An Open Question To God-Bloggers

In a comment on another blog, Mike Russell of Eternal Perspectives said something that I found very interesting.

"I notice that Catholic Blogs are now included on the Blogdom of God aggregator; it's why I'm using it less and less. Not that I don't think they have thoughtful or good posts: I'm just looking for evangelical stuff when I go there. If I want Catholic, I'll go to a Catholic aggregator."

I think that since the Blogdom of God was founded as "loose affiliation of self-declared 'God bloggers'", it should accept all Christians, regardless of denomination. I have noticed, though, that the bulk of participating blogs in BoG are run by Evangelicals. Thus, I have a question for members of BoG and God-bloggers at large.

Should the Blogdom of God be restricted to Evangelical blogs? Protestant blogs? Christian blogs? Monotheistic blogs? What limitations, if any, should be placed on membership? Why or why not? Should the name of the aggregator reflect proposed membership requirements?

Comments 46

  1. Jerry wrote:

    “50 years from now, mark my words, the only real choice for faithful, orthodox protestants will be the RCC or (for the more exotic among us) the EO.”

    There’re also the Byzantine Catholic Churches, for those who like Catholic doctrine and find the Magisterium necessary but prefer the Eastern liturgical culture. 🙂 Some tradition-minded Roman Catholics have been known to attend Byzantine Catholic parishes when their own parishes get too flaky, and there’s no Tridentine parish in the area to be had.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 3:59 pm
  2. theomorph wrote:

    Okay, could we agree that freedom is important to people who are first, not fearing or fleeing for their lives; and second, well fed and know where their next meal is coming from?

    Nope, I can’t really agree to that. The example of your Chinese coworkers doesn’t support that thesis, either. They are presumably not fearing or fleeing for their lives and are also well-fed, and yet they care little for freedom. Actually, I think people in that situation are less likely to care about freedom, because they already have what they need to survive, and they are more likely to be interested in protecting their means against the advances of others (who may be fearing, fleeing, and hungry). It’s the poor people, the oppressed people, the fearful and the hungry who most want freedom, because they know intrinsically that they have the ability to survive that is being thwarted by someone else’s inclination to control their activities and reap the benefits of their labor.

    Posted 06 May 2005 at 5:23 pm
  3. Steve N wrote:

    Ack… I don’t know how we got off on this… Okay, could we agree that freedom is important to people who are first, not fearing or fleeing for their lives; and second, well fed and know where their next meal is coming from?

    I have coworkers from China who pooh-pooh my concerns over China’s human rights record. (Hence, I don’t bring up too often.) They just don’t seem to care about the rights of small minorities… there is no empathy, no feeling that “I could be that oppressed minority some day.” What matters to them (and I am led by them to believe their countrymen) is whether you have money: If you have money and comfort, then you’ll be happy. Who cares about rights? This is deplorable in my book, but it is what it is.

    Jerry, you know darn well that I was not saying that the economic mode is the only mover in societies, much less that it ought to be the basis for personal ethics. It’s a non-starter. I don’t know what you’re calling the dog and the tail, here, but I seriously doubt there’s any disagreement here… except perhaps about what you think I said… which I didn’t. 😉


    Posted 06 May 2005 at 4:25 pm
  4. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    Alright, I’ll work on it in my “spare” time….

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 3:21 pm
  5. theomorph wrote:

    Also, the fact that the British government against which the American colonies rebelled was the most liberal is part of what makes your example a poor one, Steve. My point was that freedom survives, but, as you point out, the American revolution was not a matter of freedom so much as a matter of who controlled governmental administration, and regardless of how it turned out, the citizens of the colonies were still going to have the basic rights of Englishmen, which were, as Jerry pointed out, the most liberal in the world at the time.

    As well it’s instructive to notice that this “rhetoric of freedom” in which the Revolution was “bathed” existed at all. If the war wasn’t really about basic freedom, but about taxation, why were the people not motivated to field an army with the rhetoric of administrative structure? People fight for freedom; politicians fight for political power.

