented position; using this alleged "Jane" case as a convenient example for ammunition. 


1. Dr John MacArthur and team are complementarians who believe in loving, honouring and respecting women as equal yet different (by gender roles and biological differences) by God's design and standards. This means that to misrepresent Dr John MacArthur and co, is part of a fallacious attempt to discredit them, and more sinisterly, part of a possible bigger level attempt to tarnish their image. Likewise, Dr John MacArthur and team have never sought to be anything other than believers who teach the Bible and lovingly reach the world for Christ. Their message is viewed in the current climate as "hate speech" only because they preach what the Bible says on homosexuality as sin etc, and take the Biblical stand that the world and current zeitgeist refuses to accept (without basis). With that as a background, this point is critical because you need to know that there are many groups out there with an agenda against Dr John MacArthur and his team. They could be from anywhere: people who felt unloved in the church he pastors, people who felt hurt/scorned, people who do not accept his certain and authoritative stand on the Word of God, people who seek to discredit him publicly, etc as he is a very prominent proponent of truth. Demons want to get him, and as the society gets more reprobate and unable to see truth, the more these kinds of accusations will be raised. 


2. Which brings us to the accusations in the very "Jane" case in question- now, as this blog rightly raises, there are many red flags raised in the narrative of this matter. One, the whole account is rife with many anomalies and case findings from both Ms Marci's blogpost as well as the way the narrative was done up, which show us the story was and is loosely assembled - as this blog rightly highlights- over 10 years, and suddenly brought to the fore just at the time where the Master's Seminary is facing State level sanctions in the past few years since Gay Marriage was legalized on a national level, tax bills and a challenge on its 401k status. 

Not only is the timing of this story something that ought to raise eyebrows, the narrative itself raises some glaring omissions; namely the entire missing details- police report and charges; the other sides' story; the name of the alleged rapist in question (if the claims are true, then truth being a defense would mean that defamation would be of no issue); the police's official statement; the details of the past 10 years since the crime occurred and all the victim would logically have done to seek criminal justice; the proofs such as a scan or image file of the Masters College doctoring the results/transcripts (which as highlighted elsewhere would be a breach of Article 9 - including motivations behind why a college ranked by the WSJ for top results would dare to or want to risk that with a concerted cover up); proofs of the alleged behaviour by Dr John MacArthur and Mr Rick Holland (all we have now are emotive accusations and unsubstantiated statements)...and much much more. 
I haven't even gotten to the logical inconsistencies in the alleged account.  

What's more, the manner of the text was typed as if it were penned by several scribes who seem to emotively paint the picture of a victim trapped and issuing this first person (sometimes third person singular) shorthand that is crying inside. There would be no problem with that, except that the way in which it is written is so "tight" and "choreographed" or "designed to hit emotive notes" it borders on manipulative- there are several key factors that make me believe the entire "Jane" post is distorted and designed to manipulate the emotive senses of readers from a journalistic point of view: 

a. The use of Luis Palau and Billy Graham as so called "friends" of the alleged victim sends my antennae up- it is very convenient to name two supposed world class big name evangelicals to assert that this person is strongly evangelical and from a strong Christian background. Except: anyone who is on the side of true Christianity and has been trained under Dr MacArthur or at the Master's Seminary knows that Luis Palau is a false teacher, a charlatan who preaches a different gospel. And Billy Graham, has been accused from time to time of being part of the Ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics movement (rightly or wrongly). No matter what you believe about Graham or Palau, the point I am making is this: no one wanting to assert they had credibility in Christian circles (certainly in Dr MacArthur's circles) would have cited those two men as examples of people "to be connected to" as if they were influential names to drop. If the author genuinely was "Jane" and "Jane" indeed had made it to senior year at the Master's College and had indeed written that, she would not have written that in that way to further discredit her own point. Instead, this reeks of being written by someone with a superficial and scant understanding of true Christianity, who could make such a mistake, and reeks of being written by some anti-Christian liberal who just randomly thought of some "powerful" Christian men to name and ironically came up with two that are not held in high esteem by the true Church. 

