A valid point. But is he objective?

People who hate Sarah are at least subconsciously ashamed of themselves because she represents good, family values while folks like Hef are already living in hell, but due to their immense denial, they don’t realize it. This is why the gay mafia is going after Christianity: it reminds them how sick, twisted and destructive they are.

Jeez, at this rate “Us” magazine will be buying ad space here.

She doesn’t need you , dickhead!
Get over it.

This former Roman Catholic now identifies himself as a reformed baptist.

Thanks for sharing.
shick on November 19, 2008 at 6:55 PM

You are welcome.

This former Arminian considers himself a Reformed Baptist too, because I consider these propositions to be essentials of the Christian faith.

This is OT, but Colts do I remember you saying that you subscribe to amillenialism?

TheUnrepentantGeek on November 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Hello friend:

I lean towards amillenialism, but I do not break fellowship over that eschatological issue. I am comfortable with some traditional Premillenial positions, if they are defined properly. I think my pastor is a premillenialist.

I am not comfortable with Darby dispensationalism though.

Just my .02

jp on November 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM

ColtsFan on November 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM

I’ve only heard of Gordon Haddon Clark. I’ll ask my pastor about him tonight and check on him later. I am familiar with Robbins works and the Trinity Foundation. I’m not familiar with Two Kingdom or Theonomy. I enjoyed Bahnsen’s “Always Ready” and have listened to a few of his debates.

This former Roman Catholic now identifies himself as a reformed baptist.

Thanks for sharing.

ColtsFan on November 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Awesome. Do you read Van Til? If not, who?
shick on November 19, 2008 at 6:37 AM

Hi Shick:

Yes, I read Van Til. I am not a Van Tilian, in that I disagree with him on the ontological status of the laws of logic. I also disagree with Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen on their view of ethics.

Van Til was a very brilliant guy. I have learned much from him.

I recommend the writings of Gordon Haddon Clark, whose excellent books can be found here.

Even if one does not agree with everything Gordon H. Clark says, his philosophical writings are very clear, readable, and logically rigorous. Excellent stuff.

One key to understanding the Hot Air posts of ColtsFan is this:

“If I ever articulate a pretty cool philosophical theme or deep truth, 150% of the time it came from a philosopher or theologian who I deeply respect, and not from me.”

I am just a die-hard Indianapolis ColtsFan who reads a lot in his spare time. :-)

I think I can answer for him, yes he does….and bahnsen.
jp on November 19, 2008 at 9:37 AM

You are correct.

except I think he’s a Two Kingdom guy, and not a theonomist like Bahnsen

jp on November 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM

2 points!! Correct again.

By the way, jp, I am very jealous of your Charlotte weather right about now. Here in Chicago, it is cold!!

I might have to consider working for CREP in the future and move to warmer weather!!

:-)

quikstrike98 on November 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM

I never said that the whole Bible didn’t count. I was merely making a point about misinterpretation based on meaning getting “lost in translation”.

Incidentally, Paul CLEARLY states that it is his own personal opinion, and NOT the revealed Word of God that men and women should remain celibate. That’s no translation error.

Frankly, I’m rather glad most Christians DON’T take that one too seriously. If they did, Christianity would have died out from lack of practitioners quite some time ago.

That, and my wife would be rather upset with me if I decided to start following Paul’s advice on celibacy. ;)

Hef: Sad to hear that Sarah turned you down.

You make excellent points, and indeed, I would be hard pressed to disagree with you on many of them. However, I do disagree with the interpretation that simply viewing porn is sin. I think too many Christians have misinterpreted Christ’s admonition’s against lust as admonitions against arousal. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. It is perfectly appropriate to lust after one’s wife, as I do with mine.

Wrong. A large proportion of American Christians will tell you that the whole Bible counts. And if so…then Paul’s admonition that “It is better for a man never to touch a woman” counts. He only allows for marriage so that naughtiness doesn’t run rampant, not because arousal or sex are desireable in themselves.

Ya’ll have fun in church. I’ll be in the jacuzzi. And can someone give me the number to call for those tickets to the Grotto?

wearyman on November 19, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Intent is indeed key. I think I just prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters (in theory, anyway).

Awesome. Do you read Van Til? If not, who?

shick on November 19, 2008 at 6:37 AM

I proofread Bahnsen’s major book on Van Til, published by Presby & Reformed.

Hef is a poor businessman, out of touch with most Americans, a pimp, and worst of all a DEMOCRAT!

TheUnrepentantGeek on November 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM

You make excellent points, and indeed, I would be hard pressed to disagree with you on many of them. However, I do disagree with the interpretation that simply viewing porn is sin. I think too many Christians have misinterpreted Christ’s admonition’s against lust as admonitions against arousal. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. It is perfectly appropriate to lust after one’s wife, as I do with mine.

It is also perfectly appropriate to appreciate and even be aroused by the human form, as long as this appreciation is limited in intent and scope. Let’s not forget that much is lost in the translation to English. The word “lust” comes from the Greek epithumiô, meaning “strong feeling”. It is translated as lust in many places, in others as “desire” (1 Timothy 3:1), “yearn” (Matthew 13:17), and “covet” (Romans 7:7). A simple word study reveals that “lust” is a neutral word in the Biblical context. One may “lust” or “strongly desire” good things or bad things. This is where INTENT comes into the picture. is your intent merely to appreciate and be mildly titillated? If so, then I think one would be hard pressed to find sin in that.

However, I can also see where this may be considered “splitting hairs” by some, and I can certainly understand that position. Ultimately, it is between God and I on whether I am right or not.

I personally have no problem reconciling my conscience with a bit of Playboy now and again. Obviously, if I was spending serious time on some of the websites, forums, mailing lists and IRC channels I know of for the specific purpose of looking for pornography that would be an ENTIRELY different matter, and would be completely indefensible, particularly with some of the more questionable material I have come across in my time. But Playboy, that’s a different league altogether.

Incidentally, in case anyone here is believing some of Race Card’s crazy rantings, one of my past hobbies was Internet Vigilante (of a sort) I have a few alter egos that used to spend time in some of the less savory areas of the Internet keeping tabs on groups like “Anonymous”, and a few hacker IRC channels (Although these, more and more are Chinese and Russian, and I don’t speak those languages, so I’ve been steadily moving away from that for a some time.) When you spend any significant time around those groups, you invariably come across their porn.

Now that I have a family, I don’t really spend much time doing that anymore. Partly because I’m more and more uncomfortable “around” the kind of people that these groups are made up of, partly because I don’t want my own kids accidentally exposed to these groups, and partly because I felt I was expending quite a bit of energy for a very small “payback”. In the end, I’m just getting too old for it.

Anyway, getting back to the point of the thread, I could care less what Hef’s political opinions are. We all know he’s Liberal, and we all know he’d love to have Sarah Palin in for a shoot. (duh) So I don’t find the video here particularly illuminating. Just another old liberal. Big deal.

I am saddened but not shocked at her actions.

BobAnthony on November 19, 2008 at 7:45 AM

She’s (Betty White) a nutter. I’ve been tivo’ing the old Match Game shows (ok, I’m a mindless loser)… filmed in the glorious Ford-Carter era and Betty was a nut then. She was already so far over the top on her animal rights stuff that the other panelists actually modified their answers to certain questions to avoid getting her upset.

Actually, these Match Game shows are fascinating little slices into the liberal mind (I use that term loosely). You can see the beginnings of political correctness from some of the regulars (especially Bret Summers).

To put it simply, BACK OFF BUB. Or I will put in a formal complaint to the Hot Air staff about your abuse.

wearyman on November 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

I’m the uptight one, but you’re going to report me for burying you with your own words? LMBAO!

Whatever insult you lodge against me cannot match the ones you have wielded against yourself — your own words reveal a dimly lit “underworld.”
***

When you do complain to AP be sure to send him this amazing quote:

… I DO NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER enjoyed or indulged myself in Illegal Pornography, PARTICULARLY Kiddie porn. I have, in the course of my various delvings into the dark underbelly of the internet, found Kiddie porn sites, and have duly reported them here. But I do not enjoy that kind of crap.

I’m actually sad for you. Your response reads like a To Catch a Predator transcript.

I didn’t enjoy it when I did it and when I did I made sure to report those guys doing that stuff. But I was just so disgusted that I had to click the link again and again.

***
And what in the hizell is up with capitalizing the “k” in k***** ****? Good grief.

You should probably not be emailing anybody about this discussion. You’re tainted dude. You should probably log off now and toss your hard drive.

There are sad days ahead for America, considering that there are more degenerates and zombies here than sane normal people..