Shreiking Harpy[Before we go any further, the title of this article is a direct quote from Ingrid Schlueter here.  Our aim is not to make light of this horrible crime committed against women, but rather to use a specific quote in context with its originator.]

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

These words were written a little less than a month ago by Ms. Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea (SoL – an acronym unfortunate, yet accurate for those under its malevolent eye), in response to an article written on another blog by a commenter (not a writer) on this site.  The primary response to this was that it was rather over-the-top and hyperbolic, as the article she was complaining about was not offensive (and had somewhat of a mea culpa included in it), but the thread she interrupted with her outburst was critiquing a Christian blog which insinuated that the electrocution death of an Emerging Church pastor was an act of God in response to poor theology.  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels!

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

Far more so today than that day, though, these words are rather accurate, though they are best, and most appropriately, aimed at their originator

Two Fourteen Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

Colonial Slice of LaodiceaIn the past week and a half, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has taken a good number of hits from the secular press for her answer to a question at the Miss USA pageant in which she defended the Christian stance, that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. (As an interesting side-note, I saw about 5 minutes of this show – Ms. Prejean’s answer – while flipping through channels that evening.  My instant, and accurate, thought was “well, she just lost the crown for an honest answer”.)

Later, it was also revealed that when she was a teenager, she posed for lingerie modeling shots while topless (from the back).  So, it was also predictable that sins of the past cannot be forgiven in some corners of the church, and even if forgiven will never be forgotten, and will dog us to our dying days.  Not because the world remembers them.  No – because some in the church will never allow us to forget them.  Just ask Amy Grant.

What was not so predictable was that Christians (albeit a few nasty, yet vocal, ones) would would choose to pile on top of Ms. California and – instead of praising her for sticking to her guns on a biblical answer – vilify her for even being a participant on the stage where she gave her answer.  In fact, like a shrieking harpy dining on the misery of others, Ms. Schlueter has swooped in with no fewer than fourteen articles on the subject of Ms. Prejean and her immoral participation in this ‘carnival of flesh’.

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

How true, how true.  But when vultures are in search of meat (noting that it was also Ms. Schlueter who cackled last fall that Ted Haggard was a “gift that keeps on giving”) and receive back pats from the main stream media, you can be sure that their cadaverous mouths will keep spilling their putrescent schadenfruede across the ‘net.  It seems that when women and/or sexuality are the topic at hand, the only difference between SoL and the National Enquirer is that the Enquirer has ethics it must adhere to – and if you are of the fairer sex and in the sights of SoL, you really are SOL.

Schlueter’s unhealthy obsession with Christians and sexuality is so well documented by her own poison pen, that one need look no further the SoL.  Whether it’s Ted Haggard’s scandal, or Mark Driscoll daring to preach from the Song of Solomon (which IS one of the books of the Bible, last time I checked), or churches teaching about sex, or “painted girls of sodom” following in the footsteps of Miley Cyrus, or a beauty queen attacked by the world for her Christianity, you can expect that Ingrid will be there, licking her chops, waiting for an opportunity to pile on, even if she has to quietly retract statements later.  But when is enough enough?

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

Christians Fighting in the Press

OuroborosThe Apostle Paul tells us:

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

Now, the literalist will tell us that this is only applicable to lawsuits between Christian brothers. However, Paul continues:

But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The principle Paul is dealing with here is that Christians should not be using the systems of this world to duke it out in front of the world. In today’s society, where confidentiality laws, legal obscurity and closed courtrooms are actually more private than 2000 years ago, the press has come to the forefront as the public venue for duking it out. And so it is that Ingrid, swelling with pride from the mainstream notoriety she’s received for being a Christian willing to eat her own kind, seems oblivious to the mockery she has made of Christ and the sport she has provided in this modern coliseum.

Carrie Prejean’s teenage error, and her participation in a beauty contest are mere trifles in comparison to the trainwreck Ingrid has provided for the world (which desires to crush Prejean for standing up against the homosexual marriage juggernaut) to see and by which to be entertained.

This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was condemning the Corinthians for – and if we at CRN.Info were ever contacted by the MSM, I would hope we’d have the guts to consider the greater agenda of the world before we consented to being quoted. I will be quite happy if we never appear, or are quoted by, a secular publication.

But for Ingrid, the gravy train is coming home, and there are corpses to feed on.

Like a stopped watch that is correct only twice a day, Ingrid has given us a quote that is fully applicable and appropriate to this situation.  If only she will listen to her own advice:

“The online gang rape needs to stop.”

___________________

NOTE:  The following item recently passed my desk.  I’d decided to pass on it, but I think it’s much more appropriate now:

Is there any appreciable difference between these two quotes?

quote 1 : I refuse to answer emails from those complaining that this material [that I put in my post] isn’t suitable for Christians.

quote 2 : If  someone thinks [what I wrote] is an example of what I have decried, that person hasn’t understood what I am saying at all.

Don’t they both say, “if you think I’m wrong, that’s your problem”?

And if so, does that mean that John MacArthur is pregnant, too?

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm and is filed under Church and Society, Ingrid, ODM Writers, Original Articles, Women. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

232 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris P.    
May 6th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

The point here is…….???

No gang rape is possible among the impotent here.

2   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
May 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

You’re Just Fooling Yourself
You say you believe in Jesus and you are striving to be just like Him.
*You say He controls you and yet you speak things that cannot possibly come from His lips.
*You say you love Him and yet you spend much more time with others than you do Him.
*You say you want to please Him and yet you so often please yourself.
*You say He is Lord and yet you’ve created your own plan and called it His.
*You say you love His brethren and yet you breathe fire down upon them.
*You say you love His Word but you pull out what pleases you and leave the rest.
*You say you care for the poor and yet they continue to walk right in front of you.
*You say you desire His kingdom and yet you’ve built your own.
*You say you care about the lost and yet you shed no tears for their souls.
*You say you are nothing and yet you take offense when someone attacks you.
*You say you believe in God’s love and yet you speak words of hate.
*You say you believe in mercy and yet you show very little to anyone.
*You say you believe in a kingdom to come and yet you store up treasures here.
*You say you are humble yet you let everyone know what you have done for Him.
*You say He says love your enemies and yet you barely love your friends.
*You say that eternity matters most but you get all stirred about earthly issues.
*You say God answers prayer and yet you pray so little and so predictable.
*You say you are growing and yet you act as if you’ve arrived.
*You say you believe in God’s truth and yet you act as if it is yours.
*You say you are filled with His Spirit and yet you speak and act like you.
*You say you believe in grace and yet you live in law.
*You say salvation is a gift and yet you refuse to offer it without strings you’ve made.
*You say you believe Jesus and yet you return evil for evil.
*You say you desire forgiveness but you refuse to forgive.
*You search for the sins in others and are blind to your own.
*You say you speak for Christ but your words are yours.
*You say your life was changed and yet you sound just like before.
*You say you desire reconciliation and yet you seek to destroy.
*You say Jesus is your Master and yet you love the praises of men.
You say you believe in Jesus and you are striving to be just like Him.
You’re just fooling yourself.

Rick posted this on another thread.

It seems more appropriate here

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

“No gang rape is possible among the impotent here.”

More creative than you usual offerings.

4   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Chris P.,
You sir, are an idiot, and I mean that in the clinical sense. I’m surprised you can even find your way to the internet without someone helping you.

Seriously, it’s almost not even worth responding to folks like Ingrid anymore because what they represent is so far removed from Christianity, it might as well be called something altogether different. Let the New Pharisees can have their man-made religion, I say.

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Chris – Let us come down to the core. Even if you are not complimentarian, no woman is called by God to rebuke ordained men. Before we even delve into the caustic verbiage that is unchristian at its core, Ingrid is openly behaving in an unbiblical manner, and those who give LIP SERVICE to a complimentarian view are complicit.

Sola Scriptura means “Only the Scriptures I like” in Latin. I would assume that if a gay man who claims Christ became an ODM and wrote visciously about Warren and others, he could be a contributor on CRN. Negativity covers a multitude of sins.

6   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Chris – I do believe the attire on your picture is a little risque even for demonic standards. I wouldn’t be surprised if augmentation is involved. :cool:

7   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

“Schlueter’s unhealthy obsession with Christians and sexuality is so well documented by her own poison pen….”

Now, Ingrid is going after poor mimes!!!

“The Mime Problem . . . . I quote from the church’s ad about the purpose of their church’s “mime ministry” . . . . The Apostle Paul didn’t mime the Word. Jonathan Edwards did not have this problem. Charles Spurgeon didn’t mime the Word of God either. They preached it.”

I can’t wait for her next series.

- Sex & Mimes
- The Gay Roots of Debased Mime Love
- Naked Mimes Destroying America
- Mimes: The Naked truth
- Dirty Little Mimes: Mommy’s Bad Boys
- Mimes & Sex
- Sex & ______ [Fill in Blank]

Sigh. :-(

RA

8   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

How about – The Painted Mimes of Sodom.

Really Ingrid needs to get some professional counselling.. I tell you she has an anger issue and struggles with hating people and also seems to have some sort of hang up that sex is dirty… and God hates it.

Hmmm I wonder how she got pregnant?

Never mind… I don’t even want to go there myself… it is much too disturbing!

iggy

9   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

OK – attacking a mime ministry is downright funny! Talk about mixing the message and the method…

10   gordo    
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

The Mime Minions of Sodom

11   Joe    http://joemartino.name
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Hmmm I wonder how she got pregnant?

Look behind you, there’s a line that you just crossed.

12   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Who will speak up for the mimes!? :-)

My church actually has a mime ministry for the kids, and they genuinely seem to love it. It actually seems pretty effective at reaching certain people.

Like I said before, what Ingrid is “defending” isn’t Christianity. It’s her own little man-made, legalistic, lifeless religion. We probably should just let her keep it.

13   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

A few weeks ago we had a puppet ministry in our children’s classes – I suppose this is anti-biblical as well…

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

A mime is a terrible thing to waste.

15   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

“I have a mole?”

(from the same movie Rick just quoted…Brendt would get it, others may not)

16   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Joe,

Sex in a marriage is God ordained and should be natural and without guilt… no line is crossed if that is how Ingrid got pregnant…

Why is is wrong if God made us so?

iggy

17   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Yeah, iggy, I got to jump on you for that pregnant crack on Ingrid…..not cool, bro. I have to be consistent here. That was past the line. You should take that one back. It was wrong on so many levels. :-( (slap administered).