b. "Jane" would be in her late 20s now (if as stated this took place 10 years ago- which it does say- 2008), and yet the "article" chooses to write the whole piece from an emotive angle (by choice) - deliberately stating she is fifteen, even though she is clearly writing this in retrospect now. The fact that it is not written in typical narrative recount prose again sends my antennae sky high. When you or I relay a story or some event about something that happened to us 10 years ago, we tend to do so earnestly- avoiding all subterfuge and camouflaging our text with any literary devices- commensurate with the level of seriousness we wish to convey the seriousness of the predicament we are relating we were in; in short, you want to be taken seriously by whoever you are sharing this with as you want the listener to hear you earnestly. Here, by adopting an emotive victimological piece in literary prose that lends itself to manipulation, it goes against the grain of straight talking and straight shooting that is usually found on the lips of truly distraught and hurting victims. It reeks here of someone else writing a narrative about this person at best, and trying to making it emotive.

C. Anachronistic evidence. The idea that Masters' students could not go ballroom dancing is either a fact or it isn't. Ballroom dancing only made a comeback in the 2010s because of a throwback to the swinging 20s through 50s revival that came with the new hipster movement- in 2007, when young people went dancing it was usually to nightclubs or bars. Then, to make matters worse for the continuity error, the account then says she went to a bar. There are not many bars in the Santa Clara or Sun valley area or even in Pasadena or L.A. that adopted ballroom dancing- perhaps none even at all, let alone in 2007/08. 


D. In the narrative, Rick Holland, the alleged campus pastor in TMC (now TMU) interviews the victim one on one - flouting rules of counselling, and then every once in a while, walks out his room to go to consult Dr John MacArthur. Anyone familiar with Dr John MacArthur will know that Dr John MacArthur's office is not located at the College campus. Mr Holland could not have possibly got up and walked over to knock on Dr MacArthur's door just like that. He would have had to obtain an appointment for Dr MacArthur to be there in the college office that particular day- and this matter would by definition have needed to have been big enough at the time for Dr MacArthur to personally come down (usually he does not even travel due to his age- if anything Dr Phil Johnson or someone else from his office would have taken the trip). Yet the critical piece of evidence that is odd here is this: the "Jane" story claims that she is alone with Mr Holland. If Dr John MacArthur had indeed gone all the way to be there, why would he not be in the room, and refuse to see her? If the case was that big that indeed warranted his going down personally to TMC to see this one particular student (if we even grant all that), why would Dr MacArthur secretly wait in the other room and have Dr Holland have to repeat the facts back and forth from the victim to him and go back to the room to get more and then go back to Dr MacArthur? What's even more troubling is that Dr MacArthur is alleged to have said "the girl needs to be kicked out for dancing inter alia" As if Dr John would sit in the next room, while a young lady the age of his granddaughters facing such a serious crime and allegation would wait there next door and then tell Rick to go back to tell her she'd been kicked out- for dancing at that. 

It makes no sense. It smacks of defamatory accusatory smear language designed to attack Dr John MacArthur. 
 


Now, you want to know why people write this drivel? It is because this is a fictionalized piece of account writing by whoever wrote this up. Now I am not doubting that this indeed was a case/matter, and that there might have been a case where a girl got raped. As TMS' official response was that they had no such male student, they are accepting that "Jane" indeed was a student of theirs. Yet, "Jane" refused to give consent for TMS and TMC/TMU to make a statement or comment on her case/matter, forcing TMS and TMC to keep mum about their end and only state what they have stated in their public statements. Furthermore, the rapist really never attended TMS, for if he did, the mainstream media would pull out his file, and be sure to shame him and TMS in the process. They couldn't, because he never was their student. If "Jane" really wanted justice, she would bring the whole matter, hook, line and sinker out into the open- if you're going to go public, might as well go all the way, wouldn't you? If you really are about women's rights and protecting other women from this alleged institutional cover up? Surely you would produce all the evidence you could muster, wouldn't you? The report finally states that the aggressor confessed and suggests that there was an institutional cover up. If the aggressor confessed, and the victim was free to lodge a police report (they never restrained her from doing so) and she says she didn't drop the charges, and yet the police never charged or arrested the man in question? 