    As well, the Civil War was bathed in the rhetoric of freedom on both sides, the two “World Wars” were bathed in the rhetoric of freedom, and our current conflict has been bathed in the rhetoric of freedom. Are we all so simplistic that we believe all these wars have really been about freedom? Or is it simply that people who fear that freedom has been threatened will make better fighters?

    The classicist Victor Davis Hanson has written extensively on this subject (see “Why the West has Won” and “Carnage and Culture”), and argues that the armies of free and democratic societies tend to prevail against armies of societies organized by non-liberal principles (while armies of liberal countries, when pitted against each other, fight more horrible wars than ever before–see, for instance, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and the European wars of the 20th century). His thesis might not be ironclad, but I think he’s pointing in a worthy direction. Freedom is a powerful idea. People like it and they want to keep it, and they’ll get violent if it’s endangered.

    Posted 06 May 2005 at 8:08 am
  6. Funky Dung wrote:

    And yet survey after survey and study after study show that those wwo have the least are the happiest, most contented, most pleasant, most friendly, and most thankful of us all. I think most poor, oppressed, fearful, and hungry are content to live their lives as they are until the poverty, oppression, fear, and hunger become unbearable. Until then, they have enough pride, sense of self-worth, and patience to live with minimal griping, let alone revolution. They wealthy who wish to be wealthier are usually far more excitable than the poor. As long as the haves don’t cross that line of making the have-nots too poor, oppressed, fearful, or hungry, the former can easily keep the living off the latter, not because the latter’s spirits are broken, but because they have a better handle on what matters in life – and it’s not wealth or power.

    Posted 06 May 2005 at 5:52 pm
  7. Funky Dung wrote:

    BTW, Mike, if you haven’t already, you might want to check out The Burr in the Burgh. It’s a blog by a LCMS pastor in Pittsburgh. 🙂

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 1:21 pm
  8. Rob wrote:

    Don’t look at me.

    Last time I checked, I don’t qualify for the “Blogdom of God” affiliation.

    Then again, that probably answers the question, at least from my viewpoint.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 3:07 am
  9. sibert wrote:


    Just to clear the air, I don’t think I called Steve any names and he certainly wasn’t calling me any either. My name is unusual and I don’t resent questions or even quips about it. Thanks for keeping us on the up & up, though.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 11:35 pm
  10. Mike wrote:


    I hope my comment didn’t come across as anti-Catholic, because I am not anti-Catholic. My complaint about the BoG is that it is so inclusive as to be less and less useful. For me, an aggregator needs to be discriminating; that is, it should narrow the scope of what it includes. You draw the line somewhere.

    Looking at the issue from a different perspective, I do not think that evangelical Protestant blogs belong on Catholic aggregators. It is simply a matter of boundaries. I would, however, hope that Catholics and Protestants read one another.

    I know that my argument is moot and my complaint futile: the BoG does belong to Adrian, after all, and he is perfectly within his rights to include or exclude whomever he chooses. When I said I am using it less and less, it is not because I believe it to be invalid (because it includes Catholic blogs) but only that I don’t find it helpful. Too many things fall off the bottom of the page before I get a chance to see them.

    It is also unfortunate – IMHO – that some posts appear four or five times due to their inclusion on other aggs (League of Reformed Bloggers, Theology Blogs, Evangelical Aggregator, etc.) as well as their individual appearance. At some point, it just gets too big.

    But I could be wrong.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 5:07 pm
  11. Michael P. O'Connor wrote:

    Found your blog from, and to anser your question, I don’t know what blogdom is, but from your discription I would say that if they are a Christian site, then the roman catholics should be alowed they are Christians, but I would say that the mormans should not be there since the mormans are not Christian (no mater how much thay claim it, if they deny the aposials creed then they are not Christian, and they deny the first few statments of the second artical)

    and for the record I am a LCMS Lutheran.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 9:38 am
  12. Jerry wrote:

    Funky, the self-worth you mention seems to generally lead to things like the Orange Revolution or the like. It’s when people are beat that they are content to be a regime or mafia’s slave.

