IF YOUR GOD IS SO LOVING NOBODY GETS HURT, NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE.....................SHE'S NOT HERE.


ROOLZ O' DA BLOG--Ya break 'em, ya git shot.
1. No cowards. State your first and last name. "Anonymous" aint your name.
2. No wimps.
3. No cussin'.
4. State no argument without reference to a biblical passage or passages and show a strong logical connection between your statement and the passages you cite.
5. Insults, sarcasm, name-calling, irony, derision, and humor at the expense of others aren't allowed unless they are biblical or logical, in which case they are WILDLY ENCOURAGED.
6. No aphronism.
7. Fear God, not man.

Monday, January 05, 2009

O-D-M-s and E-G-O-s--Frank Turk Googles Himself.

Something happened today that actually made me start a new blog post category. For a long time I've had STUPID THINGS EVANGELICALS SAY. Today I offer you, my three readers, the first post in the new category, STUPID THINGS EVANGELICALS DO.

Most of us can remember someone, usually a girl, from our childhood who was constantly showing off her shoes or new outfit or bicycle. Or she actually ASKED if you thought she was pretty. Remember her?

I know you don't want to, but try.

Even at a very young age, most thought such behavior was childish and narcissistic. Of course, few of us could pronounce "narcissistic", let alone know what it means, so we just said she was "conceited" or some such thing as that.

So it's natural to expect that, in the humble and godly world of Evangelical bloggers and church leaders, no one (and I mean NO ONE) would ever, ever do such a thing. So, here's my question:

WHY DO SO MANY OF THEM GOOGLE THEMSELVES TO SEE WHAT THE REST OF US ARE THINKING ABOUT THEM?
Animations - eye-10

Grown men, who expect you to think they're godly, pretending to be godly, often using pretend names like kids playing fort, pretending to do all they do for the glory of God, actually look the internet over to find what folks are saying about them. Not looking out for God's reputation, but looking out for THEIR reputation.

This is how I know they're doing this: If a name is mentioned in a post or in a comment thread, the person named will often just show up at a blog they don't ever follow. Or, at times, a representative for them or for their organization does so. They're either monitoring or they are paying someone on staff to monitor what you say to see if you like them. Yes, some of the big guys actually take money from honest Christians who give it for the glory of God and use it for their glory.

Here are some recent examples I've come across in the last few weeks: Tim Challies showed up at Surphside here to once again assure everyone that he didn't say what he said. Yes, all our screens were lying. (Perhaps it's a virus.) Rick Warren apologist, Richard Abanes, showed up here to defend RW and so did Ken Silva to add what he had to say. And then there was another who had a shill show up at another site, but I'll refrain from naming him. Finally, Frank Turk turned up on the comment thread of yesterday's post here at Al Tosap.

I was wondering if Challies would show, but I'm not surprised that he didn't because when he showed up at Surphside, I asked if he googled himself. He didn't answer.

I don't blame him.

When one is writing, it's really like self-employment. One has to consider just how to spend the hours. And if one is blogging a Christian blog, one would think most hours would go into writing articles that help others to better understand Scripture and live a godly life.

So this demands an answer: FRANK TURK, WHY ARE YOU SPENDING TIME GOOGLING YOURSELF?

And do you still call yourself "Centurion"? What about your keyboard? Do you call your key board "Stallion" or "Charger" or "Silver" or "Steed"? Is your router "Lassie" or "Rin Tin Tin"?

Just asking,
Phil Perkins. PS--I know this isn't the post I promised. A pregnancy in the family took most of my day, twice to the clinic, three trips for prescriptions. So Part II of THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs will come tomorrow, God willing.

14 comments:

FX Turk said...

Speaking of stupid things people do, I was actually e-mailed about your charming post yesterday.

I wonder: if you were wondering if Challies would show up, were you yourself not actually playing the game you accuse others of playing? Weren't you counting on someone seeing your posts, Phil?

FX Turk said...

Now that you mention it, Phil, your post here -- this one, not the last one -- comes up on page 3 of Google when when googles my name. I checked to see exactly where Google would place your entry into the blogopshere -- and it's behind my blog, by facebook page, a serious of links which are not about me at all but other Frank Turks, a post by Bob Hyatt about me from 2007, a blog interview I did in 2006, my "LinkedIn" page which only has 3 or 4 links, the WordPress tag for my name, and my Christmas post at TeamPyro.

To you credit, your post did "google" in ahead of the "furl" search of my name and a comment I left at a user site for the open-source software "GiMP".

Your last one comes up not at all. Sorry -- so you're going to have to issue some kind of apology for bearing false witness. because you're a biblical guy like that.

So good on ya!

FX Turk said...

Last comment from me, Phil, and I'm off to bed.

Here's a formal offer to give you the opportunity to show the world what a lying apostate I am over at a blog where people ar actually reading what gets posted: my DebateBlog.

Here's the thesis:

The Bible itself demonstrates that word-for-word translation is not the only acceptable method of translation when handling God's word.

I'd defend, and I'd be willing to extend the format for you to 10 questions rather than the 5 questions stated in the rules. Please read those rules before you accept, and maybe page through one or two of the exchanges to see how the blog works.

you have to e-mail me to get added to the blog authors, so take your time and choose wisely.

Al said...

Hi, Al Stout here (rule 1),
May I come to you man to man (rule 2) and ask whether or not your _______ post (rule 3) follows the rules you have set up for those who seek to comment on your blog?