This is altogether bizarre on two levels: 
1. If you had been raped by someone, highlighting what just punishment your attacker got in terms of a sentence would have been your focus, or at the very least, you would write all about how your attacker is still out there and has never been charged. Instead, notice the way the article is written- it makes it seem like it is about the institution that the victim is really after. Upset at the attacker getting away, no? No. Upset at the authorities for finding insufficient evidence? No. Upset at the church and college? Yes! It's almost too convenient- so much so that it dovetails perfectly with what we are saying earlier- this is probably written and designed with one goal in mind: to attack and discredit Dr John MacArthur and his affiliates and institutions. The article gives it away. 

3. The Wartburg Watch has had its anti-Christian agenda for a long while now, so it is trying to fuel fire for any one of the big pastors in Evangelicalism- men like Dr John Piper, Dr Al Mohler, etc have also come under unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks by the Wartburg crew. We must be able to see their presuppositional bias when they report.

I think the same should be done with the alleged victim and this account.   

Monday, October 2, 2017

Bursting Daisy's Bubble

https://acculturated.com/female-viking-warrior-isnt-real-many-people-want/

Sunday, October 1, 2017

Does Wartburgwatch care about child abuse if no conservative Evangelicals are involved?

Headline  -  Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/30/archbishop-of-canterbury-accused-of-hypocrisy-by-sexual-abuse-survivors

What are the chances that Wartburgwatch will cover this story?

Probably none:  There are no conservative Evangelicals in the picture; therefore this is not an issue to the Deebs and their commenters.

Also, I believe one of the Deebs now attends an Anglican Church.  She may not wish to expose the Anglican community to the same attacks she willingly makes on Evangelicals.

But we'll see won't we.

Friday, September 29, 2017

JOYFULNESS versus social activitism

http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17308-when-activist-burnout-meets-anxiety-and-depression

"As a committed feminist and social justice activist, I am constantly in touch, in communication, online, on alert, engaged. There is rarely a moment where I am away from my computer or iPhone for longer than 30 minutes - what if something is happening right now that needs my attention? - and my social media accounts serve not only as a lifeline to other activists, but as a central part of my own activism. To say that constant connection gets exhausting is an epic understatement.

If you are involved in social justice activism in any way, you likely know of "activist burnout," the feeling of sheer mental (and often physical) exhaustion that catches up with you after spouts of perpetual tuned-in-ness. But for activists like me, this burnout is magnified by an ever present undercurrent of chemical forces beyond our control: my burnout is coupled with my depression and anxiety."

[  I at times wonder how the women and commenters of Wartburgwatch are doing in their own psychological lives. ]

Ladies and commenters; remember the words of Solomon

There is nothing new under the sun.

So as it was, so shall it be - here on planet earth.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Wartburgwatch smears Rick Holland

Part of a post by Dave Miller unrelated to the issue of "Jane."


1Demonization is not godly.
Turn to any page in Paul’s letters and you will find a significant teaching on love and unity. In 1 Corinthians 13, he tells us that nothing we do matters without love. NOTHING. And love "always believes, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Ought not Christians be people who are looking for the best in one another? Shouldn’t we be the ones who seek peace, not draw the lines of battle?
But we tend to demonize those who differ on issues, painting them in the worst possible light and demonstrating more of the works of the flesh than the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-23). Demonizing others is a violation of Scripture. Yes, there are heretics whose views are rightly anathematized, but when we paint the views of brothers and sisters in Christ in the worst possible light and withhold grace, we err. We are to look for the best in others, not assume the worst.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Smear Campaigns vs Soul Care

Very insightful article.

Here's the second response

http://tinyurl.com/y8fb574t


Does T.W.W. really care about Jane or do they just seek to smear John MacArthur - who so openly stands for orthodoxy regarding the eternal Scriptures.  T.W.W. does approve of Scriptural orthodoxy - misses the feminine narrative.



Here's the first response.

http://thecripplegate.com/response-do-you-see-me/

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Narrative versus Facts: Women versus Men

As Dee has made plain in her most recent post; don't try to throw off the narrative by showing where the alleged facts don't add up.  To a great extent - this appears to be a classic gender related approach.  Women, many times, are more aligned to the narrative - whatever it is - and men seemed to be more concerned with the facts.  [  Joe Friday - "just the facts." ]
That appears to be how God made us - DIFFERENT in so many ways.  Scripture says, quite clearly, women are more gullible.  Yet men sometimes do indeed lose sight of compassion in their obsession for the facts.  That is also true.
_______________

I suspect T.W.W. has been looking for ways to attack John MacArthur for a number of years.  Certainly he is frequently attacked by their commenters who loath his stand on the total adequacy of Scripture.

