Podcast #28: Yoga Pants, Gay Husbands, and Incest

150 February 1, 2015 by


finalIn this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian talk about yoga pants. Naturally, this brings up many more topics such as when candy had its zenith, exactly what it means to covet your neighbor’s ass, and what it would be like if women catcalled men. They then talk about gay men marrying women and whether or not that will make god happy finally. A caller asks why a father shouldn’t marry his daughter, which leads to Jason being confused about how reproduction works. Jason is biebered by overly conservative people, and Christian is biebered by having to keep quiet until he has everything figured out.

Also, Jason advocates for straight men getting gay-married…again. Hmmm.

150 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. Ok, so I’m in my closet getting clothes to get dressed and go to work this morning, and all of a sudden i hear you guys talking about yoga pants and lust and listeningers and then i hear you saying my name and i’m thinking WTF? I will never stop wearing yoga pants and if it causes someone to lust look somewhere else dammit. You guys are too funny. Thanks for making my morning.

  3. Also, Jason advocates for straight men getting gay-married…again.

    You know, if you keep telling everyone about the secret liberal cabal’s plans to put conservatives into FEMA camps and forcibly gay marry them, you’re going to ruin the surprise.

  4. The people that would complain about you being wishy-washy on a belief system would have a strong J in their temperament (Myers Briggs). P people are much more comfortable with gray areas than J. Js are more insistent on right-wrong, good-bad, etc. Your P listeners are totally fine with the learning and discussing and developing bc we like that better than everything being (supposedly) decided & fixed.

  6. If I were a Young Creationist, I would be all over the 2 creations in Genesis – holding to the idea that God created Adam & Eve inside the Garden, and another humankind outside. Plus, I would particularly enjoy thinking of the Outsiders as total cave men and the Gardenians as being genetically superior… nothing like throwing genetic superiority into religious relevance. Anywho, the Young Creationists obviously felt like it was important to stick to their conjoined creation story of humanity despite the obvious snafu of incest. More fodder for discussions of the Infallible Canon. This reminds me of something Christian mentioned in an earlier podcast about how reluctant people are to retracting bad theology, yet scientists will own it (recent example being the abandoning of what they thought was evidence of cosmic inflation immediately after Big Bang).

  7. So if a hominid-turned-human-being-with-a-soul boned another hominid without a soul, would the baby have a soul?

    It’s addressing questions like these, ladies and gentlemen, that gets us paid the big bucks. . . .

  9. Christians, in general, are obsessed with sex. Probably because we have a rather unhealthy attitude about it. Probably how we’d be incredibly obsessed with pink elephants if we were convinced that thinking of pink elephants was a sin that would get us damned to eternal torture.

    Try not to think of pink elephants now or God will torture you.

    I’m guessing everyone failed. Congratulations. You have an eternity of torment to look forward to.

    Now imagine how many pastors would proclaim that women who wore clothes with pink elephants or any elephants were tempting men to immorality and how evil they were. So evil that God was probably going to torture them for “stumbling” their brothers. It is now their fault that some men can’t stop thinking of pink elephants.

    So now we have women publicly bragging that they don’t wear clothes with any animal patterns at all just to go even further.

    It’s pretty unhealthy.

    I think we’d serve people better by simply saying, “Don’t objectify people or use people for your own selfish gain. Love them. If you have thoughts about someone, acknowledge them as natural physical attraction on your part, but don’t lose sight of the person.”

  10. Totally agree with your last paragraph, Chris!

    I’ve wondered about that, whether it’s all conditioning or not. There seems to be some truth to it if you look at cultures where the women are all topless and the men don’t seem to care, or other cultures where a man can be turned on by a neck because the women are covered up all the time. However,I don’t think pink elephants would have the same draw as sex, no matter how much you obscured them from the public view and didn’t let people think about them.

    I do think that our obsession with covering ourselves up and never seeing nudity or sex on screen and making people feel like if they have sex outside of marriage that they’re going to ruin their lives, is extremely unhealthy.

  11. I go back and forth on this. While I do think that creating a taboo can in turn create an obsession (necks, breasts, etc.), but I also think certain things are hardwired into our human nature (smiling when pleased, for example).

    Got a lot to learn on this one.

  12. @Christian – prudishness/conservatism of dress has little to do with people being turned on. Or at least, it has very little to do with it in reality. However, to a religious person (be they Christian or Muslim), they are inextricably linked.