Faithful are the wounds of a friend (again rule 2) and I would like to offer you this proverb, as just such a friend: The hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous will be delivered, Proverbs 11:9 (rule 4).

Thanks for the encouragement (rule 5).

Fearing God and facing down the ignorant (rules 7 and 6 respectively),

al sends

Phil Perkins said...

Al,
I guess I don't understand your entire comment here. For instance, rule three prohibits profanity. So I don't get that question. If you wish to ask again, I'll be glad to answer. I don't know of any profanity on this blog. If there is, I'll get rid of it asap.

As to the rest, it seems you're unhappy that I've taken on some folks. Scripturally, it all comes down to whether or not what I'm saying is true or not. If it is, then you need to thank me for the warning about some things. If I'm mistaken, tell me where and how. If I'm lying, it's your duty to shun me and warn others so they won't associate with my kind.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Phil Perkins said...

Frank,
No, I didn't google Challies. But this does demonstrate pretty surely that one can count on a number of you folks doing just that, huh?

You're hear aren't you?

And, yes, you do monitor even if you do so by using others. And I see that some of your answers come with in minutes of what I've said. This one for instance.

Phil Perkins said...

Frank,
For someone who doesn't scour the net or have anyone else who does so for them, it's really bizarre that in the last 24 you've found this cite by accident and left seven comments.

What gives?

And five or so of them were after I told you I was over and out.

AND THEN even after you said this was to be your last comment you left some more, including one asking for an answer!

But no one here is obssessed here with vanity, are they?

So, here's my answer. I'll debate you anytime anywhere, but the debate will be on what I have said, not what you say I have said. And it will be a neutral forum, not one where you get the last word automatically--you debate like a coward.

I'll debate you in Phil Johnson's church. That should be a hoot. A lot of folks should know what you're doing.

Phil Perkins.

FX Turk said...

Ah. So now I "use others" to "monitor" the internet. It couldn't be, could it, that people who like me see by some accident a site like yours and e-mail me because you post offended them -- or maybe made them laugh? Couldn't be that -- people don't work that way.

I think you need to take your explanation here (which I will call Ex#2) and compare it to your post (which I will call Ex#1). In the best case, Ex#2 calls for an apology from you for claiming I google myself (implying a kind of vanity is such a thing) when plainly: I didn't.

Some people would call what you did "lying", but I'm happy to call it an aphronic mistake which a good man would at least acknowledge.

Back to you.

Phil Perkins said...

Frank,
Don't tell me you aren't keeping tabs. You are or you wouldn't be here again. And, yes, you could have ended up here all be accident, and a meteor could hit my house before I finish this sentence.

If you want someone to believe something that's incredibly coincidental, you need to be established as an honest fellow first.

And you still end up here, don't you?

Now, the next comment from you will be an answer on your knowledge of the languages or it'll be deleted.

Tell the truth, Frank.

Phil.

Phil Perkins said...

And you DID admit googling yourself yesterday. You gave us the results, remember?

Solameanie said...

I see that I came too late to this discussion. I meant to comment on the actual post in question, but didn't get to it.

Phil, when reading an email from you the other day, I happened on the link to this blog where you referenced the TeamPyro issue. Your comments surprised me, so I asked Frank etc. if they knew what this all was about. Afterward, I had a chance to review that particular Pyro, and I think you're misrepresenting what was said there. There was certainly strong disagreement with what you had said, but they were not calling you names etc.

This is an example of what I was talking about with you the other day over at my blog. Why are you so intent on going after people who would probably be largely in agreement with you on core theology, and that's assuming we agree on what core theology is?

Al said...

Mr. Perkins,
I was not accusing you of lying, nor cursing. My rule three thing was a stab at humor.

Proverbs 11:9 deals with hypocrisy. I am saying that your post violates many of the rules you hold others to. Hypocrisy.

al sends

Phil Perkins said...

Hi Sola,
I haven't had time to visit you today.

If you go back, read what Phil J. said in his first comment to me. I was a lecture on the fundamentalists and folks who don't know the languages.

Who brought up the fundamenatalists? And why insinuate that I don't know the languages? Why not just ask? They thought I was rude for just asking questions. Could imagine if I got snarky like they do? I was as polite as I could be even after I knew they were deriding me.

I forgot to link that, by the way. I'll correct that this evening or tomorrow.

And Frank Turk--I just got done writng another post and when I checked for comments to moderate, he had left 4 comments in less than thirty minutes. That's an obsession. I cut him off earlier until he comes clean about whether or not he actually knows something about the languages. So far he has refused to answer, but continues to pretend to be able to give a lecture on translation. That's lyin' by implyin'.

I think he speaks Snark well.

No, I don't have any use for Frank. I don't see folks like him as even saved. Prov. 14:2, for instance.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS-- you may also notice he never answers a direct question if he doesn't like the answer.

Phil Perkins said...

Al,
Sorry I didn't get the joke--old age, you know.

And don't call me "Mr." I appreciate the intent of politeness and all, but I'm just a guy.

As to hypocrisy, you're exactly right, if what I've said is wrong. If I call someone a liar, that's just insulting with the intent to simply hurt. If, on the other hand, he IS a liar, I've stated a fact. AND it just may be that others need to know he's a liar, or that he needs to be shocked with that fact so as to cause some moral introspection.

I try to follow the biblical example in this regard. Gentleness when appropriate, severity when appropriate.

This is even a principle in the legal system. Accuracy is a positive defense for defamation.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.