Too shallow for me…
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

i hope one day you’ll all understand, you are stuck with words and religion cages.
you can believe in god and still know your body and all his energetic function, that’s all. to be a master of your body means to respect your body/soul and the one of others being. this is the biggest bless on earth. and you are missing it. brothers i hope you will get it one day.

lots of love!!
sara

@AdMo: my apologies – I’d forgotten about the Disceramentalist Mafia – I was last there months and months ago and they sounded vaguely familiar when you mentioned them. I did indeed post a comment directly after visiting there this afternoon (so when I said I don’t know who that is and I don’t follow that blog, I meant it – my memory was indeed a little fuzzy).

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

So long, Roger.

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)

Roger Saner you said “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.” this is not true, again you lie. You know who Iggy and his Discernamentalist Mafia website. Just to back it up, see your comment here: Roger Saner September 4th, 2009 at 11:18 am

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.

AdMo wrote:

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.

AdMo – Approval based on Amanda’s question:

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.