This blends in with T.W.W.'s underlying narrative in all posts;
SCRIPTURE, as interpreted by Conservative Evangelicals is wrong.  Therefore, all TWW posts ultimately question the view of Evangelicals that Scripture is inerrant and applicable to all issues in our culture.

The Facts:  A plain reading of Scripture does NOT support modern feminism.

Monday, September 25, 2017

The Masters University Update

Sept. 24, 2017: At The Master's University, we consider the spiritual and physical well-being of the students under our care to be of the utmost importance. That is why the referenced blog, regardless of whether we disagree with its portrayal, is particularly difficult to read. As with the alleged attack from 2006, it has been and is the practice of The Master's University to both comply with California's mandatory reporting obligations, and also strongly urge all crime victims to make a prompt and full report to the police. We believe those steps were followed in connection with this matter, in addition to the extension of love and concern from our faculty, staff and fellow students. That does not mean, however, that enduring pain and heartache from those events is not genuine. Unfortunately, until the female student provides TMU permission to discuss and/or share her records, we are legally unable to comment on the allegations posted online. Our prayers go out to those involved, and our best comfort is the certain knowledge that there is healing, peace, forgiveness, and redemption in Jesus Christ.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

American Psychiatric Association position on memories

https://www.psychiatry.org/file%20library/about-apa/organization-documents-policies/policies/position-2013-memories-child-abuse.pdf

"Research has shown that memory does not always record events accurately.  In the presence of severe or prolonged stress, people may suffer significant impairment of the retention, recall and accuracy of memories."

___________


Bruce Jancin, writing in the Clinical Psychology News, stated:

"... solid scientific evidence demonstrates that in the absence of third-party corroboration, there is no reliable way to tell real memory from the product of suggestion."
_______________

The Australian Psychological Society Ltd. stated in its Guidelines Relating to the Reporting of Recovered Memories on 1994-OCT-

1:"Given that the accuracy of memories cannot be determined without corroboration, psychologists should use caution in responding to questions from clients about pursuing legal action. ... The available scientific and clinical evidence does not allow accurate, inaccurate and fabricated memories to be distinguished in the absence of independent corroboration." 
_______________

Dee and Deb, on the other hand, think Jane should go to court.
____________

New research released this week has found that even people with phenomenal memory are susceptible to having “false memories,” suggesting that “memory distortions are basic and widespread in humans, and it may be unlikely that anyone is immune,” according to the authors of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
of the retention, recall and accuracy of memories.
Research has shown that memory does not always
record events accurately. In recall and accuracy of memories.

Friday, September 22, 2017

John MacArthur under attack

The ministries of Grace Community Church and The Master’s University and Seminary have been informed of the blog article posted on September 18 by a Ms. Marci Preheim on behalf of an undisclosed individual. Although there are both evidentiary and biblical limitations in dealing with anonymous accusations, we take all claims of misconduct very seriously. According to our initial internal inquiry and review of the available records, we believe the blog article is plainly incorrect, a reality that we have verified with the police report on record. In addition to the various inaccuracies in the posted narrative, the male student that was accused in the official report was never a student at either The Master’s University or Seminary. In our view, anyone who would post such accusations without first verifying them has committed an unconscionable act of defamation, and anyone who would spread such misinformation is equally culpable in that irresponsibility. Should the undisclosed individual or any other person who has direct, firsthand knowledge of this matter wish to address this issue with us, we would request that they contact Kent Haney at The Master’s University who is overseeing the internal review of these allegations.

______

NOW The social media post by a person who wasn't there at the alleged assault.