    In the real world though, attitude is what drives all of this stuff. A woman trying to turn you on can be just as effective, if not more so, if she was wearing a business suit or if she was completely naked.

  13. Erik, are you sure your pastor will let you say the word “snail trails?” Are you gonna write me later and ask me to delete that comment because your pastor didn’t approve? Again.

  14. The brojob comment was actually funny. I was sad to have to delete it.

    Warnke had me in hysterics when I was a kid. I can still remember many of his bits. Too bad it was mostly lies.

  16. In the case you discussed with the estranged father/daughter coming together and planning to be wed, the disgust we feel is the natural feeling we have to a distortion of and a betrayal of the natural role of a parent in a child’s life.

    Parents are supposed to protect their children, guide them, and be a mentor to them. They are respected and revered by their children to the point where even if the child is of age, I would argue that consent to a sexual relationship is impossible for them to give due to the psychological issues involved. The father in the case you cited should know better and should have shut that aspect of the relationship down immediately. That he didn’t is a betrayal of his natural role and hence the revulsion and moral condemnation we have.

    It’s the same feeling we have (albeit to a lesser degree) if we hear about a teacher marrying one of his/her former students or (to a much lesser degree) a pastor marrying a child that he mentored who grew up in his church.

  17. Are you still one of Called to Communion’s “team of contributors”? Bryan the Stubborn still has you listed on page 1, even though you haven’t written anything since the end of 2013.

    Erik, be sure to mention your obsession with this during your next therapy session.

  19. Ha ha. Running away in tears?

    I had enough of arguing about every little thing when I was a Christian. Watching you guys interact re-activated my PTSD.

  20. You went from nice to panties in a complete wad in a two week timeframe.

    I think you’re reading a bit much into my leaving. Spending hours arguing on the internet is just not my thing.

  21. You guys are running on fumes and need to either turn the ship around or pack it in.

    Ha! We’re just trying to drive you away. Why isn’t it working!?

  23. Jason,

    A little clarification would help, though.

    It just seems like you’re a little pissed that you joined the Yankees but then got benched. At least that’s what it looks like to some. Baseball isn’t my game.

    Just do it so you don’t get fined, Priestmode.

  24. Seth,

    I am not pissed about anything. And I didn’t “get benched.” The realization that I didn’t actually want a career as a traveling Catholic apologist was a huge epiphany for me (and a liberating one, at that).

    But think what you will.

  27. Still a contributor at “Called to Communion”?

    I do not contribute there, no. Have I in the past? Yes. I think I wrote one article, maybe two, a few years ago.

    FWIW, those guys are my friends, and are way better Catholics than I will ever be.

  29. Erik’s obsession is almost a mini DEP podcast. It reminds me why I don’t miss my reformed days.

  30. Jason,

    You don’t need me telling you how to run your life, but I have to admit that I’m a bit befuddled by where you are. In one sense, it isn’t any of my business and you don’t owe me (or any former Protestant) anything. At the same time, in the 2.5 years since your conversion have appeared in the following:

    1. You announced your conversion in June and were engaging in debate as earlier as August 11th here: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/list-paradigm-versus-agape-paradigm/#comment-101682

    2. You blogged at a Catholic Apologetic site initially in August, but then the link was removed and then reinstated in September (that timeline may not be completely accurate, but I believe the article was published initially in August before being pulled down and subsequently reposted): http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/

    3. You continued to blog over at Creed Code Cult about this issues: http://www.creedcodecult.com/on-faith-hope-and-love/

    4. As you continued blogging you were speaking at apologetics conferences about your conversion with “prominent” converts like Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft. You were dubbed a “keynote” speaker at that event and you spoke about your conversion. Mark Shea recalls the conference here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/what-i-saw-at-defending-the-faith-in-steubenville

    5. As of 10 months ago (April 2014) you were in the process of writing a book entitled, “I Fought the Church (and the Church Won).” and you even released an excerpt: http://www.creedcodecult.com/likelihood-plausibility-and-sola-scriptura/

    6. As of May 27th, 2014 you noted you’d no longer blog because you had a book deadline but you wanted to keep the site up because of all the traffic it received and the good work it was doing: http://www.creedcodecult.com/big-announcement-from-creed-code-cult/

    7. On August 1st, 2014, you post your first Podcast on “Drunk Ex-Pastors.” and in subsequent episodes we hear you cursing, drinking, sounding rather progressive (at least from where the PCA is and where the perception of those at CtC is), etc., on a podcast with your agnostic best friend.