RA

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

I do not see sex in marriage as dirty or wrong… and that is how most of us ended up with kids… so really come on there is no line if God designed sex in marriage as not only for procreation but fun also…

Let’s get a grip people… if someone has issues with sex and in married, they need help. If not for their sake, for their spouses! More people need to be open to helping promote a healthy and God given ideal of sex. especially as Christian who know the love of God and now have a perspective of the deep richness of Love we can share with out spouses.

So… no line… no foul… no regrets… just a prayer that Ingrid can be healed of her obsession that sex is dirty.

iggy

19   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

[jumping on the pile]

Iggy,
If there were no history between you and her and that subject matter, such a passing comment would probably not even be noticed.

But since we all know that it is a sensitive issue, it should have (in my opinion) been left unsaid.

20   nc    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

“impotent”…

hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

That was hilarious.

Chris P/Holy Spirit/wanna-be deity/whatever,

you just keep coming back here again and again and again.

The cyber-rape may need to stop, but, dude, your masturbatory need to check out this site has really become a problem for you.

Didn’t you say you’re busy “reproducing your spiritual kind” over at your lovely performing arts center…oops, I mean “worship center”?

However do you keep up with all that you’re doing?

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

We should stay on theology and methodology and leave Ingrid’s personal life completely alone. Always.

22   nc    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

All you bat doo-doo crazy lurkers who love to drink from the toilet of ADM blog-dom, take note:

Once again there is rebuke from people on this site of what is deemed over the line.

So much for “becoming what we hate”.

You people are a joke.

23   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Nathanael,

That is the point… it should not be a sensitive problem… she should rejoice in being pregnant as I rejoice about it for her… what a joy! What a blessing!

It is Ingrid that makes it sound I am being nasty and mean… she seems to only read negative in all I say… I pray her pregnancy will go safely and without any issues and that the child is loved.

Now on another note… I have two kids and they are came with much practice. ; ) My wife and I loved the practice and love our kids… it is all good!

iggy

24   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Iggy,

In all honesty, you don’t know what Ingrid thinks about sex or anythng about that very personal/intimate issue between here and her spouse.

All you and anyone knows is that she posts on it….A LOT (gay sex & straight sex).

So, you don’t actually known what’s going on with here there or what her motivation is (but I would agree that it’s probably unhealthy on some level).

However, to make that kind of flip comment which clearly digs at her personal sexuality (which is rather crass, tbh), does go beyond the line — and it’s just not cool.

As my father used to say when he was just about to swat me on the behind and I was inching away from him….”C’mon, son, take it like a man.”

RA

PS Goodness, did I just defend Ingrid? I feel dizzzy.

25   nc    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

The “mime” controversy is a total “what the hell?” moment for me.

Apparently sacred-classical music and singing is the only art available to God honoring Christians…

Bizarre…just bizarre.

26   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

I am really shocked that you all seem to see Ingrid’s pregnancy as a bad thing and not to be talked about…

Come on… that is such a joke in itself… get over it…

She is a woman and God gave her a great gift!

iggy

27   nc    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Seriously, Ingrid gives us ton to work with…we don’t really need to go there.

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:11 pm

The mimes with that makeup must be too tranvestitesque.

29   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Richard,

In all honesty, you don’t know what Ingrid thinks about sex or anythng about that very personal/intimate issue between here and her spouse.

You just gave a bunch of info about what she thinks of sex… she spews her views on how sex is wrong and that anyone that does not meet her standards is not even worthy of the same Grace that saved her.

To that, it seems that her view of “sex is bad” or “sex is unhealthy” comes out of her pores as she writes post after post against anyone who speaks of it in a church and tries to help couples learn a healthy and Godly view of it…

iggy

30   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Iggy, you may feel called to hold the mirror in front of Ingrid and say we pray for her and all, but if you’re getting a kick out of doing it in the process… motive check.

It just reminds me too much of the family at the dinner table, solemnly saying grace topside, kicking each other below.

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Let it go, Iggy. For good.

32   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

I do not see sex in marriage as dirty or wrong… and that is how most of us ended up with kids… so really come on there is no line if God designed sex in marriage as not only for procreation but fun also…

No one is arguing that point. Obviously sex within marriage is not an issue for her.. The line you crossed (and I also agree a line was crossed) was the “Hmmm…” line.

Hey, Chris P. et. al. – notice anything different about us?

33   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 6th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Iggy – let me say this nicely…

“Step away from the keyboard, slowly, slowly…”

Unless you a tested-and-true politician, the best way to dig your way out is silence.

34   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

OK whatever… but it is weird that you all seem to feel free to judge my motives…

I feel sad you seem to think her pregnancy is wrong… or bad or whatever it is you think about it…

iggy

35   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

or – come to think of it – an apology/retraction

36   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

One more thing, and then I’m finished.
Regardless of whether or not her sensitivity is legitimate, the fact remains that you know it is a hot topic.

In my family, we tease each other…relentlessly.
It is all in good fun, and it is in love.
But if I know there is an area of sensitivity, even if it shouldn’t be, it is incumbent upon me to not go there.

That’s it.

Shalom

37   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Hmmm I wonder how she got pregnant?

Never mind… I don’t even want to go there myself… it is much too disturbing!

Did anyone even bother to read what I wrote… I was letting it go until the dog pile… it is you guys that kept it going! LOL!

The point was that if she sees sex as dirty, they how did she get pregnant? It is expressing a double and unhealthy standard she sets on others… sex seems to be a huge issue with Ingrid… as RA documented…

So I did let it go… you guys kept it going… so apologies should come from more corners than me, and none are coming from me.

iggy

38   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Nathaneal,

I am not teasing Ingrid about her pregnancy… I think it is wonderful and great! I also know it is one that has issues and might have complications so I hope others are praying for her as I am.

iggy

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Ingrid has never said sex between a husband and wife was dirty, and I hold some of the same concerns as does she about some of the more inappropriate obsession with sex in some churches.

What made you comment more offensive than normal was, as was mentioned, your history.

40   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

OK whatever… but it is weird that you all seem to feel free to judge my motives…

Only one person mentioned motives…

I feel sad you seem to think her pregnancy is wrong… or bad or whatever it is you think about it…

No one thinks her pregnancy is wrong or bad… in fact “it” is not even the subject.

41   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

One thing I will add… Ingrid knows sex sells and uses it to push her blog… so again that double standard.

While she uses it to accuse and abuse others who may be trying to use it to help others grow in a healthy understanding of sex in marriage. She decries this over and over in attacks against Mark Driscoll and her beloved “clown church” posts.

So while it is ok for her to use sex to promote her blog it is wrong to teach others healthy and biblical views.

iggy

42   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

I have no history concerning sex and Ingrid… come on guys grow up!

iggy

43   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

If no one says anything, Iggy, it’s license, and likely, to continue.

“I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.”

Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785

44   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

From the Shawshank Redemption:

You are being so obtuse. Is it on purpose?

45   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Let it go guys… I did with my first comment but you guys keep it going and going…

46   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Done.

47   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Yeah guys, lay off iggy – or at least give him time to take his keyboard out of his mouth. This is serious business.

48   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

I am not backing down, but I will stop talking about it…

49   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Works for me.

50   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

If anything I hope Ingrid will notice that you all came to the defense of her… she already hates me…

I hope you guys get a bit of what I was doing there…

iggy

51   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

There is a new show on TV called Calvinist Jeopardy.

The categories choose the contestants!

52   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

And in Double Jeopardy, it provides the answer for you.
Sometimes it’s right.
Sometimes it’s wrong.

You have no say in it.
:)

53   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

And your answer cannot be in question form, it must be said with complete certainty!

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Anyone remeber the Far Side cartoon where God was playing Jeopardy and was answering every question?

55   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

I was wrong about Miss Issippi.

56   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

It seems that when women and/or sexuality are the topic at hand, the only difference between SoL and the National Enquirer is that the Enquirer has ethics it must adhere to – and if you are of the fairer sex and in the sights of SoL, you really are SOL.

very good…

57   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

My goodness, we should make ODM Jeopardy.
______________

ALEX: Okay, players, Categories are:

- You Re-Mime Me of Someone
- So Sue Me
- John Sweet Sixteen
- The Emergentcy Room
- Wordle Hurdle
- “Mystics & Heretics & Friars, Oh My!”
- Gays in the Sanctuary
- Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Player #1: I’ll take John Sweet Sixteen, Alex, for $200.

ALEX: I hate the painted girls of Sodom and naked beauty pageant contestants.

DING!!!

Player #2: “Who is Ingrid Schlueter?”

ALEX: Correct for $200. You have control of the board.

Player #2: “Let’s try….”Mystics & Heretics & Friars, Oh My! for $300.”

ALEX: He was loved, then hated. The darling-boy of ODMs, until he saw the light and started a fight.

DING!

Player #3: Who is Tim Challies?

ALEX: Correct. You’re choice.

Player #3: I’ll take Do As I Say, Not As I Do for $400.”

ALEX: “TRUTH, TRUTH TRUTH,” he declares. TRUTH IS ALL IMPORTANT that’s what my Martian Mentor always said.”

DING!

Player #3: Who is Paul Proctor?

ALEX: Oh, no, no. I’m sorry. Not Paul proctor. Anyone……?

DING!

Player #1: Who is Ken Silva?”

ALEX:Yes. Ken Silva, who claimed his mentor to be Walter Martin, a slight play on words there to trip you up.

………..etc.

R. Abanes

58   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

And two more posts at CRN concerning Miss California, although Mike’s is much less personal. It’s a good thing Miss California’s talent wasn’t interpretive mime!

59   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

BTW – I am making a collection of all the indecent photos of Miss Prejean that surface, and I will be sending them out in my Christmas cards as a reminder of what sin looks like.

Of course that assumes I celebrate Christmas which I do not because THAT is sin!! Christmas is an ceremonial augmentation to the Christian faith that is doctrinally immodest. :cool:

60   wilson    http://somethingaboutfaith.blogspot.com
May 6th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

RA: “Now, Ingrid is going after poor mimes!!! ”

Wilson:
Most of the words associated with the delivery of the gospel message are words such as

proclaim (Acts 16, 17, 1 Co 9:14, 2 Cor 4:5
declare (Acts 11:14, Eph 6:20, Col4:3, 1Th2:2)
persuade (Acts 18:4, 26:28)
preach (Acts 10:42, 14:7, Rom 1:15)

Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(and following…)

All of these seem to involve the use of the spoken word. Miming just seems to me to be the opposite of that.

61   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

OK Wilson, but that pretty much rules out radio and internet as well – where does that put Ingrid?

62   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

As long as the mime presentation has some “words” of explanation it can be very effective. But of course you believe that only a preacher that climbs up on a large wooden pulpit can preach the gospel, then mime is not for you. :cool:

God used Godspell to reach me. How inappropriate of Him.