It deals with a woman who was raped at John MacArthur’s The Masters College.  Here is a quick summary of what occurred. It appears a date rape drug was slipped into her drink and she was allegedly raped. She reported the rape to the police, who fail her in time. She then reports the rape to her resident director at The Masters College who had her speak to Rick Holland.  Meanwhile her Biblical counselor encourages her to marry her rapist. Rick Holland allegedly confers with John MacArthur who decides that the rape victim should be disciplined for her dress, drinking, and almost dancing. She is also ordered to retract her rape report to the police as she is going to destroy the young man’s life. She is facing being kicked out of college, and then later is made to meet with her rapist and apologize to him. She is to apologize for making him stumble and for how she dresses.
____________

My observations - so far predicated upon third party blog.

Prob 1:  This happened about 10 years ago or more.  Memories less than trustworthy.
Furthermore, victim herself says she's not exactly sharp due to an alleged concussion she suffered.

Prob 2:  Her "friends" let a stranger at a bar take her home?

Prob 3:  She attends the Master's College and she's at a bar?

Prob 4:  She does a "rape kit" for the police and nothing happens?

Now we wait for Dee and Deb to find a way to condemn John MacArthur - which is the whole point of the story.  

From T.W.W.
"I don’t know where to begin. Do I start with the fact that I didn’t put that dress on or how my story isn’t changing, I am just remembering more things? I feel confused and angry. I am yelling. I hear more accusations coming out of Rick’s mouth. I am not submissive. I don’t trust the men that God has put over me. I am rebellious. He is angry and I cannot keep up with all of the attacks on my character that are flying out of his mouth. I am kicked out of school. I have less than twenty-four hours to get my things out of my room and get out. If I show up on campus, I will be arrested. They are changing my three years of earned college credits from A’s to F’s. I have flunked out of college."

I'm sorry, I gotta call bull shovelings on that story.
From personal experienced, I was kicked out of a Christian college, they told me not to come back.  HOWEVER, they didn't threaten to change my grades.  You simply can't do that.  As a private institution, you can expel students quite easily I suppose.  You can't take their past grades and simply change them from A's to F's.  Ain't happening.

At this point, we don't really know what happened,  AND NEITHER DOES THE YOUNG LADY.

Dee and Deb CERTAINLY don't know what happened, but FACTS be DAMNED.  The Wartburg narrative is all about making conservative Evangelicals look bad - regardless of the truth.

This story is almost as good as the "Jackie" story at U.V.A. that ended up financially destroying Rolling Stone Magazine.  They ran the lies because it fit the narrative.  OOps, turned out to be lies.

SO, what we know; Master's College has done some initial investigation against anonymous charges of more than 10 years by a female student who, in her own words, had suffered a concussion was was cognitively much less than 100 percent even as she allegedly remembers [ 10 years later ] everything Rick Holland thought and said.

In report
The police apparently didn't make any charges.  


ALCOHOL or DRUGS WAS INVOLVED.

11 years after the incident Dee and Deb know without a doubt that Jane was drugged. "While she was under the influence of this drug.."  Ladies - again I call bull shovelings.


___________

Did indeed, something happen in the young lady's room?  
The police report says it allegedly happened in the young man's room - who,  Masters say, was never a student at the college.

Should be interesting to see where this goes.


Thursday, September 21, 2017

TWW attempts to smear the Gospel Coalition for football player hazing.

"It was shocking to read about Christian Simpson's football experience at Wheaton. You see, Dr. Philip Rykenhas been serving as president of Wheaton College since 2010, and he is also a Council Member of The Gospel Coalition, which has been publishing a number of articles that denounce segregation in churches, among other related topics. And let's not forget that Wheaton's current president is a Calvinist."

sigh - really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWb1K0kdDxQ  -  10 secinds

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

WartburgWatch versus ChristianityToday - One attempts a smear, the other gives insight.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/september-web-only/johnson-southern-biblical-counseling-christian-psychology.html

Undoubtedly T.W.W. will comment on or reference the article.

Then will come the comments.  As commenter Reed noted, T.W.W. commenters are often smearing reformed believers for their lack of love - which "lack" is even more clearly marked in the commenters themselves.

We'll see.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Wartburgwatch continues their hatred of Al Mohler

Lydia - Now that sounds just like Mohler playing the long game! He hadn’t lost his evil grip at all.

