I’ve finally found something on C?N that I agree with wholeheartedly.

BTW is anyone else disturbed by their total lack of honesty and openness? The anti-Mosaic site has hidden who registered the domain (a feature you have to deliberately select and pay extra for), the link to Nathan’s site isn’t actually a link to Nathan’s site, its a link through a proxy I suppose in some sort of spiteful attempt to deny Nathan the google juice, and its posted anonymously (and cowardly). We haven’t even gotten into New Truth’s denying anyone disagreeing posts to link. And of course you’ve got a total open comment black out across the watchdoggie universe. Its like openness and honesty is their kryptonite.

Edit part 2:
The deception of the watchdoggies continue as after I pointed out they didn’t actually link to Nathan’s site the post was edited to remove the link entirely. Luckily a suspicious reader had screenshotted the post before they did it. Before, and after.

I’m now past the point where I can ascribe any good intentions the watchdoggies. They’re more interested in defending their little fiefdoms than they are in obedience to God.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, October 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

54 Comments(+Add)

1   Nathan    
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm

You agree with my comment, or you agree that it is emergent hate speech?

2   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Nathan, you have to admit that comment was not very God-honoring or respectful. Please, bad language should not be used by God-fearing Christians, and calling a female that is especially disrespectful.

3   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I agree with your comment.

4   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm

calling a female that is especially disrespectful.

hehe. and why does it make it “especially” disrespectful if it is a woman?

please explain how we should “respect” men and women differently.

and what does saying “ass” have to do with fearing God? see – i didn’t just get struck down by lightning or anything… :)

5   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Dave, last time I checked, that was a bad word. Bad words are not honoring to God. Christians shouldn’t be using bad language. Do I really have to spell this out for you?

It’s disrespectful to call ANYONE a bad name. But couldn’t y’all act more like gentlemen around here? It’s bad manners to treat females like they are stupid, no matter what your opinion is of a particular individual.

6   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm

While it may be strong language its not so much visceral in this case as it is descriptive. From Dictionary.com.

ass1 /æs/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[as] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
3. a stupid, foolish, or stubborn person

7   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Good grief, I know what it means. I still view it as offensive language. I still stand by my previous comments.

8   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm

And actually, there are several meanings of the word. It also means something that’s a whole lot more vulgar than just a stupid person. I suggest more research.

9   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm

I don’t considerate it any more offensive than “stupid”, “stubborn” or “foolish”.

10   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Okay. The comment was disrespectful no matter how you want to say it. I’m just wondering whatever happened to basic politeness. There’s a fine line between bluntness and rudeness. Bluntness is fine with me. That comment crossed over to rudeness.

11   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Would you have the same reaction if Nathan had said that everytime Ingrid writes she is “stupid, foolish, and stubborn”?

12   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Honestly I don’t see how you can be shocked by the use of “ass” and have no problem with the deliberate and deceptive practices used by watchdoggies.

13   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm


I have took it that one is being like the animal… the ass, the same animal that Balaam rode and Jesus rode an “ass, a colt of a donkey”

Samson used this as a pun… the English is cleaned up… but in Judges 15 it should read… “With the jawbone of an ass, I made an ass of the Philistines.”

Luther called himself the “Papal’s Ass” and it is one of my favorite (crude) quotes of Luther…

“I am the papal’s ass, ever time of bray, they call it doctrine”.

Also, Luther referred to the Papist…

“Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.”

Here is a list of some of the more vulgar quotes of Luther… that Great Pure Reformer that those like Steve Camp, Ken Silva, Ingrid, and on and on hold up. It is all pretty shocking and fun reading!

But be warned they are often “R” rated and that does not mean “Reformed”.


HEre is a tract by Martin Luther translated to English. http://tentmaker.org/tracts/LutherLetter.html

That is why I call Mark Driscoll a novice and a pale knock off! LOL!

Be Blessed,

14   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm

I find the layout and design of the faux-Mosaic site the real tragedy. Perhaps a visit to Web Pages That Suck would be in order, though I would assume the name of that site would cause tremendous indignation. And another post.

15   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Yes, I would have complained if he had called Ingrid stupid.

I never said I didn’t have a problem with them. The main difference between you and me is that I show them love as brothers and sisters in Christ. I think they could change their methods a little, but then I think you could, too. Please, just show a little compassion. Doesn’t the Bible say to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you?

16   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 pm

merry… now you are starting a different discussion. treating people with compassion is very different than whether or not “god fearing” people should use words like “ass.”

nor does treating people with compassion have anything to do with how we should respect women differently than men.