    To be clear, I’m not calling you to defend your actions. I don’t know a single detail about your day-to-day life and I’m not entitled to it. You may have changed your mind on some things and you may even regret the way you acted in the wake of your conversion. Things and people change and there is nothing wrong with that. Shoot, from now since August 2014 is a lot of time for someone to change their thinking, so maybe you’re in a different place than when you started the podcast.

    The fact is though that you haven’t distanced yourself from same Jason writing a book about Catholicism and your conversion in May 2014. If there was some sort of explanation about that I think it would be helpful because as it stands those of us who have followed you are left wondering what is going on. You certainly don’t owe me that explanation (trying to overemphasize that), but I think if you really stop to think about the course of events, you’ll realize why those of us in your previous camp are perplexed and point out what we perceive to be the utter hypocrisy of Jason the Drunk Ex-Pastor and Jason the book writing, conference speaking, Catholic blogging, apologist.

  32. I don’t think I’m ever going to stop finding it amusing how much some religious people can’t see past the name of this podcast. Usually, it just keeps them away, which is great. Sometimes one gets through…

  33. You understand that not everyone shares your paradigm about life and religion, right? You say things so often that make me think you have a difficult time grasping that.

  34. Hey Brandon,

    … those of us in your previous camp are perplexed and point out what we perceive to be the utter hypocrisy of Jason the Drunk Ex-Pastor and Jason the book writing, conference speaking, Catholic blogging, apologist.

    Couple quick comments.

    1. Beyond the mere title of the podcast, how much have you actually listened to? Because if you were to listen to a healthy chunk of our shows you’d hear a professing Christian (me) often arguing for Christian principles with his agnostic friend, in a friendly and respectful way. I think it was the PCA who taught me that this is a good and healthy thing.

    2. If you did commit to actually listening consistently, your perplexity would be greatly reduced.

    3. While I am writing a book, I am not a “conference speaking, Catholic blogging, apologist.” I have not written anything resembling Catholic apologetics for a long time, and I haven’t spoken at a Catholic conference in a couple years.

    But all in all, you’re right: I don’t owe you or anyone anything. My friend and I started doing a podcast for fun, and it’s still fun, so we’ll keep doing it. You can listen, or not, it’s up to you.

  37. I’m saying, “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?” I’m sure you’ll give me some spiel about judging by the fruit or something. I think you’ve probably spent a little too much time concentrating on the latter while ignoring the former.

    If you don’t look in the mirror and ever wonder if you might have been a Pharisee in Jesus’s day, you really don’t have any idea how you come across.

  38. Oh right. I forgot how Christianity cannot be understood without an MDiv and spending all your time sitting around discussing the minutia of every Christian doctrine. Thank you for reminding me of how happy I am to be away from it.

  43. “Somebody who used to be a friend ought to reach out to him…someone who knows him, who cares about him, can be the bigger man…” – MLD

    Man, you people have some weird ideas and assumptions..

  44. This thread was awesome before it got hijacked by the loud insignificant minority.

    I thought the podcast was just as good as all the others. Better, because there was less in this podcast about the podcast and the topic of you two podcasting.

    I had a laugh out loud moment when Jason figured out where Christian was going with the incest thing. Pure gold.

    For what it’s worth I didn’t really understand what the problem was with brothers and sisters procreation. If you hold to the (near death) neodarwinism or creation, either way the first few humans had no alternative but to inbreed and get the species going.

    Jason was (imo) incorrect about brothers and sisters sleeping together being “disordered” by nature. God’s law in this case would not flow from His or our nature. Sleeping with a sibling does not frustrate our natural ends or final causes in the same way homosexuality, masturbation, or sleeping with a parent does. It’s a law of consequence IMO due to genetic defects.

    Just my two cents.

  45. Jason,

    You said,

    While I am writing a book, I am not a “conference speaking, Catholic blogging, apologist.”

    Exactly, but you *were* all of those things at one time, roughly a year ago.

    The Jason giving his emotional journey to Rome is now dropping the F bomb on the regular on a public podcast and saying that he is “bad Catholic” and a “a marginal Catholic.” What happened to the man so assured of his Catholicism that he was on the apologetics trail with the creme de la creme of Catholic apologists (that not even Bryan speaks at)?