    We shouldn’t conflate poorness and oppression. Likewise, the wealthy who want to be wealthier seem content to kiss up to those in power and become oligarchs.

    Posted 06 May 2005 at 7:03 pm
  13. Warren wrote:

    I think something called the Blogdom of God should be inclusive. If you want things that are more limited in scope, there are plenty of narrower aggregators out there.

    I think that the blogdom of God is a great starting-off point for people who are new to the whole “God blog” thing. It lets them find their own niche blogs — and niche aggregators as well.

    Posted 03 May 2005 at 1:30 am
  14. sibert wrote:

    If a self-declaration of being a God blogger is all that is required for membership, then your blog, Mr. Dung (that was cracking me up the other week when that guy kept calling you that), should certainly be allowed. If by allowing your blog the manager(s) of the Blogdom of God feel that they are somehow doing a disservice to their constituency, then they have the discretion to not allow your blog to participate.
    I personally think your work is excellent and insightful, but it simply may not be what they feel they are expected to provide to their visitors. Jehova Jirah will provide for you even if they feel, and they probably do so honestly and without rancor, that they cannot.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 5:09 pm
  15. theomorph wrote:


    Steve, you’re leaving out the other option, taken by much of Europe and more Americans than ever in the last fifteen years, which is to abandon Christianity altogether. (Which is a decent gig, if you ask me.)

    The RCC may claim to offer an alternative to the failures of modern culture (and I agree with you on a lot of those, but certainly not all of them), but what is that alternative? Where are all the Catholics who aren’t practicing “divorce, not-quite-sex before marriage, hormonal birth control, SUVs, IFV, economic libertinism, entertainment ‘worship’, making the world safe for democracy”? They certainly aren’t in my neighborhood.

    Rather, I suspect that more than ever the RCC represents one side of a deep cleavage in the Western world. We are individualists and self-expressers to an extent that is unprecedented in history, and that has left many people feeling unmoored, but how does the RCC address that? By changing the culture? Hardly. The culture is here to stay, unfortunately. The RCC only offers a psychological salve.

    Imagine your ideal world, where all those evils have been successfully defeated by the RCC. What does it look like? Are we wearing modern clothes? Living in modern buildings? Driving modern cars? Using the internet? Freely expressing any ideas, reading books on any subject, and blogging? What is the RCC alternative?

    Also, does your 50 Year Projection include the designs of China to overtake the United States as the world’s superpower? Does it include the possibility that radical Islam will continue to spread and take over Europe?

    I think it’s much more likely that Western society will face economic, military, and social pressures that are aimed at its destruction than that the RCC will reform anything, or that it will some how come out on top by being more virtuous or more orthodox. No, if the RCC comes out on top of anything in the next 50 years, I suspect it will only be because all the other alternatives will look so much worse.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 10:14 pm
  16. Steve Nicoloso wrote:


    A) At the time of the American Revolution, England was already the most republican (i.e., liberal) constitution on the planet. If Parliament had gotten rid of these trifling taxes, the revolution would never have occurred. Yes, you’re exactly right about the Articles of Confederation being insufficiently centralized… insufficiently centralized to promote efficient (i.e, profitable) commerce and banking. It was about money in 1775… it was even more about money in 1787…

    B) Okay, I get the Ugandan Anglican thing. They put principle above economics and this is great. But the “rice Christians” thing? Doesn’t that sorta support the idea the economics is everything (even though I DIDN’T say that)… Sure I find it “illegitimate”, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen…

    C) Again, I didn’t say THAT! Economics is the prime mover (not EVERYTHING) in societies, specifically, fallen societies… It shouldn’t be, but too often it is. I don’t advocate it… it just seems to be. This was observed by Marx. I think it an accurate observation. This doesn’t mean that I favor state ownership of the means of production.