Law Prof - If this is the way it works, then it’s absolutely evil and Al Mohler is given over to evil, not a person to be considered for anything but an example for public censure like Paul often did to those who are persecutors of the church. Satan works behind the scenes to maneuver and get what he wants—Jesus was direct and confronted things in the open.

Either Lydia or Mitch -  mitch:
Great comment. Mohler seems to have something like Stalin had with his Cult of Personality minions surrounding him. 

Headless Unicorn -   [ about Mohler ] “Just like Comrade Kim Jong-Un, Except CHRISTIAN"


Friday, September 15, 2017

TWW attacks Mohler and Lambert; venom and bile on display in the comments

Of course TWW despises Mohler - has for many years and has attacked him many times.  Why?  Because he is extremely influential with those who seek to understand and live according to the plain teachings of Scripture.  He stands clearly behind the historic and orthodox understanding of Scripture.  If you are a feminist you are going to hate Al Mohler

Heath Lambert is a new target because he heads up ACBC, formerly N.A.N.C.   [ Jay Adam's nouthetic counseling.]

The T.W.W. commenters  pretty much hate anything "Biblical."  The venom and bile on display in the comments really is depressing.

Heath Lambert's Mea Culpa was impressive.  You simply can't fake that.

There is not ONE blogger or commenter who actually knows exactly why Eric Johnson was let go.  I assure you Al Mohler didn't call any of them up and share what he knows, they are all interpreting events based upon their hatred

Finally, there is not ONE commenter who actually cares about Eric Johnson, they only care about their hatred for Al Mohler and other conservative Evangelicals.
_______

FYI, in the last few years there has actually been a subtle shift away from "nouthetic" counseling.  Part of that was reflected in the name change.

It appears, they have moved away from assessing all emotional/psychological issues as due to specific sins - which must be confronted ala Jay Adams - who is no longer a resource - to a more compassionate, nuanced view.

I would say they are softer on diagnosing all problems as having a sin basis to taking a more encouraging stance on working thru the issues of living with the people who come for help.

Do they still believe that man's sinfulness is at the route of many of man's emotional and psychological issues?  Indeed.  The brokenness of humanity is clearly tied to the presence of sin.  But how you help others need not be from a confrontational style and ACBC seems to have shifted away from the Jay Adams model.

They absolutely DO NOT tell clients to stop taking their physician prescribed medications.  That's a huge No No for ACBC members.

Bottom line, if you reject Scripture you will hate the counsel of ACBC.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Forfeiting your Manhood - Grumpysloth opines

Still, there are some things that even the manliest of masculine manly men can’t get away with on their most masculinely manly days without having their man card permanently pulled. For example:

1) Geeking out on children’s entertainment


It’s one thing for a man to listen to the awful music of Justin Bieber and think, “Wow, that’s not the worst thing I’ve ever heard.” It’s quite another to actually go to one of his concerts for the fun of it or, worse yet, refer to himself as a “Belieber.” Wanna go to a comic-book convention? Ok, but if you’re a dude who dresses up like Thor and starts speculating about whether you can defeat the Hulk in a fight, you have a “man problem” you need to address. Don’t even get me started on being a damn bronyand walking around in public talking about My Little Pony. Are you a five-year-old girl? If the answer to that question is “no,” then you don’t have any business being a fan of a show aimed at five-year-old girls.

[  Made me laugh ]

Women Drivers UPDATE

Danica Patrick's career record in Nascar.    ZERO top 5 finishes.

UPDATE:  Danica's career is coming to a close though she can, due to her attractive feminity, continue to make a very good living based upon her considerable fan base.

Though I'm not aware that she ever speaks of it BUT she has been in a significant number of pretty harsh crashes, generally though the fault of others.  But because she is not good enough to run at the front of the pack, she is stuck in the middle of the pack where most of the crashes are going to occur.  I'd be willing to bet she, at this young age [36] lives in considerable pain on a daily basis.