17   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Dave, I already answered your question.

Er, thanks, Iggy (I think).

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm


Now if the use of ass in a compound form, I would say that is going overboard… and being crude.

But, it seems that we are all staying within the standard of the Reformers though it is missed by those who claim the reformers themselves.

Be Blessed,

No really!


19   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm


You gotto love the one link that has Luther not saved, yet uses the Reformers own… “faith alone” as the standard to salvation! I thought it was good reading and fun… LOL!


20   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Back to original point. I think Ingrid is a sweet lady. Opinionated, but nice. I’m sure all of you, in person, are nice too. Would you, if you ever met Ingrid in person, call her names? I would be shocked if you did. The internet doesn’t seem to bring out the best in people. The end.

May we all be in obedience to God.

21   Nathan    
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 pm


I will speak for myself. I was using the term with the definition that Tim provided. This (to me) is not considered offensive. It is used throughout historic literature to describe someone as foolish or silly. it comes from the animal, the ass. I was not using it as the offensive slang term that is used on the streets today.

Was the statement offensive? Obviously it is…. I am criticizing the woman. people on here know that I rarely make strong statements like that, and when I do, I mean them. I mean, saying “Ingrid often writes with a mean tone” really doesn’t convey what I am trying to say to people. I apologize if “ass” was offensive to you, I do not apologize if the statement made was offensive.

Does that make sense?

22   Nathan    
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm


for the record, I usually email the people I am criticizing directly at least once. You can ask Mike Corley. We still have heated email discussions. I do not hide behind the internet. I love these people, and am here to make a change in the world, not just make a statement in cyber space.

23   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Back to original point. I think Ingrid is a sweet lady. Opinionated, but nice.

No, not at all. She’s mean and nasty, and underhanded. Every time she was either caught in a lie, or even her most staunch supporters told her she had gone too far the article just disappears. No retraction, no apology. Does that sound nice?

Or her posts in which she characterizes us as “opponents”. Does classifying brothers and sisters in Christ as opponents qualify as nice?

Or how about when she brags about brow beating front line workers at a grocery store? Is that nice?

And we could keep going on and on. She is not nice. What she says on her site is often personally attacking, sometimes misleading and occasionally outright lies.

24   merry    
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm

All right Nathan. I’m sorry for attacking you. I was sincerely offended and was not at all trying to cause an argument.

Tim, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. We see things much differently. I’m sorry you obviously have been hurt by Ingrid.

I’ve come to a decision. I am going to stop going to ODM sites and sites like this one. I’ve commented at both, I’ve argued for both, and have come to the conclusion neither are capable of building each other up as God would want. Hopefully I’ll be able to find websites that are edifying and encouraging, use appropriate language and have mature attitudes. In the meantime, I’ll be praying for all of you and all the ODM people.

To God Be the Glory.

25   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm

I put the over/under at three days…

26   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 pm

do sweet ladies shut down their websites periodically and assert that they will never come back, and then come back within weeks?

or attack pastors who were killed in a freak accident?

or attack a pastor who’s dad just passed away?

I really don’t think we need to go on, do we?

27   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm

I put the over/under at three days…

hmmm… i think i will take the over on this one.

28   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Its funny that when Ingrid’s actual acts are posted it becomes “Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree and I’m never posting again.” I guess its easier to just avoid the discussion than it is to change your opinion.

29   Rick Frueh    
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 am

Ingrid probably is a sweet lady – to a certain group who agree with her. I still cannot believe she knew about Kimball’s father, and she she must know by now and should print an *update* on that post expressing her condolences.

30   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am

This cracks me up — the “anti-watchdoggie” site (Which has become a sort of watchdoggie site in and of itself) continues to watchdog the “watchdoggies.” And in emerging style, they throw in some garbage comment using a word that they know will incite to action any conservative Christian who happens to stumble into the this cess-pool of rediculosity.

31   Jonathan Frueh    
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 am

I don’t know Ingrid as well as many of you, but to call someone a word that is known as disrespectful and even sinful is wrong. I have read some of her heartless entries and I am disturbed by them but not to the point of insults toward her personally. Where is the language barrier? Do we have one as believers? I guess the general “bad language concensus” among belivers has been diminished and is open to personal interpretation….no matter where a christians spiritual life may stand. So if a believer wants to say the F word let him…it might not be wrong according to his walk or interpretation…doesn’t that sound ridiculious? Christianity has now become a live and let live religion whose boundaries are pushed farther and farther away from the WAY to WHICHEVER WAY YOU FEEL! By the way gentlemen, if your wife or daughter pulls out in front of me or does something I don’t agree with in my presents don’t be offended if I call her the B word. In that instance the B word will be in context in my eyes. (not really..this is an example so don’t go crazy on me.LOL)

32   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am

Ingrid a nice lady! That’s a good one! It’s like Forrest Gump, you know, “mean is as mean does”.