    D) I have little sympathy for the revolutions that were undertaken in the name of the supposed progress promoted by Marx and Engels. Again, I was only agreeing with a single observation of Marx… and for all I know he may have stopped beating his wife, too. That doesn’t mean I’m am now or have ever been a member of the Communist Party. 😉

    Sheesh… gettin’ it from all sides here… I guess I had it comin’


    Posted 06 May 2005 at 5:34 am
  17. Funky Dung wrote:

    Let’s keep this civil, folks. Neither is going to be convinced by the other if name-calling is used.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 8:44 pm
  18. Tom Smith wrote:

    Mike Russell, I don’t think you’re being anti-Catholic in the slightest. I agree that aggregators should be discriminating; perhaps, however, the Blogdom of God isn’t intended to be limited to Evangelical blogs. I don’t know. Because its goal, if we are to believe the text quoted by Eric, to include all Christian blogs, is so broad, perhaps the Blogdom of God might do better as a meta-aggregator, serving to organize Christian aggregators, if such a thing as a meta-aggregator exists.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 6:47 pm
  19. Funky Dung wrote:

    Mike: I didn’t take what you said as anti-Catholic. I thought you brought up a good point and I wanted to get some input from my readers.

    Theo: The same thought occurred to me. That’s why I added the question about a name change. I didn’t make it the primary question because of the intentions of the founder. BoG is supposed to be a Christian aggregator and blogroll. The name is secondary. It’s an ambiguous name and either it should be made more specific or non-Christians should be allowed to participate.

    Posted 02 May 2005 at 5:20 am
  20. Funky Dung wrote:

    Oh? Why not?

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 4:10 am
  21. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    oops… I meant:

    “a something that with high probability will not easily become diluted.”

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 5:32 am
  22. Steve N wrote:

    RazorsKiss says:

    Just remember – there really IS a huge schism between Catholicism, and Protestantism. The Reformation was a very real thing – and the repurcussions are still there.

    This was once true. But today, with the exception of hyper-reformed theological fetishists and backwoods Fundamentalist cults, mainstream Evangelicalism has declared a glastnost, and is falling over itself to be inclusive of Catholics and respectful to Catholic sensibilities. Witness the positively gushing comments from many within ‘gelicaldom upon the death of JPII and selection of Benedict XVI.

    Of course mainline Protestantism quixotically stands opposed to the RCC, but they stand quixotically opposed to orthodoxy as well. They don’t figure into the equation too much.

    This (i.e., this glastnost) is all, I personally think, a good thing, but it’s not a two-way street. Catholicism has not altered its position. In short, Catholicism stands to gain, as the committedly orthodox among mainstream evangelicals are sucked up into it over the next 50 years.

    My $0.02

    Posted 03 May 2005 at 3:07 pm
  23. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    Sibert (can we call you Si? or Bert?):

    1) I am not (yet) Roman Catholic;

    2) I am (currently) a disaffected Evangelical;

    3) love tells the truth, whether that truth be “nice” or not. (Alas, this, i.e., commitment to niceness, is one of my other peeves re: ‘gelicalism.) BTW, when I say “anti-modern”, you can be sure I’m saying something quite positive.

    4) the majority of ‘gelicals, lo prots, prots, hi Prots, RCs, liberals, cons, paleocons, neocons, &c. don’t get it, i.e., don’t have a clue what it means to follow Christ. The existence of widespread nominalism in all Christian traditions doesn’t help us answer the question: which traditions are most correct and which will ones most likely survive modernity intact;

    5) stay tuned for a more developed treatment, which I will later post to Funky’s blog… then we can have it out 😉


    Posted 04 May 2005 at 7:16 pm
  24. Funky Dung wrote:

    Sibert, I wasn’t referring to the discussion of your name. I was more worried about Steve offending you (with RC triumphalism and the like) and the possibility of retaliation. I spoke BEFORE things got uncivil as a preemptive strike against bickering. Bickering amongst Christians is a pet peeve of mine, so I’m rather sensitive to it (perhaps overly).