63   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

“where does that put Ingrid?”

Left field.

64   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

Yep, according to Wilson now, the deaf and dumb or those with speak impediments so severe they are hard to understand cannot preach the Gospel…

What a weak Gospel it is! or rather Wilson has… According to the bible people are not saved by preaching but by the Word of Christ… he says it it is done… if they are saved by our preaching then it is works…

iggy

65   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

#60: All of these seem to involve the use of the spoken word. Miming just seems to me to be the opposite of that.

RA: So much for deaf Christians…….oh well, too bad for them.

RA

66   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

60: So much for sign language to reach the deaf, eh? If you’re going to be that much of a literalist, Wilson, does that mean there can be no saved deaf people, since believing comes from hearing?

67   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

RF: God used Godspell to reach me. How inappropriate of Him.

RA: ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!! Me, too. It was an early step I took away from seeing God as taught to me by the nuns/priests.

RA

68   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 6th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

YEP….

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

God said, I believe it, that settles it. No Christian deaf people. Oh well.

RA

69   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

Thanks, Rich, I was paraphrasing.

70   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

I saw Godspell late one night when I was 10.

That song “By My Side” and everyone thereafter wrecked me.

In a good way.

71   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

I saw Godspell on Broadway probably 20 times in 1974-75. I met some of the actors that starred in the movie.

It was written by an unbelieving Jew named Stephen Shwartz. God in a box is no God at all.

72   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

The Holy Spirit uses many unapproved vehicles. People have been saved under the preaching of men like Finney, with significant theological “oddities”. Preachers who were actively in adultery have seen people saved under their preaching. All sorts of mediums, and all sorts of preachers have been used of the Spirit to reach sinners.

Graham, Bell, Warren, MacArthur, and even Osteen, regardless of the shallowness or orthodoxy of their message, have seen people born again under their ministry.

73   wilson    
May 6th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

61. Hey Neil, internet and radio are okay I think… :-)

64, rabanes and others, my point wasn’t about deaf people…

1. tbh, this was not the reaction I expected. Maybe I was a bit careless and you have picked up on one (1) word I used “spoken”, and then used it to imply I am somehow against Christians with disabilities. I did not mean this. Please don’t think that. Perhaps I need to think broader in my ideas about communicating to different groups. thanks for pointing out my tunnel vision! :-) But surely, a simple “how do you communicate the gospel to deaf people?” would have sufficed in this regard, yes? :-)

2. I may have come across a bit blunt (All I said was “miming just seems to me to be the opposite of that.”), but I was just merely observing. That’s all. I didn’t say mimes are bad ( I expected a “what about deaf people?”), and my lack of thinking through the implications of my post has been shown up more vigorously than I could have imagined. may I learn from it.

3. I would have preferred a positive discussion about how mime could be used to communicate gospel ideas given the emphasis of words (spoken or written) as the means in the New Testament. hey, the Bible is unspoken in the written sense, God’s Word comes to us in the flesh.. However, having been involved in my teens in some Christian arts pursuits, artforms like mime and dance can be a bit subjective or difficult to communicate ideas clearly, not saying they can’t be of value. But art is often open to interpretation yes?

4. Richard, though, in your times as a performer etc. have you had the opportunity to do some mime? What did it involve? How did you think through the difficulty of communcating gospel ideas through art? Do you do much these days?

62. Rick, as always, thanks for your comments. I always enjoy reading them.

Too often I speak before I think.

74   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Thanks Wilson… Sometimes I just think people do not think about people with disabilities as real people… they look as the deaf, mute as some lower class of people and the way they are spoken of is as if God has forgotten them. I have heard people speak has you did and they meant it as we responded… that one cannot be saved unless the “hear” with their “ears”…

That is not what the bible states and the passage that is most often used to support is taken so badly out of context that it is almost hard to explain to others how bad people have distorted it.

We are saved by the very Word of God… our preaching can be used of God, but if someone is saved by our preaching as some teach… then it was works and they are not really saved!

Even the greatest of preachers have used this verse wrong…

iggy

75   Neil    
May 6th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Wilson,

You are correct, it is easy to just become sarcastic… that Ingrid can blog against using mime to present the gospel just shows how confused she has become -

76   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Wilson, when you lob one up like that, everybody’s gonna take a whack at it. :-)

77   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 6th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

when you lob one up like that…

78   Sandman    
May 6th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

Well, I have to clean the spray off my screen again..

Too Funny!

79   ncgal53    
May 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

#77 You guys are so funny sometimes. (smiling)

80   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
May 7th, 2009 at 12:35 am

1. Ingrid sent me an email during a sort of “gang-like” incident on this blog for which I will be forever grateful.

2. I seriously admire Miss California for giving that answer, since I don’t know if I could have done it, or at least since refrained from verbally kicking Perez Hilton in the a**.

3. Sins of the teenager/pink panties aside, I wouldn’t have had to be in that position to make that decision on what to answer, however, because anything that requires serious Brazilian waxing in order to participate probably falls under “immodest.”

4. She probably loves Jesus.

5. Sporting fake ta-tas and talking about instilling self esteem in young girls is an interesting combination.

6. So we have Miss California with an interesting mix of immodesty and perkily proclaiming the gospel, and we have Ingrid with a sharp tongue and proclaiming the gospel. Because #4 maybe applies to both.

More forgiving of the hot chick?

High school forever.

81   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 6:40 am

“So we have Miss California with an interesting mix of immodesty and perkily proclaiming the gospel, and we have Ingrid with a sharp tongue and proclaiming the gospel.”

Ingrid may believe the gospel, she does not proclaim it. I believe the “sharp tongue” description is overly generous, and I have received positive e-mails from Ingrid as well but they do not excuse the verbal violence that proceeds from her heart. If Ingrid ever took the time to read your blog and understand your spiritual thoughts you may well reassess your eternal gratefulness.

Smashing the fallen, exposing the sinners, castigating the lost, and generally being the moral and spiritual enforcer for all things human and ecclesiastical is not of God. Your description of a “gang like” incident is hyperbole and self serving and probably reveals a continuing perspective concerning some who write for or frequent this blog.

The phraseology “gang” employed by Ingrid and you might also contain a gender perspective. The condescending “hot chick” reference reveals something else. Your comments usually come with a shoulder chip and just enough mystery so as to remain unengaged while satisfying a personal need to release a quick and cryptic assessment amidst an ongoing dialogue.

In general, those types of discussion intrusions are designed less for the continuing productivity of the particular thread and more for the gratification of the commentor. I recommend to everyone at least a moderate ineraction that openly adds another perspective and recognizes the sometimes rough and tumble nature of some of the thread dialogues that are no where near being a “gang rape”.

Surreptitious judgments wrapped in witty literary aloofness is entertaining but hollow and is a form of solitaire played simultaneously amidst a multi-player format .

82   Joe    
May 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

More forgiving of the hot chick?

That’s one option for sure. There is also at least two other options that I can think of quickly.
1. More forgiving of the one who isn’t claiming to speak for God.
2. It has nothing to do with levels of forgiveness but levels of track record. One has a long track record of being mean, spiteful and less than complete with all the facts. She’s almost the Selena Roberts of “christian” writing.

You comment about her email though proves one of life’s most fundamental truths though. Actually it probably illustrates a couple, but the one that I think it best illustrates is that life is messy. Most people are not monsters. That applies across the board. Even the ones who are monstrous in some situations can be extremely kind in another.

83   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Joe – it also proves that if you are not the target of visciousness, and if the attacker treats you kind, you are willing to overlook the overwhelming carnage and reduce it to a “sharp tongue”.

I find the sharp tongue desciption to be either uniformed, niave, or conveniently myopic. Or possibly tempored by a slight bent toward the same.

84   John Hughes    
May 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

anything that requires serious Brazilian waxing in order to participate probably falls under “immodest.

Priceless and **ouch**.

85   Joe    http://joemartino.name
May 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

#83
My friend, you have made your feelings about the quoted comment very clear.

86   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

And CRN has another post about more pictures that will be forthcoming, and then this incredulously transparent and hollow statement.

“Far from tearing down anyone, CRN continues making sure the entire story is available for Christians as they pray for Carrie Prejean during this growing media circus.”

Can you even comprehend the arrogance of such nonsense? How can MAKING SURE you provide more racy pictures help in “praying” for this woman? Is there anything that can be desciribed as Christianity alive anymore??

87   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

More forgiving of the hot chick?

Oh Julie… why even go there? What a sexist and judgmental thing to say.

Let me put it this way… and it may sound strange to you… I do not think of Carrie Perjean as hot. In fact I am sort of turned off by her type…

Yet, here is a woman who appears superficial that goes for an honest answer that she knows will kill any chance of her winning… and she is punished by people who also believe that abortion is wrong… but are even MORE superficial as to think immodesty and even being taken advantaged of as a under-aged teen is a sin.

No one is perfect… but those one one side understand that and are not pointing out the sins of the other imperfect people…

Perjean is a victim of a bunch of bad choices and one really good one… and she is being punished by those who spit in the face of Jesus as theydo not give forgiveness or grace to others.

Which is what Ingrid and Ken are doing.

iggy

88   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

BTW – Ken uses the letters CRN when he was referring to CNN. Freudian.

89   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

“In fact I am sort of turned off by her type… “

Necessity is the mother of invention. :cool:

90   Joe    http://joemartino.name
May 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

#89.
I don’t really understand how that comment adds to the discussion.

91   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

I just think that there is a difference between a pretty girl that is made up and to me superficial and what I consider is “hot” and turns my crank so to say…

I just am not into her type… and do not find that attractive…

iggy

92   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

A joke, Joe. Merry heart and all that. E-mail me and I will explain it to you. :cool:

93   gordo    
May 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

“Far from tearing down anyone, CRN continues making sure the entire story is available for Christians as they pray for Carrie Prejean during this growing media circus.”

I believe someone has hijacked CRN and turned it into a parody site. No one could write that with a straight face.

94   Joe    http://joemartino.name
May 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

#92.
With all respect, I think that comment plays into the “High School all over again” comment. It just isn’t very appropriate given the rest of this thread.

95   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

More forgiving of the hot chick?

I’ll grant Julie the premise – hot chicks get more…

Though I do not think it applies in this case, since Ingrid’s behavior as been much much worse.

96   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“Far from tearing down anyone, CRN continues making sure the entire story is available for Christians as they pray for Carrie Prejean during this growing media circus.”

I believe someone has hijacked CRN and turned it into a parody site. No one could write that with a straight face.

The denial of tearing anyone down is asinine.