I hope she retires and enjoys the next 40 years of her life.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

For the feminists at T.W.W. -


From pushingrubberdownhill
commenter Brittny who published this gem on my old article about happy wife, happy life.
The absolute best advice I got upon being married wasn’t from my mother or grandmother, wonderful and wise as they are (though they did teach me in a roundabout way that speaking ill of one’s spouse leads nowhere good) it was from one of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s books.
I forget which one. Most have pithy titles. I think this one might have been the Care and Feeding of Husbands.
I was struggling as a first time mother in my early twenties to settle my society-indoctrinated views on what a woman was entitled to versus what made men happy. Sex was a sad bone of contention – not that it was bad or infrequent, just not as frequent or enthusiastic as the husband would have desired.
The advice? Have sex even when you don’t feel like it.
Novel! Serendipitous! But wasn’t it terribly anti-feminist to ‘give the goods’ without some sort of transaction? Be it a dinner, a massage, or blast it all even a compliment? This didn’t make any sense, and I poo-pood the advice for some time. Until I didn’t.
Wonder of wonders. Biology is a marvelous thing, and I found that when I said ‘yes’, or even instigated relations myself…I became interested as a matter of due course. None of the waiting around to feel ‘in the mood.’ Since then this simple bit of advice has nourished an eleven year marriage that has given us three sons and the deepest, most fulfilling friendship and love of my life.
Honestly…I wish it was acceptable to give this tidbit out at bridal showers. Sometimes I still scribble it in the scrapbooks and letters given to new, presumable virginal brides. Honey…don’t make him wait until you are ready, or when the stars are aligned, or when you are perfectly coiffed (though it would be good to get in the habit of always striving to look like dynamite, you never know). I know…dishes need to be done, children will shriek, bills need to be paid. Trust me….
Always say YES.
As it states on my about page, this is a blog primarily for men. Which is why this is a wonderful choice for the inaugural comment of the week.
I wish to single out this line:
But wasn’t it terribly anti-feminist to ‘give the goods’ without some sort of transaction? Be it a dinner, a massage, or blast it all even a compliment? This didn’t make any sense, and I poo-poo'd the advice for some time.
Giving for the sake of giving in of itself, for the simple pleasure that you bring to your spouse, with no expectation of reciprocation, and none required, is the essence of a successful marriage. 

Saturday, September 9, 2017

T.W.W. continues the John Piper hate-fest.

Most recent article Dee indicates areas where she disagrees.  So far so good.  But then the comments; such as this.

Commenter Mandavilla - "I wish John Piper would just shut up." 

Law Prof:  Of course Piper doesn’t mention love much— supremely arrogant people have no use for love. Having seen Piper in person in his heyday in Bethlehem Baptist itself in downtown Minneapolis back in the 90s, I can say a couple things stood out above all others, fairly screamed out: pride and arrogance, the man reeked of it.

Scott Hendrixson:
These are the ramblings of a man who is cutting and pasting from Psalms while safely watching The Weather Channel from his throne room in Minnessotta [sic] with The Doors playing in the background. These guys pride themselves on having the answers to the most difficult theological questions, but think they’re exempt from the basic instructions of Jesus about prayer.

Scott also said: 
I seriously doubt that anyone really asks the questions as presented on Desiring God. They are phrased in a way that casts Piper as a wise sage whom childlike followers depend for the answers to everything they face. I believe the questions really come from his imaginary friend and half brother Hojn Nivlac.

Root66:
Yes, I love how Piper does the ol’ switcheroo and blames the parents for everything! His logic is as nasty as the faith healers that say you didn’t get healed because you didn’t have enough faith!
I keep seeing Jesus talking about these guys in Matthew 23…the similarities between the Neo-Cals and Pharisees is undeniable!


Injun Joe:  
Who the hell here cares what Piper says?
[Answer:  The Deebs do Joe]
_________

From the previous post:

Jarrett Edwards:
It seems to me that pastors like Piper are addicted to God’s wrath, because these pastors are so insecure in their own masculinity that they insist that God is hyper masculine, ie aggressive, violent, angry. They seem so afraid of any emotion that they view as non-masculine that they can’t view God as expressing those emotions because then they might feel as Mark Driscoll said before, that Jesus wants to be in a homosexual relationship with them.

Roebuck:
John Piper is an idiot. Why does anyone care WTF he says? For as long as I’ve been aware of him he has been a blithering fool, just spouting out the most stupid, hurtful, whackadoodle nonsense. Maybe once he was a serious human being, I don’t know.

