Below is a thread about Mark Driscoll and his lewd and crass methods of speech. Many of the posters lament the graphic nature of Mark's statements and the unnecessary crass pictures they create in the believer's mind etc, and I agree with the sentiment. Please read the thread below for more info.
BUT, and here is my problem.
Steve has recently pointed his readers to a Christian blog which is a somewhat irenic and humorous, satirical commentary of sorts, but is defended by Steve as perfectly fine and the right way to do humor etc,
BUT, and here is my problem
One of the articles there (actually more than one) it seems to me, to create the same kind of unnecessary imagery and crass humor.
See the article below from the site Steve recommends for context.
What is going on? I am confused now. Any help is appreciated at this point.
The following comments at this site recommended by Steve say the following,
"The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) veered sharply away from theology in late June as members threw aside official business and commenced an hours-long orgy on the floor of the RCA Dome."
but this is the first time elders and moderators have "let the issue get personal," said one participant who was naked and wished not to be identified.
said one man. "I'm straight. I've got a wife and kids back in Kentucky. But it was like a spirit came upon us, and wow. What a blast."
No official business was taken up, but everyone went home "exhausted, but fulfilled,"
Steve, I admire your stance on these matters, but please explain the difference between what exactly you are speaking against?
Is it only smut and lewd comments where Jesus is in the same sentence as the joke, therefore other lewd comments not mentioning Jesus are given a free pass and hence ok?
If so, the above site mentions the Spirit coming upon these people who then had a blast...etc
Is it then ok for the Spirit to be the butt of these jokes?
I am confused brother, please help me.