    Posted 05 May 2005 at 12:40 pm
  25. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    Sibert, wake up and smell the coffee! It is not too early to speak of a post-evangelical future. The vast unwashed mass of evangelicalism has already almost fully acquiesced to the corrosive culture at large (divorce, not-quite-sex before marriage, hormonal birth control, SUVs, IFV, economic libertinism, entertainment “worship”, making the world safe for democracy, &c., &c.). The only notable exceptions are opposition to homosexual marriage (which, after you’ve acquiesced on divorce, no-fault divorce, and teeny mutual masturbation, is just a tiny step away) and abortion (which, after you’ve acquiesced on hormonal birth control and IVF, is only a small step). Which is all to say, the only thing propping up such opposition is mere tradition, which is usually chucked out the door of mainstream ‘gelical churches every 10 years or the next Purpose-Driven Whiz-bang comes out, whichever comes first.

    Now you may be blessed to be in one of those hyper-reformed theological fetishist churches or one of those anti-modern fundamentalist backwaters, which do truly have the moral and cultural fortitude to resist the rising flood. If so, I merely disagree with you, but at least your church believes in something, and a something that with high probability will easily become diluted.

    But for those ‘gelicals who are not so blessed, take heed: You are on a train on the exact same stretch of track being pulled by precisely the same engine that sent old-line liberal protestantism over the cliff long ago. 50 years from now, mark my words, the only real choice for faithful, orthodox protestants will be the RCC or (for the more exotic among us) the EO.

    And you think I’m joking… That’s funny… sad, but funny.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 5:30 am
  26. theomorph wrote:

    Sometimes I talk about God issues on my blog, but I’m an atheist. Do I belong on a “God blogger” list? Not likely.

    Incidentally, since you’re talking about categorization and boundaries and all that fun stuff that humans seem to be obsessed with, if you’re called “God bloggers,” then why should you only accept “all Christians, regardless of denomination”? Other people believe in God, too. Why not accept Muslims and Jews?

    But Mike has a point, too, about different kinds of Christians.

    It’s like nested sets…

    Are you going to be “Humans > Theists > Christians > Evangelicals > Protestants”?

    How about “Humans > Theists > Christians > Evangelicals > Catholics”?

    Or maybe “Humans > Theists > Christians > Catholics”?

    Or what about simply “Humans > Theists” as the simple title “God blogger” would imply? But then that would also include groups like “Humans > Theists > Muslims > Shi’ites” or “Humans > Theists > Hindus” and so on.

    That’s why I prefer to just stick with the category “Humans.” It’s so much easier. 🙂

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 6:45 pm
  27. sibert wrote:

    Steve N,

    Are you saying that as we Protestants come to our senses we will all returnt to the RCC? That is possibly the funniest thing I’ve heard this week!!

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 3:02 am
  28. sibert wrote:

    Steve N,

    I find your comments to be not just off base, but intentionally offensive. If I were to apply the same brush-stroke of generalized trends to the RCC you guys will be electing Michael Jackson pope in 50 years. I will agree with you that secular society pulls people, but the voice of God pulls them too. I was not pulled into the RCC, so maybe God does have some use for and investment in the Protestant Evangelical branch of His church. Your predictions seem to me to be motivated by pride (something the RCC has never had any short supply of) and derision for a way of worship which you feel to be infantile and not well-developed. BTW, I find “hyper-reformed theological fetishist churches” and “anti-modern fundamentalist backwater” as descriptives of you brothers in Christ to be lacking in love and delivered with a barely concealed snigger. That being said, I can’t foresee that you’ll discontinue their use.
    And just in case you feel like the RCC is the narrow road which our Lord spoke of, I’ll have you know that in my expereience Catholic youth are the least spiritually informed and most promiscuous and substance-abusing group of people I have ever attended school with. This has simply been my experience.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 6:50 pm
  29. sibert wrote:

    Steve N,

    You can call me either, though my name is actually sibert. The only traditions I follow are the ones definitively established in scripture. But therein lies the rub, I guess. I think it is very useful to try to realize the historical context in which you practice you faith, but you have to realize at the same time that we see but through a glass darkly. I think it is too early to predict the demise of said evanglicalism. It is not too early to predict the demise of our own clay vessels, though. Anyway, I will look forward to your more developed treatment with baited breath. Love in Christ.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 7:42 pm
  30. Funky Dung wrote:

    Steve, I think you could get a whole post out of this. *prod* *prod* 😀

    I’m not talking about a quickie, either. Take some time to polish up your presentation, make sure your ideas have a logical progression, and take into account what some of your critics might say. The result ought to be a really interesting post that would generate lots of good discussion.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 1:39 pm
  31. Jerry wrote:

    Steve, regarding rice Christians: sure, it happens. But if econ is the prime mover, on what basis are to judge that it is a bad practice? I agree that economics is highly important, but I fear that you have the tail wagging the dog.

    Posted 06 May 2005 at 2:09 pm
  32. Jerry wrote:

    Steve, the Constitution came 10 years later because our first attempt at a national government, the Articles of Confederation, were not sufficiently centralized.

    The taxes you mentioned motivating the Revolution were emblematic of a government that, to the colonials’ mind at least, was both remote and arbitrary. The colonials were not represented in Parliament, and had these taxes imposed from on high without any say-so. They resented being forced to house British troops in their homes.

    Moreover, an authority I imagine you’d hold higher than Marx (I hope you do) mentioned that “man does not live on bread alone”. While sustenance is obviously necessary, it is not everything. The Ugandan Anglicans recently rejected aid from the Episcopal Church after they ordained Gene Robinson bishop. Presumably, you would also find the phenomenon of “rice Christians” (people who would become Christian in order to get jobs from the Westerners) to be illegitimate as well. That would not follow from the economics-is-everything line you just gave us a moment ago.

    Marx almost got it right, but he ignored that economics follows from even more basic rights that permit individuals to work together and trade within a certain ethical framework. Ignoring that turned communism into a beast that crushed individuals by thousands in the name of some distant goal.

    Posted 05 May 2005 at 9:41 pm
  33. theomorph wrote:


    While “pre-modern” may be a compliment from you, it certainly looks to me like most people in the world, even those “pre-modern” Muslims are still interested in the fruits of modernity, if only selectively. Even the practitioners of radical Islam are still interested in everything they can get from modernity (look at the ease and finesse with which they use modern weaponry and media technology via decentralized organizational structures and viral advertising) so long as they can maintain their hierarchy of power and authority. I.e., so long as a few men can dominate what all other men think, and so long as all men can dominate what all women do. (Note the similarities with the RCC, by the way.) Unfortunately for them, freedom does tend to win out over that sort of ideology, procreation or not.

    If you’re just wanting to remain an icon of Christ in the modern world, by all means go ahead, but don’t expect the modern world to take from your icon what you are hoping they’ll take. Note as well that radical Islam is not interested in this iconic passivity stuff; they’re out to take over the world, and if they have to kill everyone to do that, I think they will. Choosing the path you indicate, while it may leave you with a clean conscience, also seems to me to be the path of irrelevance.

    Freedom and individuality have long been pushed around, squashed here and there, ignored, and assaulted with machines of war, but they have persisted and grown for a long time now in some form or another–at least three millennia. They might pass from Europe under the Muslim onslaught, but they will remain because people will hold onto their freedom and their individuality with much more tenacity than they will hold onto any religion, which means that even when they continue holding onto their religion, they are perfectly willing to warp its tenets to accommodate their need to be free.