    It doesn’t add up. You can pretend that you never wanted to be an apologist or that it was only a one-time thing, but your history contradicts that . You’ve only been a convert 2.5 years. You were writing a memoir apologetic as late as May 27th, 2014. You appeared in a recent apologetic documentary about converting to Catholicism. You were teaching classes at your local parish and posting them online before that.

    Listen, if you want to make the shift I don’t blame you, but you were speaking at events *less* than 2 years ago (it was actually around 18 months ago). To try and side-step it by saying you haven’t done Catholic apologetics “in a long time” is a stretch. It may feel like a long time because you’ve emotionally moved on from some of those activities, but won’t you admit 18 months is really a short-term time frame for being an apologetic conference keynote speaker?

    Point is, there is a pretty stark contrast between Creed Code Jason and Drunk-Ex Pastor Jason, and I think you know that. If you can embrace that and admit that you’ve moved on from your old apologist persona, great. You don’t have to explicitly do that, either, but then you’ll have people that point out the hypocrisy of Jason the apologist and Jason the Drunk Ex-Pastor.

    And BTW, I’ve listened to a bit of the podcast to get a sense of it. Sounds like the sort of conversations I would have in college or when I’m letting my lips flap in the security of close friends and closed doors. I won’t pass judgment on what you talk about, but I do sincerely question the wisdom of a man posting these conversations in a public forum.

  47. It’s interesting to me, as a non-christian and someone who doesn’t have a dog in the fight (so to speak), to see all these supposedly devout christians come in here to lambast Jason & Christian. I thought Jesus was all about love and acceptance? Instead what I am seeing seems to be a whole lot of judgement and condemnation — the funniest thing to me are comments like the one above from Brandon Addison, who seem to be passing off judgement as concern. And while it wasn’t like I was thinking about becoming a christian, these sorts of behaviours certainly makes me less interested in becoming one.

    Onto the subjects raised in the podcast…

    * I can’t speak to the religious aspect of incest but insofar as it being a “disordered” act, I would say that that is largely a societal construct with roots in biology:

    We recoil at incest mostly in the same way we react to eating rotting meat because while it is possible to eat rotting meat, it’s not the most healthy thing. Same thing with the possibility of closely related people who interbreed. It increases the odds of mutation and other issues. Now, granted, it also sometimes comes with potential positives. A prime example of this (not that they commit incest) type of inbreeding are the Ashkenazi Jews. A sect(?)/subset(?) who are well known for their intellect but also severe genetic issues. So a societal repulsion to incest arose because it wasn’t the smartest thing to do genetically.

    * I don’t understand why a lot of people don’t like the talking about the podcast on the podcast portions of the show — for me, that slice of life is part of what makes the podcast interesting.

    * Kenneth is also right that the part where Jason slowly worked out the incest math part was absolutely hilarious.

    * comradedread February 2, 2015 at 12:20 PM – I think it’s not just christians who have an unhealthy attitude as it relates to sex, I think it’s America in general.

  48. Brandon Addison,

    1. Its super creepy that you have a documented time line on Jason

    2. Someone can defend X without living up to the standards of X.

    3. none of this has anything to do with podcast 28. Why don’t you question Jason’s wisdom privately via email? If he won’t give you an audience take it to your local PCA sect. If he won’t listen even to the mighty PCA treat him like a pagan tax collector. Isn’t that Matthew 18?

  49. Greg,

    So then would you also say that a father sleeping with his 18 year old daughter is social conditioning? What about a father sleeping with an 11 year old daughter? Just the same as eating rotten meat?

  50. @Kenneth –

    Like Christian in the podcast, I want to start off with the position that I am against inbreeding, but my previous comment was simply trying to point out a non religious & biological perspective on why society (even areligious ones) are against it.

    I’m a squishy liberal and not a libertarian so I am more than happy to say that we should not allow fathers to sleep with their daughters even if both are consenting adults. As for the second question of yours, there are already child molestation laws against sex with minors.

    One more thing I forgot to add in my previous comment, I’ve always thought of myself as an agnostic and have defined it thusly (probably having to do with my Eastern cultural heritage), I largely accept the existence of God/Gods (or even aliens who created humans) but don’t believe that they play any active role in our lives and as such I don’t give it a whole lot of thought.