The other in nothing more than gossip with a transparent veil.

97   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

#94 – With all respect, I’ll take your perspective under advisement.

98   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

In the interest of making sure the entire story is available for Christians as they continue their deep intercession for him, here are some pictures of Ted Haggard in compromising positions.

Enjoy.

99   Joe    
May 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Thanks Rick, now let’s talk about your loyalty to ND. :)

100   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Gordo,

I believe you are correct. The editor has obviously gone over to parody. Claiming to repost racy pictures of a sister in Christ so we can pray for her is about as easy to see through as air itself.

This is the kind of thing I’d expect to see on The Onion, or Iggy’s parody site.

101   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

6. So we have Miss California with an interesting mix of immodesty and perkily proclaiming the gospel, and we have Ingrid with a sharp tongue and proclaiming the gospel. Because #4 maybe applies to both.

What Ingrid proclaims is not the Gospel in any shape or form I recognize. It’s more like the anti-gospel – the stuff that inoculates people to the real thing.

102   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

And does the phrase “growing media circus” include the community of Christian blogs that entered that circus very early?

To create an anticipation for more racy photos is sinful in and of itself, to link to them adds to that sin, but to suggest a redeeming motive for such is lying out and out, and probably the worst sin of all.

103   kenn    
May 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

I think the point Iggy was trying to make was that Ingrid appears to have some real body issues, to say nothing of the fact that her over-the-top rhetoric dilutes any credibility her message my contain. Regarding the pageant, on her site, she kept referring to naked women on stage, and nudity on stage, etc. I watched part of the show, and it always makes me wonder if I’m watching the same show Ingrid is. I saw women in bathing suits. If being clothed (or covered, however scantily) is being naked, then what do you call someone who is not wearing anything…is that considered REALLY naked? I’m not even going to address the contestant’s viewpoints or beliefs, or augmentation. I find Ingrid and her weird prudishness way more fascinating. This was the same women that almost had me driving off the road in hysterics when she talked about an 8 year old “flouncing” along a pool deck. It cracked me up then, and it still does. How does an 8 year old girl “flounce”. Does an 8 year old know they’re “flouncing”, and for that matter, what kind of weird body issues does an adult bring to the table when she sexualizes something as simple and natural as a little kid in a bathing suit on a hot summer day. She also went on to say how she didn’t want her son working as a lifeguard because she didn’t want him looking at girls in bathing suits for 8 hours a day. Nothing like passing your own neurosis on to your kids. Way to go “Churchlady”. Make every one of life’s simple pleasures ugly, dirty, and filled with guilt.
What a piece of work. But then again, somewhere in the back of my mind, I think she must be pulling our legs. Even the Lark News and Landover Baptist sites aren’t as over the top as Ingrid…and they’re parody sites! Just like Ingrid is so fond of saying..”Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction…you can’t make this stuff up”. Keep it coming Ingrid, you’re still way funnier than Lark and Landover combined!

104   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Kenn,

Exactly! What kind of sick mind sexualizes an 8 year old? I know many of those would be called sexual predators… (Though I am not accusing Ingrid of that) Yet it seems Ingrid herself is a product of an oversexed generation and can even turn the innocence of a child… into something sexually perverted… and that to me is sickening and a sign she is not stable

iggy

105   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Make every one of life’s simple pleasures ugly, dirty, and filled with guilt.

This reminds me of the old joke where the psychiatrist is giving a patient a Rorschach test.

The doctor holds up the first picture, and asks, “what does this remind you of?”

The patient responds, “sex.”

The doctor holds up another picture. “This one?”

“Sex.”

The holds up the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth picture, and the patient responds, “sex” for each picture.

With confidence the doctor says, “it’s pretty clear that you’re obsessed with sex.”

The patient retorts, “Me! You’re the one showing me all the dirty pictures!”

106   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

OK Joe, where are the thread police now? The continuing references to Ingrid and sex, even questioning her mental balance, is repulsive and is counter productive to those of us who address her verbiage and theology.

I publicly ask Chris Lyons to include a caveat on the no comment policy that deletes comments that inappropriately makes light of, or questions, or in some way mocks or demeans the personal life of ANYONE.

107   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

I’m not commenting on Ingrid’s mental health at all, because I know nothing about it. I do am curious, though, as to what does give someone the worldview that enables them to see evil in almost everything.

I do agree, also, we should refrain from referring using terms like “perverted”, “unbalanced”, and the like, though.

108   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Interesting and ironic on how a post entitled as it is turns into exactly what it was intended to defend against…

On this same post, there have been those who have spoken against this and it is commendable (despite the trumpeting, “Hey! Look how different we are!”).

I find Ken’s “Far from” statement no different than Iggy’s transparent comments (offers for prayer, etc).

It is interesting to observe how quickly and easily the blogosphere can be turned into a sort of “Lord of the Flies” metaphor.

109   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

“Really Ingrid needs to get some professional counselling.”

“seems to have some sort of hang up that sex is dirty”

“Hmmm I wonder how she got pregnant?”

” just a prayer that Ingrid can be healed of her obsession that sex is dirty.”

“she spews her views on how sex is wrong”

“The point was that if she sees sex as dirty, they how did she get pregnant?”

“Ingrid knows sex sells and uses it to push her blog… so again that double standard.”

“Yet it seems Ingrid herself is a product of an oversexed generation and can even turn the innocence of a child… into something sexually perverted… and that to me is sickening and a sign she is not stable”

Those are hyperbolic, strawmen, inaccurate, personal, and have no business in these conversations. These types of comments make the rounds on the blogasphere so that others can see them and discredit any legitimate doctrinal, theological, and orthopraxic issues being discussed.

110   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

I find Ken’s “Far from” statement no different than Iggy’s transparent comments (offers for prayer, etc).

And, how exactly is Iggy associated with this site other than him being a commenter? He’s not a writer here. I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. You seem to have made this mistake multiple times.

111   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Phil – no mistake made. As I said, in the early comments he was properly corrected by a number of commenters/contributors here.

I honestly thought that was(despite the trumpeting) and excellent display of integrity.

I think you’re just picking on one line in my comment, as opposed to taking it all in summary. See comment #109 to get a clearer picture of what this thread has produced.

112   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

BTW, just a curiosity, but is the demonic harpy supposed to be representative of SoL’s author? If not, what is it supposed to reflect?

113   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Paul – you make a measured and reasoned perspective.

114   Joe    
May 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

#106.
My friend I have a life away from this blog. I am sorry those things were said. They have been addressed now though, yes?

115   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

“They have been addressed now though, yes?”

Primarily by commentors, but not in substantive policy adjustments.

116   Joe    
May 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

Well, I don’t have time right now, so I’m going with a blanket “KNOCK IT OFF.” No more comments about Ingrid and sex unless it directly relates to this thread and her talking about it. In other words leave her personal life out of it.

117   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Joe,

That leaves it still totally open as she constantly talks about sex… so whatever!

:lol:

iggy

118   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

BTW, I thought the Banshee picture in connections to Ingrid was a bit too much… though fitting… it is a bit too much.

And Paul C. Thin veil? What?

If someone is ill, they need prayer… there is no thin veil I see ( insert unnamed person) as ill and has some sick and perverted views of sex… to the point she will sexualize the innocence of an 8 year old. Is that something you think is a good thing?

Sheesh… put me on moderation please!

iggy

119   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

NOTE: I’ve been in an all-day meeting, and this is the first chance I’ve had to peruse this thread today.

For those of you who feel the need to reference:

a) anyone’s sex life;
b) commenting about anyone’s sex life
c) defending commenting about anyone’s sex life

This pic is for you:

stop posting

There have been enough warnings in this thread that it should be obvious and left unsaid, but apparently not. If you feel the need to keep posting on the above, I will feel the need to add you to the list of folks on moderation, and to put such comments into moderation for a good long time.

120   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Like I said in 118… feel free…

And again, Chris the picture of the banshee was overboard… and just as “bad” to me.

iggy

121   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

BTW, just a curiosity, but is the demonic harpy supposed to be representative of SoL’s author? If not, what is it supposed to reflect?

1) It’s not a demonic harpy. It’s just a picture of a mythological harpy.
2) The phrase “In fact, like a shrieking harpy dining on the misery of others,” was originally in the first section. I did a GIS with the text of the first section, and that’s one of the images that came back.
3) Harpy (n):
1. Greek Mythology. One of several loathsome, voracious monsters with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail, wings, and talons of a bird.
2. A predatory person.
3. A shrewish woman.

It seemed quite appropriate to the current situation.

122   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Chris L,

Appropriate, yet overboard.

igs

123   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

FYI, from mythology –

Harpies were seen as destructive creatures from the realm of wind/air/spirit.

They gained strength by feeding off of the misery of others.

Everything they touched became infected.

Banshees, on the other hand, were spirits of the dead whose cries were seen as omens of impending death. The picture is definitely a harpy, not a banshee…

124   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

OK, what needs mentioning here are two facts; Ingrid coined the (highly offensive) phrase “online gang rape” in the attempt to play the martyr, and 2) at the time this post was published she had fourteen posts of her own about Miss California.

What I would like to see is a video of Ingrid’s appearance on CNN, I suspect her self-righteousness allowed her to be used as a pawn by them.

125   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
May 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

#119: I’m so glad it’s a cat picture, and not a dog. Fuzzy paw.

Regarding #81, I think it is safe to say that Ingrid, in her email, was aware of our differences and I don’t know how surprised she’d be on my blog since it’s no secret. Despite knowing that, she emailed me anyway. That meant something, and caused me to pick up all that crap off the shelf that I’d assigned to her and wonder about my simplistic way of coming to terms with severe differences in Christian beliefs. What struck me was the reality of seeing a person.

I don’t know why she writes what she does. I’m not always sure why she supports some of the things Ken Silva writes (I don’t know why he writes as he does, which can be said of Abanes as well — there is no category that is “safe” and so I just need to stop categorizing). Sometimes I just sit back and am in awe of her way with words, despite knowing the very sharp edge they contain. Sometimes I find I must skip a post for my own personal sanity.

But here is a woman who took the time to directly write to me and say things that were a blessing from God that I needed to hear, which tells me that, despite what you say and my ever-growing dislike for your poison pen, Rick, I know that you, too, are a child of God. Like my experience with Ingrid, I believe He uses the clay pot that you and I are to somehow get what needs to be said, in and amongst all that mud that we tend to live in.

Why get after the clay pot for its dirtiness? Pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black is still the pot calling the kettle black. We all do it. We are all consistently inconsistent.

I wrote on my blog a while back about the unfortunate reality of the impersonal nature of communicating on the internet, a post which, when I read the comments now, makes me sort of wonder and feel confusion.

I always say I’m better on paper, but I wonder if that’s quite unfortunate, for that’s where my weakness lies as well. Perhaps that applies to many of us; our written word travels far beyond where we would go.

I can’t speak for Ingrid, and though I’ve unfortunately spoken about her (though I have purged some posts from my blog out of conviction for the tone), I have come to see myself realizing that whatever it is I don’t understand, using weaponry to expand that lack of understanding as a way to pretend that I get it is a poor choice I’ve made.

So yes. Her email to me was a kindness of God, not just in that she wrote some nice things and now I am on her side — not the case — but that He very privately and gently took me to task for being locked into an either/or view on one of His children.

So, if tomorrow, she were to link to my blog and say that I am apostate, what would I do?

I would feel hurt, for I do not think that I am. And I would quietly have to put that shard of broken clay back in place and hope God could still make use of the clay pot.

I don’t know why you say what you do, Rick, and I don’t know why I’ve said what I’ve said other than I was hurt and lashed out.

Please be careful with people, all people, even the jerks. Even if they are slinging arrows left and right. They do not deserve hurt in return, and are most likely firing away in defense. We are fragile creatures. There are real people on the other side of these random screens, and our words are hurting them. Disagreement and the intellectual challenge of pulverizing another’s theology is never an excuse to overlook the reality that people get hurt.

Do not hurt people. Do not hurt people. Do not hurt people.

126   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

“So, if tomorrow, she were to link to my blog and say that I am apostate, what would I do? I would feel hurt, for I do not think that I am.”

Nor do I. However the scenario you suggest has been played out in reality from the “poison pen” of Ingrid. So I cannot abstain from correction simply because others are being hurt by her attacks and not me.

I would correct her if she did call you an apostate. It is my personal experience that some of your comments are snarky. And because I consider your intelligence level to be superior, and your writing skills to be a gift, I assume it is volitional on some level.

I believe the entrance level comment can be snarky, as long as it is followed by an understandable engagement.

127   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
May 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

You can continue on, Rick. I’ve said all that I can and do not desire to talk it to death.

Whatever else, remember to not hurt people.

128   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

“Do not hurt people” is a clandestine way to say either I do or you don’t or both. Is this the type of verbal hurt you are suggesting I avoid:

“So I have a hard time hearing the gospel when I know two silicone fun bags are in the house.”

Do not hurt people.

129   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 7th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Hey guys, gals, and everything in between,

I just wanted to make a quick comment of clarification regarding my above Post #7 because it has been brought to my attention that a few readers have interpreted Post #7 as some kind of attempt on my part to deliberately degrade, defame, or demean Ingrid Schlueter on a personal level — i.e., I was attempting to say something hurtful/mocking about her character 0r intimate life relating to sex (and/or sexuality).

Let me be very clear — THAT WAS NOT my intention. I was in NO WAY making a comment on Ingrid, her personal life, or ANYTHING even relating to sexuality per se. That would be highly inappropriate.

The list of fake article titles in Post #7 are satire/parody titles that reflect the tone and subject-matter of a number of real articles that Ingrid has already posted on sex, sexuality, nudity, homosexuality, and mimes. My Post #7 is nothing but a light-hearted parody of these articles by Ingrid — NOTHING MORE.

I want this to be terribly clear — i.e., I have not, nor would I ever, make any kind of comments on such issues in relation to Ingrid’s personal life. I’ve made it clear via other posts in this very thread that I feel any comments about a person’s life relating to that intimate issue is inappropriate.

If I gave a different impression by that list of fake article titles I posted (see Post #7), then I most certainly apologize without reservation.

This website is know for using parody and satire to make a point — I was merely making my own contribution of that form of writing, which is intended to make a point through humor.

R. Abanes

130   Brett S    
May 7th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

I don’t think I would have read any of Ms. Ingrid’s “work’ if not exposed to it by this site; but I think I finally figured it out when reading a real writer last night. She is a bit of conundrum because I would probably agree with the majority of her initial sentiments (me being a conservative Catholic of german heritage). Sure there’s lots of crappy people doing crappy things in the world, but digging the hole deeper and piling more crap on them does not participate in their Redemption. She is not the spirit of “anti-Christ”, but maybe the spirit of “anti-Flannery”.

There is a question whether faith can or is supposed to be emotionally satisfying. I must say that the thought of everyone lolling about in an emotionally satisfying faith is repugnant to me. I believe that we are ultimately directed Godward but that this journey is often impeded by emotion. I don’t think you are a jellyfish. But I suspect you of being a Romantic… The only force I believe in is prayer, and it is a force I apply with more doggedness than attention. – Flannery O’Conner ‘Habit of Being’ letter 9-6-55 p. 100

131   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
May 7th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

I love the tone that comments on this post have taken up. Who are you guys?!?!

What have you done with the .info boyz?

132   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Hint: Area 51……it all goes back to Area 51.

RA

133   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

Chris R.,

I don’t follow… some inappropriate things were said, and challenged… and moved on.

134   Joe    
May 7th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

#131
I’d challenge you to find an inappropriate comment from a contributor here

135   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

I have read Chris R’s comment to be a compliment.

136   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Well, re-reading it, I think you may be right.

137   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

I see it another way…..

Chris R.:I love the tone that comments on this post have taken up. Who are you guys?!?!
What have you done with the .info boyz?

They’re the same guys I’ve been reading since the beginnings of this site. I don’t know who you’ve been watching. I don’t say that just to disagree with you Chris. It’s just what I’ve always seen here, it’s nothing new.

I read here more than I post, as most times I don’t have to post. I’ve said it before someone usually says what I had in mind so I very often don’t make comments.

I’ll add this, if anything I’ve only seen consistency from the writers on this blog, Chris.

And before you jump to the conclusion I’m just another emerging amen-er here, I’ve always thought of myself somewhat a fundamentalist (before it became a dirty word) and Pentecostal in origins. And I more often than not disagree with the folks that you write against. But, I can’t bring myself to call them the names I hear the “watchers” call them.
I see the “watchers” offer nothing more than legalism when here Grace is the first priority.

When commenting was allowed on the ADM, EDM etc etc, I didn’t see that same Grace nor did I see the patience with differing points of view……

Chris L. I’ll only accept payment via a wire transfer……

138   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
May 7th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Neil,

Sorry, I could have made it a littler clearer. But, my original comment #131 was a compliment.

139   John B    
May 7th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Richard, this was hilarious!!!

rabanes Says:

My goodness, we should make ODM Jeopardy.
______________

ALEX: Okay, players, Categories are:

- You Re-Mime Me of Someone
- So Sue Me
- John Sweet Sixteen
- The Emergentcy Room
- Wordle Hurdle
- “Mystics & Heretics & Friars, Oh My!”
- Gays in the Sanctuary
- Do As I Say, Not As I Do

as well as the rest of that post. You have quite a wit.

140   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

See I recognize Rosebrough grace when I see it!!

141   Neil    
May 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Got it Chris – thanks…

142   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
May 7th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

I consider Ingrid to be a friend. It has been very difficult to watch my friend be personally attacked. However, I have also been the brunt of some of the personal attacks of this site. (afterall, I have my own category)

Many of the characterizations of Ingrid on this site have not only been off the mark they have been uncharitable, unkind and unloving.

What I like about the tone of the comments right now is the fact that you are grappling with the idea that Ingrid is a real personal. A person who, even though you have deep disagreements with is a real feeling person whom Christ died for.

I know that I have been guilty of losing site of the fact the people who post here are real people. Sinners just like myself. You’re not ‘ideas’ nor are you just a series of words on a blog post. You’re living breathing human beings who wake up with bad breath, have to work to make a living and men and women whom Christ has died for.

I love debating ideas. I love dialoguing about doctrine and I Love proclaiming gospel.

And I love how the gospel is breaking through in our dialog and how we are learning to disagree with each other charitably and learning to extend mercy and grace to each other.

This week is the first week I have ever felt welcome to comment on this site and the first week I have ever wanted to comment on this site in order to add to a discussion rather than jump into a fight.

I want you all to know that I also love my sister Ingrid. Her passion for the truth is amazing. She is truly one of the world’s authorities on the New Age (but I don’t know if she realizes that fact) and she puts her faith and her passion into action.

Is she always right. No. And neither am I and neither are you.

Does she make mistakes. Absolutely. And so do I and so do you.

Ingrid is a fighter and one tough gal. She is a no nonsense, get the job done at all costs, take no prisoners type of fighter. She speaks her mind and sometimes speaks too quickly. Sometimes she errs on the side of the law rather than the gospel. (so do I) and she is very concerned about the bad turn that the American Church has made and rather than sitting on the sidelines wringing her hands, she has jumped in to the fray and suffered much for that decision.

Ingrid is also a mom and a wife and a friend and I love her laugh.

I guess what I’m saying is that If the gospel can break through in my dialogue with you guys then I believe that it can also breakthrough in how you view and treat Ingrid.

It’s okay to disagree with her ideas and to counter the content of what she says with an opposing view point. But, the gospel informs us that Ingrid is a woman for whom Christ believes is so precious, that He shed His blood for her on the cross.

My hope is that the love and value that Christ sees in Ingrid would also be reflected here by people who claim the name of Christian.

143   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 7th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

OK – who has stolen Chris Rosebrough’s computer and is posting comments through it? What have you done with Rosebrough??

Thanks, brother.

I will continue to refrain from addressing Ingrid personally, however I will still…well, you know.

“Does she make mistakes. Absolutely. And so do I and so do you.”

Yep, I made one mistake several years ago – I thought I was wrong but it turns out I wasn’t. I attempt not to make that same mistake. :cool:

144   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Do not hurt people. Do not hurt people. Do not hurt people.

I’m not sure I understand this quote. Can I get just a little more context please?

145   alice    
May 7th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

I like the comment Chris made (142). I have checked out Ingrid’s personal blog (Hope), and honestly, she sounds like the nicest person, a wonderful wife and mom, interesting, intelligent, funny…someone I’d like for my next-door neighbor.

That’s why it surprises me to read SoL. Honestly, I think I should just stop reading it. I think it so crosses the line into viciousness and vitriol on a regular basis–even against true brothers and sisters in Christ–that it leaves me gobsmacked most of the time. And also…I don’t really get the point of the site. It frequently seems to violate biblical standards, particularly when speaking to and about other Christians (reference the scathing comments toward Steve Camp earlier this week–who, I thought, was her friend? It seemed like as recently as a few weeks ago, she held him in high regard. Along came the Tim Challies post. They drop each other from their blog rolls. Ingrid gives Steve a public pasting over the Miss USA thing on SoL. Huh?)