I’ve seen her tear down so many people verbally that there’s no doubt in my mind she’s a mean and bitter lady. I find it quite ironic when people say someone pointing out Ingrid’s vitriol are called mean-spirited. Was Jesus mean-spirited when He called the pharisees a “brood of vipers”? There is such a thing as “speaking the truth in love”, and, yes, sometimes it has to be harsh.

Ingrid to me shows classic signs of someone who is abusive. They tears people down, attack them, say awful things about them, etc. When someone confronts that person, there is a rationalization like, “I had to do it”, or “it’s not my fault”. The thing is if she never realizes her problem the cycle will continue.

33   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am

If they’re offended and incited by the word “ass” then the Bible is probably too offensive for them. Which probably explains their inability to conform to it.

I find it interesting that the word “ass” is inflammatory but the various lies, distortions, and abusive rhetoric is a-ok. Ah well there were probably Pharisees freaking out about “brood of vipers” while they were busy devouring widows houses.

34   Rick Frueh    
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 am

Dave – “cesspool of ridiculousity”

I love it! You are honing your hyperbolic metaphors! Thanks for the laugh, I enjoy some good comments without being just plain Jane.

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 am

FYI – I typically do not use the word ‘ass’ because it is higly context-sensitive as to whether it is crude or not. When used in reference to behaviour similar to an animal of the same name, it should not be offensive, but when used in reference to the body part and related functions then it would likely be offensive.

In general, I just avoid it to avoid causing my legalistic brothers to stumble over themselves trying to remove the speck from my eye…

36   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 am

I tend to a agree with you, but I always found it funny that a lot of people I know who would have a problem with the word by itself have no problem using it with the word “jack” in front of it. Christians are just funny sometimes.

37   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 am

i didn’t know a word would make everyone so crazy :)

38   Zan    
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm


Perhaps the point, in regards to Luther, is not so much “that since he said it, then it must not be quite so taboo”, but more “maybe we should really readjust the pedestal on which the church has put Martin Luther”.

He was, after all, from a totally different culture than the 21st century. And he was, after all, a MAN! What he wrote or said isn’t gospel!

Just a thought.

39   Ian    http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm

To be fair, Nathan DIDN’T call her an Ass. He said she makes an Ass of herself. There is a difference.

40   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Jonathan could you possibly space out your comments.

It makes it much easier to read. Thanks

41   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm

You need to not put your stuff in caps. First of all, some of what you are saying seems like you have an axe to grind, when YOU PUT IT IN ALL CAPS YOU LUMP YOURSELF IN WITH TJ. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE YELLING. AND IT RUINS YOUR CREDIBILITY.

42   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm

ok… I’ll open up the can o’ worms.

Which words are biblically ok, and biblically not ok, Jonathan.

43   Jonathan Frueh    
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Sorry about that Joe. I’ll paragraph from now on and my caps are a mode of stressing not yelling. Sorry if anybody took it that way! I’ll keep the letters lower case from now on.

Nathan, I’ll ask you a question before I answer…What words would you say that the Lord would not have us use? Are there boundaries? If so, where do those bounderies lay?

My answer is a verse in Ephesians(NLT) “Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.”

I see this being the verse which tells us not only to refrain from foul language, but also not to attack someone. I can see you arguing the point against her arguements, but you need to refrain from ad hominem.

44   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm

The problem is that “foul or abusive” has been defined by the American church as the 7 words you can’t say on television, as a result there’s all kinds of “foul or abusive” words that flow out of church members. Just take a look at the watchdoggies, they’ve never said crap or ass, but there’s foul and abusive language all over their blogs. Which is why I have a problem with applying that verse to particular words rather than to the overall meaning of language.

45   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm


That has been and always is my point… at the same time to say that “Christians” should and would never ever use that sort of language is pretty much… well ill informed.

Be Blessed,

46   Jonathan Frueh    
October 24th, 2007 at 12:41 am

I see your point Tim, but we must take our own inventory away from looking at another blogs abusive vernacular. Let that verse apply to us as we call this our blog “home” so to speak.