  51. Can you block Erik? He is like the description of the contentious woman in Proverbs.

    Stephen, the thought has crossed my mind, and you’re about the 20th person to ask me that.

    I’m afraid of what it would do to him though. He copies all of the comments he writes here that he thinks are really clever and posts them on another blog where they all pat him on the back and tell him how smart he is, and then he compiles them and posts them on his own blog as well.

    Then he comes here and accuses Jason of being narcissistic. It’s all actually rather entertaining.

  55. @ Erik

    Sorry, different Jeremy, similar story possibly… I asked Calvin into my heart (that change was ok), did some mission work, helped plant a church… Then I poped and was obviously “being tossed to and fro” [insert obligatory biblical reference here].

  58. Dear congressman,

    The laws that you have passed and the prices that you set and regulate allow people to make alot of money. This is not fair.

    Sincerely,

    Socialist capitalism hating Erik. 🙂

  59. Dear Kenneths Father,

    Are you aware that your son is telling people they can make 10k in a week by selling incredibly expensive pharmaceuticals regulated by the government through your company? This is unfair. You should fire your son for offering to help others.

    Sincerely,

    Socialist Erik

  62. JJS, I thought you said in ep. 21 that what it means to be RCC is to be against contraception. Sounded kind of like a marginal opinion of your religion, to me. Or maybe you were just copying Monty P, on the flip side, yo?

    Monty Python The Meaning of Life – The Protestant View: http://youtu.be/ifgHHhw_6g8

  63. JJS, oh sorry, I don’t listen to the podcasts. Both Brandon and Erik in this thread make it sound as if that’s how you referred to yourself. Sorry if that’s not true.

  65. Andrew,

    JJS, I thought you said in ep. 21 that what it means to be RCC is to be against contraception.

    I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that. Maybe something I did say could have been construed that way, but I can’t imagine what.

  66. Jason,

    I appreciate your sticking up for Xtianity in this podcast, I haven’t listened to Ep 28 or the last few, so I should bow out and leave you all. I’ve read enough of you at CreedCode to know your religiousity for Catholicism ran deep at some point, but I shouldn’t opine. I would trust a close friend of yours (Christian) to give an honest opinion, if asked, and it’s not really any of my business.

    Peace, and thanks for the entertaining listen, this morning was some Alanis mixed in with some GS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR3Vdo5etCQ).

    Best to you and your family,
    Andrew

  67. Jason, indeed you are right. I stand corrected. You in a way concurred with Christian when he asked you what the definition of Catholicism is (though you didn’t outright agree, you called your statement a hashtag, and mocked the city where your Pope resides), which is doing something you don’t want to do, even though your heart’s not in it.

    I don’t like them [headphones] on. It’s like wearing a condom. I’m against contraception because I’m Catholic. This is the Auricular version of contraception. And I will not do it.

    I’ll wear them every other time.

    Jason: Just so you know, people, there’s only so much honor going out to you, because I don’t like it.

    Christian: I have all the honor for these people.

    Jason: Ok, I am doing this begrudgingly.

    .. It’s sacrifice, I’m Catholic right now. I’m doing something I don’t want to do, because it’s the right thing to do. Even though my heart’s not in it.
    Christian: Is that the definition of Catholicism?
    Jason: Hashtag, Catholicism. Vatican Fever, catch it.

  70. Erik, two things:

    1. I knew you wouldn’t stay away. You have an obsession, and it’s probably going to take therapy.

    2. You comment here (on a public blog), you have your own (public) blog, and you comment incessantly (I see a pattern) at OldLife. What’s good for the goose…

  71. I wish Christian could understand how he comes across to anyone not in his very small circle of agnostic friends. It would be eye-opening for him.

    Do you ever know what you are talking about?

  73. Every person who reads your comments wants nothing to do with any type of Christianity that you profess. I’m sure your pastor will see it soon and reign in your leash again.

  74. Erik, here’s an example of intelligence. If I say something about you, that doesn’t mean that if you repeat it about me, that it’s true. If I say, “Erik has hair” and you turn around and say “Christian has hair.” This does not mean that you know what you’re talking about.