    Yes, I’m trying to understand things; yes, I hope to leave the world a better place; I’ve never heard of this “enveloping black night,” though.

    As for my sense of the worth of things, that’s a tricky question. Perhaps my sense of the worth of things is entirely a construction of my mind (i.e., the worth is my sense). Or, perhaps the worth of things arises from those things simply being (i.e., the things are the worth). Or, most radically, perhaps my senses are an illusion, the things (as things) are an illusion, and worth is the biggest illusion of all.

    You may wonder, “If there is no worth, why do anything?” But what does it mean to have worth anyway? Are you alive because life is worth something? That is, did the worthiness of your life cause your life to commence?

    It’s just something to think about, maybe even for fun. 🙂

    Posted 05 May 2005 at 5:50 pm
  34. RazorsKiss wrote:

    Thank God for the Mississippi branch of the Southern Baptist Convention.

    We’re going through a series on “The doctrines of the Church” right now. Last few weeks we’ve covered Predestination/Election, Financial Stewardship, Original Sin, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and The Trinity, in general.

    Last series was on the doctrines of Love – since it was being misused so often.

    I love my pastor. To death. Real, live, expository preaching. It’s beautiful.

    Don’t count your doctrinal chickens before they’re hatched. Although, Steve, I do share much of your pessimism about “mainstream” evangelicalism. Mostly because the mainstream is so far into liberal theology, and toward doctrinal idiocy, it’s out to lunch.

    Schaeffer was so right 20 years ago… it really is “The Great Evangelical Disaster.”

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 1:35 pm
  35. Funky Dung wrote:

    Thanks for dropping by and commenting, Mike. 🙂 For more information on the Blogdom of God, click one of the links in the post.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 1:20 pm
  36. Angel wrote:

    The BoG, in my opinion, should be for all denominations of Christianity. If someone wants just “Evangelical” blogs then there is the Evangelical Aggregator for them.

    Posted 07 May 2005 at 9:20 pm
  37. RazorsKiss wrote:

    The problem is, many Protestants don’t consider Catholicism to be Christianity.

    Which, of course, is why the Reformation happened in the first place. While I significantly disagree with many, many, theological stances within the Catholic Church, and think that many of their views are obstructive to a saving faith – I do not find that Catholics are not, and cannot be, Christians. Any more than Protestants cannot be, and are not, Christians.

    All that being said – I think it’s up to Adrian what he includes, and doesn’t include. Just remember – there really IS a huge schism between Catholicism, and Protestantism. The Reformation was a very real thing – and the repurcussions are still there.

    Catholicism’s tenets have changed, but not in such a way that the majority of the Reformation’s complaints are addressed. Until that time, this problem will continue. Catholics often consider Protestants “stray sheep”, as they are not under papal authority. Many Protestants consider the Catholic church to be teaching a false gospel.

    Don’t expect this to go away. It’s a product, and a necessary outgrowth of the Reformation. In fact, it is directly attributable. Don’t expect most Protestants who know their church history to be overly friendly, theologically. There are very significant differences – and that drives much of it.

    Posted 02 May 2005 at 5:37 pm
  38. sibert wrote:


    Standard qustion I am sure, but if you take out the intelligence behind the curtain, if you don’t believe in God, why do you even bother with any of these questions? Are you hoping to understand something, are you hoping to leave the world a better place? Are you simply biding your time waiting for the enveloping black night? I don’t understand where your sense of the worth of things comes from if there is no God.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 11:39 pm
  39. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    Theo, you’re starting to sound like GWB, using “freedom” as a euphemism for all that is supposedly good in the world. You telling me that the blacks of Darfur want “freedom”?! They want to not be killed, robbed, raped, and starved. If you want to call that “freedom”, I s’pose that’s fine, but that isn’t a terribly precise use of the term. Freedom is probably what GWB thinks they want: that warm fuzzy feeling that brings a tear to our eye during “God Bless America” (well, this is assuming he thinks of Darfur at all). All those “huddled masses” supposesly “yearning to breathe free”? They came to live in rat/roach infested squalor, work their balls off, earn their keep, and eat their lunch. Their suburbanite grandchildren are the ones that “value freedom”.