The man needs his friends to tell him to shut up, for his own good, and that of the Church. That he still has any kind of traction in the Evangelical world or the YRR world or NeoCalvanista world, or whatever you want to call this bunch, is very telling. The sooner this phenomenon burns itself out, the better.

Those of the liberal Christian persuasion seem to have a great need for conservative Evangelical voices to be silenced.

T.W.W. agrees with that.  That's why the keep disparaging them.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

There's Scripture; then there's culture - choose your anchor people.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20720/leftist-editor-you-shouldnt-be-allowed-even-think-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

Leftist Editor: You Shouldn't Be Allowed To Even THINK Men Are Men And Women Are Women

The Thought Police are here, and they come with good intentions.

_______________
 
I choose Scripture, not sure about the commenters on T.W.W.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Differences between men and women's brains

From WEBMD

"Our studies are finding significant differences in the brain circuitry of men and women, even when they're doing the same thing: It's like two people driving from Philadelphia to New York, who take different routes, but end up at the same place," says Ragini Verma, PhD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Her team has looked at nearly 2,000 healthy people, including kids, teens, and young adults who took various tests of their mental skills. Differences in their "brain road maps" (scientifically known as "the connectome") can explain why males outperform females on certain tests of mental skills, while females have the edge in others.

Who Is Better?

Women have more connections going left and right across the two halves of the brain. This could give them an advantage in pulling together information from different sources and drawing conclusions. The left half of the brain handles logical thinking, and the right is associated with intuition.
Men's brains have more connections from front to back, which may heighten their perception. They may be more attuned to what's going on around them so they can take action. Men have stronger connections between brain areas for motor and spatial skills. That means males tend to do a better job at tasks that need hand-eye coordination and understanding where objects are in space, such as throwing a ball or hammering a nail.
On average, male brains are about 10% larger than female brains. "However, bigger doesn't mean smarter," says Daniel Amen, MD, author of Unleash the Power of the Female Brain. He's studied more than 45,000 brain scans. "And no differences have been found in men and women's IQs, regardless of brain size."
MRIs showed the biggest gaps between the sexes were the larger amount of gray matter women had in their hippocampus, a structure that plays a role in memory, and the left caudate, which is thought to control our communication skills. Verma found that in female brains, there's more wiring in regions linked to memory and social cognition. So is it surprising that women tend to be better at understanding how other people are feeling and knowing the right way to respond in social situations?
__________

Yeah, there's a difference; God intended it to be so.  Men do men things well, women do women things well.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Denny Burk adds clarification to the Nashville Statement

ne of the most important things to understand about The Nashville Statement is that it was not primarily aimed at the outside world. It is aimed at the evangelical Christian world where so much confusion on these questions seems to remain. As I said in my opinion piece for The Hill over the weekend:
The Nashville Statement is not a culture-war document. It is a church document. It stakes out no public policy positions. It advocates for no particular piece of legislation or political program. Rather, it was drafted by churchmen from a variety of evangelical traditions who aim to catechize God’s people about their place in the true story of the world. And fundamental to that storyline is our “personal and physical design as male and female.”
The Bible begins in Genesis with a marriage and ends in Revelation with a marriage, and that is why the nature of marriage is fundamental to our story as well.
You may be asking, “If the Nashville Statement is simply a Christian confessional statement, then why has it dominated headlines this past week? What’s so newsworthy about that?” Truthfully, we too have been astonished by the amount of attention this has gotten in the press. It does not seem all that newsworthy to reassert what the church everywhere has confessed for the last 2,000 years.
But we are okay with the attention because we believe that God’s design for his world and his people is not bad news but good news. We all stand in need of grace. This story of sin and repentance, faith and forgiveness is my story too. It is our hope and prayer that everyone who reads The Nashville Statement will find it to be their story as well.

John Piper's views on parenting to be shamed by T.W.W.?

Ezekiel 18 -

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
“Suppose there is a righteous man
    who does what is just and right.
He does not eat at the mountain shrines
    or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
    or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
He does not oppress anyone,
    but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
    but gives his food to the hungry
    and provides clothing for the naked.
He does not lend to them at interest
    or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
    and judges fairly between two parties.
He follows my decrees
    and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
    he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
    or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
    or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
    but gives his food to the hungry
    and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
    and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.