  81. Jason and Christian,

    I hope you don’t mind me posting this, this is from a pastor who is in the denomination that JJS used to be a pastor in. It’s good, I think, especially since you guys try to tackle the issues separating believers and non-believers.

    http://vimeo.com/104624788

    Watch it or not, it’s like 1 mintue 30 seconds. I appreciate you have this forum and talking about weighty matters. A little secret of mine, I think it’s actually good to talk theology a bit innebriated, just don’t tell that to the presbytery where I am ordained in.

    Peace, DXPers.

  84. Erik, I’m not the one currently acting a way contradicting my beliefs. I’m not the one claiming to be God’s representative here. Come on, you’re letting your pride get in the way of being honest.

  89. You’re a person who has a history of poor behavior on the internet. I’m guessing it’s obsessions like this that do it to you. I’m guessing you go to a site and make yourself look like a lunatic, an ass, or a fool (or all three) until someone (pastor or wife) reigns you in. I’m guessing this is another instance of that which you are going to regret later. I have actual real life people to go talk to, so feel free to work out your issues here for all to see if you’d like, but I recommend you go away for your own sake.

  95. You think talking publicly about whacking off is going to be attractive to the kinds of women you want to be with?

    You’re giving me advice on how to be attractive to women!? Is your advice to be obsessive on Facebook until your wife bans you? LOL!

  96. Wtf is really going on here? If attracting trolls is any sign you’ve made it in the podcast world, you guys are golden! I can’t imagine wasting hours online with somebody that doesn’t agree with me, nor gives a damn of my opinion. That’s a desperate call for attention in my eyes.

  97. There is no God as monstrously sadistic and evil as the god who has created billions of people and damned them before they were born to eternal torture in order to make himself look really awesome to the few he deemed worthy to save before they had even been born.

  98. Ok, well I certainly picked the wrong podcast to follow the comments on….. *ahem*…… anyway….. Jason and Christian, I can only speak for myself on this, but I want to let you both know something (as well as your trollfans)…. I don’t just listen to the banter purely for entertainment reasons, I listen because it reminds me of a better time, when friends did sit around and talk, and agree, and disagree, and call each other Douchey McBaggins and whatnot….. and have a drink or 10 and laugh and laugh and talk about this effed up world and find a way to enjoy it……. and apparently this crazy stuff you’re doing is working because it’s causing a lot of different conversations and causing people to get closer, even if only on the interwebs. The funny part (ok, not funny, pathetic) of all this is that the trollfans are too stupid to realize that the entire reason why this podcast exists (as well as why so many of us enjoy it) is because over time in your lives (as we relate to our own), the religious folk have proven themselves, well, I think that speaks for itself….. and here we are…… So rock on guys, continue forth and follow in the footsteps of Starsky & Hutch or Mr. Roarke & Tatoo or whoever….. you have my support and I appreciate you being willing to put yourselves out there…..

  100. Strange, I thought the demographic was people who actually read their bible and realized it was full of contradictions and atrocities and have had to adjust their theological understanding accordingly.

  102. I haven’t deleted or moderated anything. I haven’t even looked at the site since late yesterday afternoon. I’ve been with my girlfriend, who by the way thinks your definitely sick and quite possibly dangerous.

    Jason may have deleted comments if you were attacking other people. We don’t have any rules about it. We can pretty much do whatever we want. Cool, huh?

  104. The biggest danger the Drunks have is they’ve put out two dud podcasts in a row

    Ha ha! Just saying something you wish was true doesn’t make it true.

  105. 99 out of 100 women surveyed do not find a man who talks about whacking off to porn appealing.

    Erik, 100 out of 100 women don’t find men who troll the internet appealing.

  106. Since you & your listeners who allegedly want me banned are apparently new to the theological blogosphere

    We are not a theological blog. Nor do we wish to be.

  107. What has kept me going today is you coming back at me. Mike now does it as well. If no one comes back at me I’ll get bored and leave and you won’t look like a coward for banning me.

    What keeps you coming back is your misguided ego, thinking that the more you post, the more people are going to see your point. Instead, you’re just taking the rope we’re giving you and making a better and better noose. I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing here other than making yourself look bad. You and I both know that this is a pattern in your past that you deal with. One time your pastor reigned you in and you swore off the cyberworld. (How long did that last?) The other time your wife banned you from using Facebook. Exercise some self-control before someone else in your life has to step in again.

    Also, I have zero fear at being labeled a coward for banning you. First, I don’t care how people label me. Second, I wouldn’t be banning you for making good points that we just can’t answer. I’d be banning you for your personal issues, one of which is not knowing how to have a productive conversation with normal people.