I don’t think her personal life should be addressed at all, I agree. But…her conduct on SoL puzzles me greatly, and not just in the instance I referenced above.

146   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
May 7th, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Many of the characterizations of Ingrid on this site have not only been off the mark they have been uncharitable, unkind and unloving.

With all due respect; when you meet with your “good friend” do you also tell her that same line but only change Ingrid to Cyrus, Bell, Warren, Prejean, etc…?

147   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
May 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

Let me answer my own question.

Of course not…cause well see…we are justified in our attacks…because…um well…they need to…err…repent…err…I mean they are brothers and sisters….err…I mean…err….um….yeah…we have righteous anger…um…err…I mean that we have discernment…words have meanings….um…except we are misunderstood…and then we can just clear it up…um…by…err…saying that you don’t understand…um….what I am saying.

148   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
May 8th, 2009 at 7:56 am

This online gang rape needs to stop.

149   Thurstin    http://www.needgod.com
May 8th, 2009 at 8:42 am

The fact that this woman Carrie whats her name claims to be a Christian and yet flaunts her body on stage like Salome to win the right to be approved by men negates any positive influence I would want her to have on my daughters (I do not have any yet). If these nude/partially clad photos are true, she needs to repent. She is causing men to stumble. I know a lot of you commenters hate Paul and what he says in the Bible, and you say it has to do with the contemporary world at the time, but didn’t Paul say that women ought to dress modestly? Didn’t Paul say that all believers ought to adorn Christ?

150   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:07 am

Y’know Thurstin, we had a very good exchange in another thread, and you even ask if you sounded stupid – to which many people responded that you did not… your questions and comments were encouraged and encouraging.

The you go and say “I know a lot of you commenters hate Paul and what he says in the Bible…”

Now, that sounds stupid.

(Note, I did not say were are stupid, just that hyperbole such as this sounds stupid.)

151   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am

I also notice you’ve decided to follow the tack of questing people’s status with the Lord based on your judgment of their behavior… that’s s shame.

152   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 9:16 am

“I know a lot of you commenters hate Paul and what he says in the Bible, and you say it has to do with the contemporary world at the time, but didn’t Paul say that women ought to dress modestly?”

I personally cannot stand Paul, and I only go by the red letters in the gospels. Paul writings are suspect.

The nudity issue was dispensational and has passed away with the original apostles.

153   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:17 am

Has anyone at this site defended her appearance at the pageant?

If these nude/partially clad photos are true, she needs to repent.

Comments like this, when coming from the ADM mentality (whether or not Thurstin is one) makes me chuckle.

Not that I disbelieve in repentance or even Carrie Prejean’s (that’s her name btw) need. But it’s the expectation that if she does not do it with enough vigor, enough publicity, enough repetition – it is not valid… it will be questioned.

On the other hand, if she does repent with vigor, and publicity, and repetition… it will be questioned.

154   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:18 am

The nudity issue was dispensational and has passed away with the original apostles.

Nevermind that no nude pictures have surfaced or are said to exist.

155   Thurstin    http://www.needgod.com
May 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am

#152
Rick are you being sarcastic?

156   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am

…and who’s to say she has not repented already?

157   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am

And speaking of causing men to stumble… who is it that is promoting their existence, and posting links to these pictures – the secular media, and the ADM’s.

158   M.G.    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am

What I can’t figure out is this.

There was a contest recently, featuring 50 highly attractive women. Of those 50 women, I would guess, conservatively, that 40 of them have some type of skeleton in her closet, however small.

That could be a risque photo, an inappropriate relationship, academic dishonesty, even a history with abortion.

That’s just reality.

However, out of those 50 women, one, and only one, has become the target of extended media attention, especially left-leaning gossip bloggers friendly to the gay community, as part of a concerted campaign to discredit her and what she said.

That strikes me as unfair.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether beauty pageants are appropriate. They are not.

Now, the weird part is this. In some corner of the blogosophere, the gay community was assisted in this campaign of total destruction by a small subset of THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.

Really? Really?

And this is appropriate in any way shape or form because of what reason?

This whole campaign has gone a long way to convincing me that the Christian tabloids are very far from the heart of Christ. Very far.

159   Thurstin    http://www.needgod.com
May 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am

#154
I hope to never hear that any have, nor see any. The ones that they have now supposedly are nude, but from the back. Still inappropriate.

You all have to understand. I am a 27 year old college male recently saved. Lust was a struggle for me. When some Christians say that nudity, pornography, etc. is okay, it confuses me. Didn’t Paul tell Timothy Flee Youthful lusts? Doesn’t James remind us to flee from temptation? Why would a Christian woman pose like that? So that her weaker brothers could stumble, and glorify her?

160   Thurstin    http://www.needgod.com
May 8th, 2009 at 9:25 am

#156 If she has repented, she has a strange way of showing it.

But I am not her judge.

161   M.G.    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:25 am

Thurstin:

No one is defending immodesty or pornography.

There is a difference between defending someone from unfair attacks and endorsing EVERYTHING SINGLE THING THEY DO.

Period. End of story.

162   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am

Chris R.,

I echo Alice… I have read a couple posts by Ingrid on her devotion site and they have been very nice.

Then she reverts like Jekyll to Hyde into her SoL persona; there she is caustic, angry, judgmental, inaccurate, obsessive, basically destructive and unChristlike… etc.

You say she is unwilling to sit on the sidelines while the American Church (as if there were such a unified thing) takes bad turns – what I see is her attacking most anything that does not fit into her narrow-culturally-defined way things must be done to please God (oh, and her as well). As we have pointed out repetitively – she cannot discern good change form bad change – it seem as if “change” is what’s bad.

That she is a mother, wife, loving, even, laughs is a good reminder. We oppose her methods and attitudes but she is not the enemy and should not be vilified or caricatured. Both of these are easy to do.

I wish we could dialogue with her… but it is obvious she has no interest in that. (Besides, dialogue is a word of compromise from what I can tell).

So – on the one hand your personal insights into her life and personality are welcomed and should remain a reminder to us she is a Dr. Jekyll most of the time… on the other hand, Chris L.’s description of a Harpy in #121 ans #123 seem rather appropriate for her Hyde side.

163   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am

#155 – Those who know me here realize that when a statement is made that represents such absurdity that it goes beyond being a strawman and actually disappears within the Emerald City, I usually attempt to continue the absurdity.

I do appreciate good humor even when it was given in the context of seriousness.

I hate Paul, everone here knows that. :cool:

164   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:35 am

Period. End of story.

I doubt it…

165   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am

Neil – I have dialogued with Ingrid and it is a one way street. She receives no correction and entertains no thought of toning down her verbiage at all.

Positive attributes cannot excuse visciousness. The heretic is a father, brother, husbad, and is involved with philantropy as well, but does that have any impact on some of the ODMs? I welcome Chris R’s comments and tone, even as I realize he is well aware of the things I have said about his theology. It is this kind of civilized respect that can be productive in our pursuit to be like Christ, and it does not mean we will change what we believe.

166   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am

Why would a Christian woman pose like that? So that her weaker brothers could stumble, and glorify her?

And why would a sister and brother in the Lord flaunt these photos providing updates…

To degrade a sister in the Lord. To tickle their internet ears with gossip, to make themselves feel more righteous in their indignation.

167   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:45 am

Thurstin,

Also keep in mind the players…

On the one hand a young woman, at one point (the photos) a teen vs. mature adults with supposed ministries.

Whose sin is greater?

168   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Now, the weird part is this. In some corner of the blogosophere, the gay community was assisted in this campaign of total destruction by a small subset of THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.

That is why I would like to see the video of Ingrid on CNN – to see if she continued the assistance.

169   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am

I am very happy Ingrid and others linked to these photos and will link to others that surface. I would never have seen them but now I have printed them out and hung them in my private office so I can be reminded every day what nudity actually looks like because I have never seen it before.

It is not enough to describe it as topless with her arms around her chest, we must see it, meditate upon it, assess her body particulars, and wonder what size the augmantation brought her to.

Perhaps there will be full frontal nudity photos so we can be fully shocked. I would request before and after topless photos so at least I can see if the operation was necessary or just sinful cosmetics.

Once in a while an issue comes along with such eternal implications and with such theological depth that we are compelled to drop everything else and dig deep into the issue so as to forward God’s kingdom. This is one of those issue, and we are indebted to this woman. Because of her lack of judgment she has become the Joan of Arc of evangelical thought. Her photo should be the cover for Driscoll’s study of the Song of Solomon, it would sell like hot cakes!

170   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 9:50 am

Thurstin,

From what I understand she is VERY repentant of those pictures and she was 17… And a victim… yet it seems that many in the ODM world are like those who want to say the victim of rape deserved it…

Sorry… not buying that load of crappola….

Teenage girls make mistakes… she has stated it was a huge mistake and yet…. the ODM’s do not see that as repentance.

The pictures surfaced because she does not own them… and the mistake of the past has come back to haunt her. Can you find in YOUR heart to forgive her? Also, though you may be right about her recent choices of being in public in her bathing suit… but really hers was modest compared to some….. And lust is your problem… not hers.

Sin dwells with in each of us. There is no lust in you unless you allow it… as well as no one can make you angry or lust or whatever without that sin already dwelling in you and you allowing it to overcome you.

A real man of God can overcome temptation by the power of Jesus… and yes, even a real man of God can fail, yet as the bible states, we have a mediator.

The point though is… forgiveness does not start when someone else repents… it starts with you… God forgave you at the Cross first BEFORE you were even born… let alone repented… all you sin was already forgiven… past present and future as all you sins were future from the Cross… So if God could forgive you before you repented, then you are called to do so NOW.

So go and forgive others…

This is what I mean by what you have been taught about reconciliation is wrong. It is not biblical… you have been taught an error…

Thurstin, you need to repent of your unwillingness to forgive others….

Matt 6: 14. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Matt 18: 21. Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22. Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
23. “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.
24. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
25. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26. “The servant fell on his knees before him. `Be patient with me,’ he begged, `and I will pay back everything.’
27. The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28. “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. `Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29. “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, `Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
30. “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.
31. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32. “Then the master called the servant in. `You wicked servant,’ he said, `I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.
33. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’
34. In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35. “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”

iggy

171   Brett S    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am

“But, the gospel informs us that Ingrid is a woman for whom Christ believes is so precious, that He shed His blood for her on the cross. ” – Chris Rosebrough

Finally, a good Lutheran that makes sense around here. But that’s why I don’t understand why you are always championing the Calvinists. How do you know who the atonement was limited to?