    My $0.02

    Wow… how did we get this far off topic? Truly amazing!

    Posted 07 May 2005 at 4:51 am
  40. Steve N wrote:

    Well Theo the reason that “option” (viz., agnosticism) wasn’t included was due to my presupposition of the qualities “faithful” and “orthodox” in those protestants seeking safe haven. Everything you say makes perfect sense iff there is no one behind the curtain. You’re absolutely correct that the culture is “here to stay.” I have no interest in changing the culture at large (i.e, top down), but rather to preserve a representation (icon) of Christ in the midst of it.

    I’m not sure I have an “ideal world”, Theo, and don’t expect the RCC or any other Church or organization to specifically eliminate “bad things” from the world. I think the “mission” can only be undertaken in personalist (vis-a-vis corporatist) terms.

    I am indifferent to China’s designs on the world, though I could wish for a stronger world-wide stance against their human rights record. I’m almost certain that radical Islam will overtake Europe. Those anti-modern (remember, that’s a COMPLIMENT in my weird book) folks reproduce at an alarming rate. In my view, the procreators will always win eventually. This is, blissfully, modernism’s fatal flaw.

    Posted 04 May 2005 at 11:11 pm
  41. Jerry wrote:

    Well, I would have thought that you would rail against economics driving people’s decisions, till your rather cynical assesment of the Revolutionary War, etc., which seemed contrary to any notion of human dignity or so forth. I’m glad to be corrrected, though, if that is not the case.

    Posted 06 May 2005 at 5:00 pm
  42. Steve N wrote:

    Well, Theo… relevancy is rather overrated. You also, I think, understimate just how relevant irrelevance can be!

    Of Freedom and individuality, isn’t it really just the other way around? They’re not nearly so precious to mankind in general as you portray them here. Even the American Revolution, so bathed in the rhetoric of freedom, was really nothing more than a tax revolt that got a bit out of hand… The very existence of the US Constitution coming only about 10 years later is proof enough of that. And those revolutions of the French and Russians? Purely class warfare: taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. Marx was quite right: economics is the prime mover of societies. He would laugh at the idea of abstract notions such as “freedom” finishing among the Top 10 reasons people are willing to die. At the top of all revolutions there are, to be sure, ideologues, but at the bottom there are the unwashed millions looking for their next meal. And surely this is the case with Islamic extremism as well.


    Posted 05 May 2005 at 8:46 pm
  43. Michael P. O'Connor wrote:

    Yes I know of the burr in the ‘burgh, I also know him in person.

    Posted 01 May 2005 at 8:07 pm
  44. centuri0n wrote:

    Oh heavens: then why not Jewish and Islam blogs as well? I am sure that those would have a claim to the title under the CCC.

    Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 4:39 am
  45. Funky Dung wrote:

    Wow, you picked a rather old post to comment on. 😉 I asked very broad questions because the description seemed rather broader, much broader than the membership. That’s not to say that I wanted membership to be wide open. I was merely pointing out the disparity between description of members and the nature of those members. Once one decides to narrow the requirements, though, it makes sense to ask how much is the right amount.

    Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 12:22 pm
  46. cherryl wrote:

    my question is what church if any follows the apoysials doctrien? I have read to be baptised in the name of jesus. but the ones that do so,
    seem to follow a lot of formoliziam. Or they put
    a heavy yoke on their flock. A dress code should I say. I think when Jesus comes back
    it will be for the sheep that hear his voice.
    now I’m not a church goer but I have read the bible and believe it. you’ll have to forgive my spelling I have only had one cup of coffee this morning. and I’m not quite awake 🙂

    Posted 24 Jan 2010 at 8:15 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *