Btw, I don’t expect this comment to be published – just replying directly to you. Cheers.

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith–
(Philippians 3:8-9)

Now I see you have gone and posted there about being banned from here. Excellent, continue to post there, should do wonders for your future “church”. The youth of today love this kinda hateful, disgusting satire aimed at Jesus Christ and His Saints. New Age Christianity with a New Christ is in. The old way and Jesus Christ and repentance of sin is out.

we have decided to call it a day for you on this blog.

Ok AdMo, I’ll respect your wishes – this will be my last comment on this blog. I only ask that you either publish my previous comment or send it to Amanda, because she asked for the right to lay out a certain argument and I think she’d appreciate my reply.

Re: the Disceramentalist Mafia – I don’t know who that is and I don’t even follow that blog, but I’ll go and check it out and see what they’re up to.

As for Graeme, he usually responds to comments on FutureChurch, so feel free to write there. So far I haven’t felt the need to moderate comments there – I hope to keep it that way.

I’m sorry to hear that people here feel intimidated by Emergent Christians. I’ve tried my best to show that this is not that case, that I would be the first to stand up for Amanda and Deborah if they were in any way physically threatened by anyone. If that’s not good enough, well, I can’t do more than that.

TTYN.

Thanks for laying out in detail your argument, Amanda. Let me respond bit by bit.

1. Of course Guillaume’s claim of DTW deleting all dissenting voices is false. I’m a dissenting voice, most of my comments are published, ergo DTW does not publish only those people who strengthen her views.

What I said is that:

Many of my comments have been deleted off this blog (although most of them haven’t).

I followed up with:

This lends some credibility to Guillaume’s claim

This is correct logically – Guillaume’s has some credibility, because some of my comments (and comments from other dissenting voices) have been deleted. DTW deletes some comments, and they’re only from people who have dissenting voices. Where is this logically incorrect?

2. I wrote:

And to think we were even talking about a CITY!

You wrote,

No, you were not.

I say, Yes we were! If you really like, go and find previous conversations between Nic and me and others online, say Linda or Cori or Cobus or Arthur or Bryan or Peter or Sean…on EmergingAfrica.info and elsewhere, where that request has always been in the context of a city. It’d be really weird if someone responded with a street address to that request anyway!

Still, I can see why you though that was threatening, as you seem to believe that Emergents will stop at nothing, even arriving un-announced and uninvited to someone’s house with the express purpose of intimidating them. This is, was, and never will be our intention.

Based on this irrational fear of yours, I acknowledge that our question was out of line. If we’d know earlier you were afraid of us, no-one would’ve asked that question.

3. Amanda wrote,

My point was that you lied on this thread and therefore your word on our safety is meaningless. If you want me elaborate so that you can have the opportunity to defend yourself, I will do so.

I’m waiting for you to elaborate and lay out the argument as to where I lied on this thread. That’s what your comment was supposed to be about, but you haven’t even brought up the charge of my lying! So far, all you’ve done is claim that I’m employed some incorrect logic, and dispute that Nic and I were talking about a city. No sniff of lying yet. At best, if you end up winning this little exchange, you’ll prove that I can’t think too straight and that I like threatening people for the fun of it. But I can’t see, by your response, where you’re accusing me of lying?

Again, I write the same thing:

You say I lied on this thread, I say I didn’t. Please lay out the case for my lie so I can respond.

Could Roger be given the opportunity to defend himself against the liar charge?

We request you send Graeme Codrington to dialogue with us from your website futurechurch.co.za, we sit here with bated breath wondering if he is going to expose the Emergent Church even more. So far he has written some excellent articles on how to go against the scripture and ignore God’s Word in every way possible. We will be looking at these shortly especially the one on homosexuality “Homosexuality is ‘natural”

Homosexuality is ‘natural’ by Graeme Codrington http://futurechurch.co.za/graeme-codrington/2009/07/06/homosexuality-is-natural

Previously on this blog, I have looked at the various Biblical references to homosexuality. The most compelling argument in the Bible against homosexual behaviour is found in Romans 1. Those who condemn homosexuality find their strongest argument in the fact that it is “para phusin” – “against nature”.

This phrase is contested, of course (a lot more contested than most preachers ever acknowledge when they preach against homosexuality). According to Paul, for example, it is also against nature for men to have long hair! In the context of Romans 1, there is also contention in how to translate the context. Paul is referring to people inflamed by lust, who give up their natural instincts and pursue same sex encounters without love and “against nature”.

One of the foundations of this argument has always been that we don’t see homosexual activity in animals. But this is not true. Recent research indicates that thousands of animal species exhibit homosexual behaviour. Read one hews release here and an older medical report here. This includes animals as “advanced” as dolphins, deer, lions, swans, and primates. And it is not “aberrant” behaviour, but natural in response to a variety of circumstances, including overpopulation (as humans are experiencing in most countries around the world), gender imbalances (as China is now experiencing with 40 million more young men than women), and threats to societal harmony.

One of the most interesting animals is black swans, where male homosexual swans will often “kidnap” a cygnet and raise it. Swans, of course, are monogomous throughout their lives. Even more interesting is that the research shows that animals raised by homosexual or lesbian parents fair better on average than those raised by a male-female couple.

This is not proof that God designed homosexuality, of course. Nor is it proof that humans are allowed to be homosexual. But, it does destroy a major argument that people who want to stand against homosexuality have used in the past. That argument is no longer available to them.

And we just love the ‘blackslider’ username that automatically gets filled out for your visitors in the comments section. Two thumbs up for a great welcome, we recommend you keep it there.

Far be it from preaching a False/New-Age gospel, we emphasize to these people that they need Jesus and that he died for them.

Why do they need Him and why did He die?

I can clearly see you speak a different kind of Gospel here. Your first priority is good works and then preaching of your so called salvation. Not the other way around. You first do the ‘signs and wonders’ so to say and then you say you present them with the gospel. Instead of presenting them with the gospel – and then those that choose to hear get SAVED FIRST.

A man on his death bed saying his spirit is alive because of Jesus Christ means absolutely nothing. You have NO idea what was in that mans heart and you have NO idea if he genuinely was repentant of his sinful life. Only God knows.

it’s a holistic view of the body, the soul, the spirit, the community and life?

Have you read any new age magazines lately? You sound like them – Wake up.

I was very very clear in my last comment to you and you refuse to answer because you don’t understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. REPENT FIRST.

Righty. I am moving on.