  111. If you want to wipe away your tears and start making real arguments, let me know.

    You don’t get it. You never have. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. That’s not our point.

  113. If Jason is randomly deleting comments I will quit posting, as I said. I’m not hanging around someplace where people censor things that don’t involve profanity.

    Yes, yes, ‘goodbye cruel internet, you just don’t understand my genius.’ Kindly leave and let the rest of us get back to our journey to hell.

  117. Well, you know ‘speaking the truth in love’ is frequently interpreted as ‘act like a dick, but say you’re only doing that out of concern for the object of your dickitude’s eternal soul’, whereas saying “Kindly take the sanctimonious bullshit somewhere else, chill the fuck out, and get over yourself” is definitely naughty as it contains a word that might make you think of sex, which is always worthy of hellfire, unless it’s between a husband and wife nearly fully clothed through a sheet with a hole cut down near the naughty bits.

  118. If Jason … randomly deleting comments I … quit posting … I’m not … around someplace … people censor things that … profanity.

    There. Fixed.

  121. Hey guys, just wanted to say im a big fan of the podcast, really entertaining stuff.

    Im from Chile, and I was raised Catholic(Congregation of Holy Cross) but I became an agnostic at 16, I’m 21 now and I really find interesting the topics you bring to the table, from sports(Football or ‘Soccer’, American Football, etc) to politics or, for example ‘controversial stuff’ like incest, which I think is great considering we have really different backgrounds. Not much else to say, except from keep up the good work, cause I look foward to listening to you every week.

    PD: I’m a Packers fan, so I was really happy when Butler caught that interception, ha ha.
    PD2: I’m sorry if I butchered some of your lenguage, but english is not my first lenguage, so I apologize in advance.

  126. Christian, Seinfeld’s great. So much material to choose from always:

    Cosmo Kramer – smoking and drinking at the same time: http://youtu.be/hYKMBIX291M

    Sorry, again, haven’t listened to this one yet. I was just dove tailing Zrim’s Seinfeld connection.

    Peace, man. Come back to OL anytime. It’s where I loiter ( reason why being obvious, I’m Xtian). Best to you and yours.

  127. Erik,

    Though I haven’t listened to all the podcasts, the only thing I disagree with Jason about, so far as I know, is his claim that the rest of us at CTC are better Catholics than he is. Also, morality does not include all cultural taboos or norms. In a fundamentalist paradigm, saying ‘fuck’ is a sin. But not in the agape paradigm, within which ‘fuck’ can be said while loving God above all else as Father, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself for God’s sake. Jason gets this, which is why he is rightly comfortable in his earthy humanity, as was Chesterton, O’Connor, Waugh, Greene, and Percy. (Just read Percy!) The saints are very diverse; no two saints are identical. Each has a different set of gifts, a different style, a different personality. Not only is there room within the Church for all these different styles, but we each benefit from them all, and in this way we need and appreciate these different styles and gifts, because they exemplify different facets of the Good, which none of us individually fully exemplify. In short, in the Body of Christ we alI (myself included) benefit from what is unique in Jason’s style. So not only is Jason a friend and brother (though I’m a lousy friend on my end when he’s in need), I’m grateful for everything about him that is different from me.

    Also, if you can get a little distance, read through this thread again as if through the eyes of a third-party (if you can), and ask yourself what it means when a self-professed agnostic is so much more kind, giving, long-suffering, gracious, charitable, and (dare I say it) Christ-like, than yourself. What does it say about your paradigm when an agnostic so clearly and obviously out-loves you? Something in 1 Cor 13 seems pertinent. But 1 Cor 13 came after the Damascus road, when a man infatuated and obsessed with the laws, and in the name of the law breathing murderous threats and seeking to stamp out those even in far away places who had entered into the agape paradigm, came face to face with Agape Himself. He discovered that Agape Himself was that to which all those laws pointed. And there and then this man was lifted into a higher paradigm, the agape paradigm, according to which laws are for persons, not persons for the law, because the telos of the law is love, which is irreducibly both Personal and Inter-Personal. If the measure is love, then everything without love becomes a clanging cymbal, not only empty, but off-putting. And a paradigm that breeds and applauds love-less behavior by that very fact refutes and destroys itself, in spite of itself. So if you find yourself in a paradigm in which love-less behavior is bred, encouraged, and applauded, where individuals are continually attacking and devouring one another, where genuine insults (not the affectionate sort) are the norm, where getting the speck out of the neighbor’s eye is everyone’s obsession, then it might be time to reconsider seriously whether you’ve taken a wrong turn at some point.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  128. Snail trail: a humorous way of describing a woman being sexually excited.