Tim, no one has answered my question. Where are the boundaries if ones exist? Where do we draw the line? Why not say the F word? I haven’t received a clear answer even when I asked this question on a previous post. If we can say the A word then lets go all out. I give this little sarcasm in lightheartedness to provoke an answer from you guys.

Tim, why not add this discussion to a podcast. I will bring the headphones to my father in the hospital room. I prayed over his leg but it wasn’t suddenly healed. I guess his fath is weak! LOL

47   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 24th, 2007 at 7:17 am

Tim, no one has answered my question. Where are the boundaries if ones exist? Where do we draw the line? Why not say the F word? I haven’t received a clear answer even when I asked this question on a previous post. If we can say the A word then lets go all out. I give this little sarcasm in lightheartedness to provoke an answer from you guys.

Jonathan, you’re looking at this the wrong way. Instead of classifying which words are on the no-no list, you need to look at how the words are used. As was pointed out oon another topic, Paul used some very severe language, that was roughly equivalent to sh**.

As I also pointed out in one of last few podcasts, if we try to define exactly what that is it is the nature of man to 1) find a loophole, and 2) walk right along the boundary. Instead, if we hold to a general command and apply to each situation distinctly we can truly pursue this command.

48   Jonathan Frueh    
October 24th, 2007 at 11:29 am


“As I also pointed out in one of last few podcasts, if we try to define exactly what that is it is the nature of man to 1) find a loophole, and 2) walk right along the boundary. Instead, if we hold to a general command and apply to each situation distinctly we can truly pursue this command.”

I agree with this statement especially the comment about the loopholes, but are there not standards( standards which we have that are common christian rules) we should adhere to when in front of the world? I was raised in a Christian home and in that home I experienced no drinking, smoking, cursing, etc. and looking back I know people who knew my family noticed how we obstained from language that was known as “foul.”

I remember my little league coach, who was a very nice non-christian, making a comment about how he noticed my parents didn’t use foul language(that was after he used the F word in my presence). I know being around my coach is one of those situation you are referring to, but aren’t we in those situation all day every day.

My arguement is this…The world even acknowledges, for ex. the A and F word, as foul language but they have no problem using them because the light before men doesn’t exist in them. Why are we trying to push the envelope so as to conform to that which even the world deems “foul.”

Tim, Here is my question for you. Is there a no-no list? I know you will say it differs on a personal level, but is there a universal no-no list for believers?

49   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 24th, 2007 at 11:31 am

ugh… the NLT translation is awful.

a better translation:

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”

It says nothing about being “good and helpful.” But it does say that you should use words for “edification according to the need of the moment.” According to this, depending on the moment different words are necessary and appropriate.

Maybe even “ass.”

50   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 24th, 2007 at 11:33 am

Why are we trying to push the envelope so as to conform to that which even the world deems “foul.”

Who said it is about “pushing the envelope?”

Is there a no-no list?

For me? No… not really, at least not in terms of “curse” words. Though there are appropriate and inappropriate times to use them.

51   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 24th, 2007 at 11:39 am

Tim, Here is my question for you. Is there a no-no list? I know you will say it differs on a personal level, but is there a universal no-no list for believers?

The problem with saying “here’s the no-no list” is that list changes over time, and context (as we pointed out with the word ass). Saying something like, “if you’re proud that God is working through you, consider he worked through an ass once, and he might be doing so again” shouldn’t be offensive. Screaming at someone, “Kiss my ass”, should be offensive.

Or consider the use of racially charged language. At one point it wasn’t considered all that uncommon, now its pretty much the worst thing you can say.

What specific words are offensive varies across time, place and individuals, so I’m less concerned with playing word police than I am with being careful to avoid abusing people. Because what happens when you play word police is eventually you can say whatever you want, so long as those words aren’t in there. In other words, you’re straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

52   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
October 24th, 2007 at 11:49 am

Or consider the use of racially charged language.

Actually… yea, some language is “no-no” for me. Any racially charged or hate other hateful terminology is off limits for me.

53   Jonathan Frueh    
October 24th, 2007 at 7:28 pm


Then all language, whether the F word or the word please, can be both appropriate and inappropriate. Is all language based on personal preference or situational? Then all language can be used on the pulpit if it is used in context. So do you have a problem with a pastor using the F word when discussing marital practices?

54   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
October 24th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

So do you have a problem with a pastor using the F word when discussing marital practices?

Probably, since generally that word isn’t used in the context of God honoring sex.