Sorry, a totally different topic – I know :)

172   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am

Rick,

And of course, just like the ADM’s are not trying to destroy her only provide fodder for prayer (nudge-nudge) – you would not be lusting, just praying for her in a much much more informed manner (wink-wink).

173   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am

Actually Iggy, I don’t see what she did to him that he needs to forgive her.

174   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am

Heaven help any sinner from publicly stating their faith in Christ because they will be pounced upon with the utmost scrutiny and like all of us will have many inconsistencies with which to find fault.

Are we to assume that all of us were unaware of the teachings about Biblical modesty until last week? Steve Camp knew she was immodest but praised her for being courageous and he was attacked.

Someone provide me with parameters of imperfection that cannot be crossed before we can acknowledge something good about a person.

175   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Ingrid forgives Rick F… NOT!

What a petty little ***** Ingrid is…

***Warning*** Any more verbiage like this and you will be banned. It’s uncalled for and unwarranted regardless of her language and modus operendum. Let’s strive for a higher standard.
Chris Paytas

176   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am

That is not me, Iggy. Read the e-mail and you should recognize the grammatical deviation from my own brand of hubristic erudition. :cool:

If I e-mailed Ingrid it would be a combination of high browed Shakespearian rhetoric, combined with sentences with many connected clauses, and with a piercing ambiance of indictment designed to highlight my righteous outrage and her ghastly sin.

That, my friend, is how it’s done. :cool:

177   chris    
May 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am

I’ve got the rocks. Who wants to contact Carrie Prejean for the stoning?

Seriously…we need to know she REALLY repented? C’mon that’s just silly.

Ingrid’s rants are duplicitious at best, contradictory given charitable reading, and down right self inflating at worst.

178   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am

I totally reject anyone who repents AFTER they have sinned. All true repentance must come BEFORE the sin. READ YOUR BIBLES!!

179   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am

Question:

Is removing each others blog links the equivilant to shaking the dust off your feet? :cool:

180   Sandman    
May 8th, 2009 at 10:24 am

No, it’s more like telling other people not to talk to that other person…

181   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am

So ban me… If Chris L can equate Ingrid with a Harpy a wench is mild in comparison.

So keep your standard it won’t hurt my feelings…

I could have called her a petty little Harpy I guess.

good grief… and I thought Ingrid was petty!

BTW there is more than one meaning to “wench” and to be honest the one I used was more complimentary than the one you are insinuating I meant.

wench? ?/w?nt?/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [wench] Show IPA
–noun 1. a country lass or working girl: The milkmaid was a healthy wench.
2. Usually Facetious. a girl or young woman.

3. Archaic. a strumpet.

–verb (used without object) 4. to associate, esp. habitually, with promiscuous women.

I used it as a noun… and meant it as meaning 1 and 2… if you took it as the other meaning Chris, then that was what YOU put into the meaning.

But really you guys are really starting to have a double standard… and to call Ingrid a Harpy and put a picture depicting her as one is still too far. And no one else but me seems to see that!

And by replacing “wench” with “*****” you made me sound like I called her a bitch or worse… so thanks for slandering me by your slight of hand.

iggy

182   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Iggy – what are you taliking about? I was mantioning the e-mail sent to Ingrid by a guy named Rick was not me.

183   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am

Rick F:Is removing each others blog links the equivilant to shaking the dust off your feet?

No, I’d call it being petty….

184   jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 8th, 2009 at 11:15 am

Wow.

185   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am

Rick,

I am talking about comment 175 where Chris Paytas seemed fit to make my comment sound worse than it was…

186   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:20 am

Personally I would expect that from PB but not here…

187   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am

OK – I just saw it. But what was your point about me and Ingrid’s post?

188   Chris    
May 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am

Iggy,

Actually Iggy I checked on all the meanings of the word prior to editing your comment. I went the additional step and checked the etymology. Whichever usage you decided on still is derogatory.

Communication is never about what was said it’s always about what is heard. Unless of course you only communicate to hear yourself.

Granted blogging/typing does not give the same latitude that spoken communication does but this should cause us to be more caution not less.

Since we don’t delete comments I wasn’t inclined to do that. I edited your comment because it is inappropriate not to slander you.

189   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:26 am

Thurstin (#159):

When some Christians say that nudity, pornography, etc. is okay…

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new champion for creating gargantuan strawmen!!!

I truly am in awe.

190   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:29 am

“When some Christians say that nudity, pornography, etc. is okay…”

As long as it’s tasteful.

191   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:31 am

Chris,

How you edited made it MORE inappropriate… the warning would have been enough… but you made is sound much worse…

I forgive you…

And I am really tired off the double standard that is no being addressed…

A Harpy no matter how anyone wants to clean it up… is a demon… and the picture depicts Ingrid as a demon…

And all I got was justification of it…

iggy

192   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am

Rick,

My mistake that’s all for some reason I thought the update was directed at something you stated here. But now I can’t find the comment where I thought you said something similar… my wrong. Sorry Ingrid!

iggy

193   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am

BTW Rick also mentioned the Harpy picture was too much so I was not the only one to say it was…

You have two witnesses saying it went too far…

Now deal with it… and I mean that lovingly :smile:

iggy

194   Chris    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

How you edited made it MORE inappropriate… the warning would have been enough… but you made is sound much worse…

Iggy,

You said the word I blotted it out. Then you accused me of my mind going there. Now you say that my blotting it out causes everyone’s mind to go to worse places. Not sure how that logic works but okay.

I’ve also checked the etymology and definition of Harpy.

# vixen: a malicious woman with a fierce temper
# (Greek mythology) vicious winged monster; often depicted as a bird with the head of a woman
# any of various fruit bats of the genus Nyctimene distinguished by nostrils drawn out into diverging tubes
# large black-and-white crested eagle of tropical America

I’m not sure what definition Chris L. was using? Maybe he can say he thought she resembles a “crested eagle of tropical America”. I mean after all that was your defense.

195   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Also. in the OP Mrs. Ingrid Schlueter is referred to as Ms. Ingrid Schlueter … is that a swipe against here current marriage? That is also unnecessary…

Is denying that she married by using a often used woman’s lib term not meant as an insult?

iggy

196   Chris    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Igs,

I love you but it’s now at the point of ridiculous. Let it go.

Please don’t defriend me on Facebook. :)

197   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Chris… read the thread… Chris L already explained what he meant…

But as stated, is not the “Ms. Ingrid Schlueter” a personal swipe demeaning her marriage?

Again, you defend Harpy… and instead of facing that it was a personal swipe… toss it back in my face when I hold you guys to your OWN standard…

Address the degrading swipe against Ingrid’s marriage please… how do you defend such a personal attack against her marriage?

iggy

198   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

It is not ridiculous.. you hold me to a standard that is not even kept by the writers here… so face it… deal with it… don’t claim higher ground if you guys are not holding it.

iggy

199   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

Chris: You can see my intent from #121 & #123. Perhaps the pic was over the top, but it was not intended to be a physical likeness (or whatnot), but from a description of action.

Iggy – Please see the pic in #119. In this particular thread, you have been ‘over the line’ since about its beginning, and all of the posturing/complaining/etc. is making it a thousand times worse (and an embarrassing read, at best). Can you please either 1) deal with the OP (and the harpy pic, if you want); 2) cease & desist w/ any more personal ref’s to Ingrid; 3) not become defensive about this?

200   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Also. in the OP Mrs. Ingrid Schlueter is referred to as Ms. Ingrid Schlueter … is that a swipe against here current marriage? That is also unnecessary…

Ms. is the proper business abbreviation – which avoids assigning Mrs. or Miss. Nothing was meant by it – my profession requires I use that designation when writing, and I don’t always catch it when writing for personal purposes…

201   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Chris L…

You degraded Ingrid in the OP and now are not manning up to the fact you degraded her marriage… and now I am the bad guy…

Come on guys… again.. don’t claim higher ground if you are not keeping it.

iggy

202   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Chris L…

I am sure that more that Rick and myself took the picture as a physical likeness… what you meant and what came across are two separate things…

All my crap aside on this thread, this is still inconsistent with the standard you want to present…let alone the use of “Ms.” when Ingrid is clearly married and using that term of her would be derogatory to her.

iggy

203   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Chris L…

Again, excuses and no apologies to Ingrid… this is not the business world… she IS married and you know that…

I am not taking this to Facebook (as someone want’s me to do) as you stated it publicly so I am addressing it publicly. And it is on point discussing the OP.

iggy

204   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

I can’t win here… I state my feelings of Ingrid in the same tone as the OP and then I defend her and I am wrong both ways…

I am defensive over someone making something I stated sound much worse than it was and then not saying sorry…

Yes, this is embarrassing… but not about me… but about the loss of accountability of the writers in holding their own standard.

iggy

205   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
May 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Chris L
You really ought to put a chain on Iggy. Heck, I was put in moderation for a far less significant reason (in my mind) because I posted from my cell phone without changing the name I had on there.

Seriously, though, His hate and personal vendetta against Ingrid are a bad representation of this site.

I do agree with him on one thing though, and I think Julie agrees, that this site, its commenters, and sometimes those writing opinions have glaring inconsistencies in terms of higher standards of journalistic integrity and not attacking/defaming others.

206   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

You degraded Ingrid in the OP and now are not manning up to the fact you degraded her marriage… and now I am the bad guy… – Iggy

He said that is not what he meant and explained the use of Ms. – that should suffice.

207   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

I am sure that more that Rick and myself took the picture as a physical likeness… what you meant and what came across are two separate things… – Iggy

And he explained that it was not – that should be suffice.

208   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

I can’t win here… I state my feelings of Ingrid in the same tone as the OP and then I defend her and I am wrong both ways… – Iggy

I am sorry you cannot see the difference between the OP and your comments. Not sure anything can be added at this point.

209   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Chris – I put your comment in post 175 as a block quote to differentiate it from the comment.

210   Sandman    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

There was a co-worker once in my department who just had to be the life of the life of the party, even when there wasn’t a party going on.

Any informal gathering of three 0r more people in a conversation was, as he determined, an opening for him to roll in and try his stand-up comedian routine, repeating everything he’d heard on the Simpsons or the Bob & Tom Show as if it were his own material. He was an HR incident just waiting to happen, and several of us would always leave the area when he’d show up because he’d always have to take that one extra step that was always getting him in hot water.

When it was finally told what he thought was funny was actually crude, inappropriate, and unwelcome, he said we lacked a sense of humor.

He was still saying that the day they terminated him.

211   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

OK, what needs mentioning here are two facts; Ingrid coined the (highly offensive) phrase “online gang rape” in the attempt to play the martyr, and 2) at the time this post was published she had fourteen posts of her own about Miss California.

And subsequently we have been told that defending Carrie against these attacks is tantamount to saying “that nudity, pornography, etc. is okay…”

212   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

If you guys can’t see where a married woman would find Ms. offensive… then I can’t help you…

My wife finds it offensive… and I am sure if you asked a few of you own they would say it is also.

Really I am disappointed…

I am banning myself… until I see you standard for others is kept and apologies are given instead of excuses.

iggy

213   kenn    
May 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Alice brought up a very interesting point on her thread way up the page. I too have visited Ingrid’s other blog, and was struck by her warmth, openness and honesty. Very appealing. But then there’s SOL, and she sounds like an entirely different person. To put a finer point on it, she makes SNL’s Churchlady character seem rational and measured.
One other thought…I don’t get the girls in bathing suits causing men to stumble thing. Its a girl in a bathing suit. How ’bout a little perspective here. Doesn’t anybody on this site ever go to the beach in the summer? Park District pool? Water ski? Art Museum? Unless you live in a cave, and cut yourself off from every visual element life offers, I don’t know how (or why) you could avoid seeing a woman’s form rendered in some way that’s esthetically pleasing. I don’t know how it could compromise your core beliefs. It just is what it is.

Maybe its just me. Maybe I spent too many years as an art student, where accurately rendering the human form is a skill that is difficult to achieve. At some point, skin just becomes the “fabric” that covers all those muscles, bones, ligaments, etc. What’s going on underneath all that “fabric” has more to do with the end result than what’s on the outside.

Maybe I’m just too clinical. Or balanced.

214   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Alice brought up a very interesting point on her thread way up the page. I too have visited Ingrid’s other blog, and was struck by her warmth, openness and honesty. Very appealing. But then there’s SOL, and she sounds like an entirely different person. To put a finer point on it, she makes SNL’s Churchlady character seem rational and measured.

I illustrated this as her switching between Dr. Jekyll on one site and Mr. Hyde on the other. When she’s Hyde it’s good to remember that Jekyll is in there… but, geesh when she’s Hyde – look out!

215   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

One other thought…I don’t get the girls in bathing suits causing men to stumble thing. Its a girl in a bathing suit. How ’bout a little perspective here. Doesn’t anybody on this site ever go to the beach in the summer? Park District pool? Water ski? Art Museum? Unless you live in a cave, and cut yourself off from every visual element life offers, I don’t know how (or why) you could avoid seeing a woman’s form rendered in some way that’s esthetically pleasing. I don’t know how it could compromise your core beliefs. It just is what it is.

There is the element that she was dressing that way to show off her body… that’s the whole point of the pageant. And then there are the pictures that are even more provocative, even more sensuous…

Problem is, in defending her against the vicious attacks and GOSSIP thinly veiled as prayer requests – any who speak in her defense or say anything positive about her stand on marriage are supposedly dfending her immodesty as well.

The ADM inability to discern nuance (even BIG nuances) is ironic.

216   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

What’s going on underneath all that “fabric” has more to do with the end result than what’s on the outside.

Yet, if you expose too large a percentage of your outside fabric – the relationship between the inside fabric and the Lord will be questioned.

217   rabanes    http://abanes.com
May 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

If some of these women now lambasting Prejean with such righteous ire (I’ll mention no names) were to be transported back in time to….oh…..say, 1890, then their own bathing suits that are now so modest to them (as well as any pants thy might e wearing while posting on their blogs) would be enough to get them arrested and jailed for indecency (not to mention ostracized for immodesty by the Christians of 1890). Just an interesting observation I wanted to throw out there.

RA

218   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Now the comments are taking another turn to actually excusing/justifying a Christian competing in a beauty contest that intentionally pushes the barriers of modesty.

This is where idiocy shows through in that even ungodly people can honestly determine what Christians struggle to define as unbecoming.

One other thought…I don’t get the girls in bathing suits causing men to stumble thing.

Gee, I don’t get it either. If she were completely naked – I mean come on – it’s just an epidermis, the outermost layer of the skin, composed of terminally differentiated stratified squamous epithelium.

The principle of modesty is important, though unpopular and largely lost in today’s world.

219   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 8th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

Sorry…

beauty contest that intentionally pushes the barriers of modesty

should read – far exceeds the barriers of modesty.

It is nothing more than a Vanity Fair, plain and simple.

220   Neil    
May 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

The principle of modesty is important, though unpopular and largely lost in today’s world.

There is the element that she was dressing that way to show off her body… that’s the whole point of the pageant. And then there are the pictures that are even more provocative, even more sensuous…

Problem is, in defending her against the vicious attacks and GOSSIP thinly veiled as prayer requests – any who speak in her defense or say anything positive about her stand on marriage are supposedly defending her immodesty as well.

221   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 8th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Neil – I already voiced my view on the transparency of the “prayer request” remark. And I have not attacked her in any way, either in the blog world or in person.

The point I am making is that we shouldn’t embarass ourselves with ridiculous comments that “thinly veil” acceptance or justification around this pageant in particular, and growing immodesty in general.

222   Sandman    
May 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

218: Paul, I think Kenn was making a personal comment about how he, and many others who deal with the human form on an artistic level aren’t ogling and drooling, but instead see lines, curves and angles.

Do you think medical professionals get all hot and bothered when they see their undressed pateint? No, because they’ve seen it all before; it’s just another face in the crowd.

223   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
May 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Then perhaps he shouldn’t have said:

One other thought…I don’t get the girls in bathing suits causing men to stumble thing.

Pick any sin and there will be another person unaffected by it. “I don’t get why _____ causes people to stumble. In my view there’s nothing to it.”

See what I’m saying?

224   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

“I don’t get the girls in bathing suits causing men to stumble thing.”

Call me, I will explain it. It has something to do with mixing testosterone with the curse.

225   Sandman    
May 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

I see what you’re saying, Paul. At the same time, recognize that he says he doesn’t have a problem with it as such, even if a lot of people do.

Perspective and Proportion.

226   kenn    
May 8th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

Maybe I’m getting hung up on the word “stumble”. If one were to observe someone stumbling, would they suddenly become like “Wolfy” the old cartoon character from the MGM cartoons of the 40s. The eyes bulge, the tongue rolls out like a carpet, the foot starts stomping on the ground, and the head rolls back with his signature “Hollywood Wolf Whistle”. Is it a question of self control? Where you can’t resist making an inappropriate comment, and boorish behavior takes over?

Sandman: thanks for your well though out comment. The physician analogy was a good one. Sort of reminds me of that funny quote from Howard Dean after the Janet Jackson SuperBowl costume malfunction. He was running for president at the time, and the press wanted his reaction to the incident. He shrugged and said, “I’m a doctor, it was a nipple, I see them all day”
Maybe a little too blasé, but funny none the less. (And no, I’m no fan of Howard Dean. I’m a fairly conservative Republican).

PaulC: “Pick any sin…” Yikes! Is that what it all comes down to? I guess it never occured to me to put beach wear in the “sin column”.
How do you waterski in a Burqua, or don’t Christians enjoy water sports.

227   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 9th, 2009 at 12:15 am

I think this continuing obsession with Carrie Prejean is disgusting. What purpose does it serve to continue the voyeuristic obsession and what point is being made that hasn’t already been made?

It’s nothing more than gossip “journalism”.

228   John B    
May 9th, 2009 at 1:53 am

Thurstin Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am

#154
I hope to never hear that any have, nor see any. The ones that they have now supposedly are nude, but from the back. Still inappropriate.

You all have to understand. I am a 27 year old college male recently saved. Lust was a struggle for me. When some Christians say that nudity, pornography, etc. is okay, it confuses me. Didn’t Paul tell Timothy Flee Youthful lusts? Doesn’t James remind us to flee from temptation? Why would a Christian woman pose like that? So that her weaker brothers could stumble, and glorify her?

Thurstin, I understand your point however I was not personally troubled by her pictures but I am admittedly older and from the beach areas of Southern California and the culture there is a bit different. But I think fairness dictates that not only did she say these pics were taken when she was 4 years younger but she said also that they were to be used in a lingerie catalog. Typically these catalogs are not marketed to single men and we have to take on the responsibility for what we choose to see or watch.

I did look at the ONE picture that exists of her “nudity”…………it is not anything like a “come hither” type of pose, no “bedroom eyes” but rather a cute smile on the “girl-next-door.” It seemed to be clearly for commercial use. Again, just not offensive to me…..and I would likely not have seen it had it been used in the manner she claimed it had been taken since I don’t “read” many catologs marketed to women for women’s underwear. (And I wonder why these other “nude photos” haven’t been shown……if they really exist?)

229   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 9th, 2009 at 3:21 am

If you are troubled by her pictures… stop looking at them and stop going to sites that show them…

Have some self control and take responsibility for your own actions…

230   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 9th, 2009 at 9:41 am

POINT OF ORDER

Is a thread gang rape considered worse than a one on one rape since it represents a quantitative difference?

Also, is it always man toward woman or can it be the reverse?

At what point does it leave confrontation and become an actual rape?

After a thread gang rape, is counseling necessary?

231   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am

I think it is a totally wrong metaphor… it should be if a gang member does a random drive by shooting and wounds them badly… it turns out the person was a trained Marine who was able to track the vehicle down and return a salvo of assaults back at the gang members as he was bringing them to justice.

Then the marine is handcuffed and put in jail for assault while the gang-member who shot him set free and goes to the paper and complains about being a victim.

Or this one

A innocent women is mugged and her purse is stolen. The mugger just did not like how she was dressed and wanted to support their lifestyle. A cabdriver witnesses it all and chases down the mugger and pins him to a wall with his cab bumper. The police come… arrest the cab driver and the lady for she was an accomplice… and then the mugger starts a campaign against the cab driver and lady with his lawyers to sue them and have them jailed for their crimes.

It is like a wife beater whose wife after years of abuse finally gets a good hit in on her husband and he then has her arrested for spousal abuse.

I see it more like that than “gang-rape”… unless it is that the so called “rape victim” was a porn star whore and she paid all the men to have their way with her and then she decided she was a victim… so them sued them for rape.

The point is that Ingrid states she is a victim, yet does not take the responsibility for her own actions as she viciously attacks other ministries, their churches, their families… she does not understand the harm she does and then humorously cries as if she is the victim.

iggy

232   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 9th, 2009 at 11:43 am

I agree, the phrase is extreme hyperbole. It is amazing how someone can use such virulence against others, but use that same virulence to defend themselves.