    Used by Christian in this episode while making a joke of what would happen if he didn’t wear a shirt to work, during a discussion about how different clothing is appropriate in different environments. Laughed at by Jason…because…well…it’s super funny.

  129. No. As you’ve heard me say multiple times, walking away from Christianity didn’t have anything to do with a desire to do things I wasn’t “allowed” to do as a Christian.

  130. Erik,

    If some other random person just so happened to create random FB accounts and harass my family coincidentallyon the very same evening when you began to look us all up then I apologize. But I’m sure you can understand why I would be passed off

  132. Erik, while I appreciate your sincere concern for my soul (displayed by you trying to convince me to convert to Catholicism), as I’ve previously stated, I doubt pretending to believe something will get me into heaven, if there is one. I’d much rather live honestly.

  136. Bryan,

    Fancy meeting you here.

    There’s been some question, even my katniss Kenneth, regarding the theology of these podcasts:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted December 27, 2014 at 4:02 am | Permalink
    Erik,

    Jason is loaded with that kind of stuff now. On one podcast he declared that he “didn’t even care if somone believed in jesus” so long as they love God and neighbor….. Wtf….
    http://oldlife.org/2014/12/in-the-same-boat/comment-page-1/#comment-256388

    I would advise you against your boiler plate nothing they’ve said contradicts what i’ve said.

    I have my own opinions, I can tweet you those off line. This is by no means Xtian web territory.

    Be seeing you,
    Andrew

  138. Unless you’re 100% convinced there is no God, though, you’re taking a huge chance.*

    Not really. If the Jews are right, there is no hell. Likewise if the JWs are right, we’ll simply be annihilated. If the Mormons are right, we get to live in a lesser heaven. If the Buddhists are right, we’ll be reborn. If the Hindus are right, we might suffer a bit in hell for our sins before being reborn. Catholics and Orthodox are both allowed to hope for the eventual reconciliation of all things. Universalists use the same bible you do and reject the idea of an eternal hell.

    Basically, the odds are on our side. And if God turns out to be really the sort who does decide to chuck people into an eternal torture chamber because they didn’t say the magic prayer or believe the right things or attend the right church or because he chose them specifically to torture for eternity, then He seems less a loving Father and more of a Great Old One delighting in pain and misery of his subjects and I’m not sure I’d want to be one of the chosen ones cowering before him as the screams of my friends and family waft up from hell and delight him.

  139. “So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: “I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!”
    ― Martin Luther

  143. You could judge God and think he’s a bad God not worthy of your worship. That wouldn’t change your punishment for not worshiping him.

    Yes, assuming such a God existed. But would it be morally better to collaborate with a sadistic torturer simply to save my own skin or to resist to the end of it no matter the cost?

    Are you atheist or agnostic?

    I am a theist, albeit one that realizes that there is no rational evidence for that belief, simply a longing to believe that a good God exists, that the kingdom of heaven described by Jesus is a worthy goal to work for on this Earth, and that a God who is described as a better Father than I am would punish His wayward sons, but not torture them for all eternity.

    If I seem rather angry and antagonistic about the whole ‘hell’ thing, I am. I lived in miserable fear for 30+ years as a fundamentalist.

  144. Comrade,

    Grew up fundy here myself, found the reformed at age 19, haven’t looked back.

    I’d be curious for your take on brother martin. Curious for your thoughts, is all.

    Let me know if you want to chit chat.

    Peace man, nice avatar!!

  146. I confess I don’t know enough about Martin Luther to really have an intelligent conversation about him.

    I know the basics we all get taught in school. I know he liked to drink and had a short fuse, and I know there was some unpleasantness (persecution and violence) in Germany between the Lutherans and the Anabaptists, but that was partly because of the latter’s challenging of the aristocracy’s authority.

  150. Chad, your comment made me go log on to a computer and scroll through this whole thread so that I could tell you your remark made me LOL. Thanks for the laugh!

Related Posts