Thursday, October 22, 2009

Dose of Ravenhill

There is an eternity in front of us!

There is a world that now is in more rebellion than ever! "As in the days of Noah" they rebelled against God. For 100 years Noah never preached a new message, he preached repentance, he preached righteousness.

Alexander White used to say, "You can preach divine healing, you can preach prophecy, you can preach anything, but you can't preach righteousness; people won't have it."

Leonard Ravenhill -


Dorci said...

And you can speak about or display any religion in school or the workplace except the name of Christ. Christians are fair game for discrimination now, and the ACLU is making darn sure of that.

Nohm said...


The ACLU defends the rights of Christians also.

You can display religion in school or workplace, under certain rules which are put in place so that no one religion "wins".

No one, in my opinion, is fair game for discrimination... well, maybe except for SVPs and such.

Dorci said...

When was the last time the ACLU defended a Christian's right to freedom of religion?

They defend people who are offended because someone wears a necklace with a cross on it to work. They defend a school who discriminetly tells a student he or she can't put up a notice regarding a Christian meeting, even though all other notices are allowed, or that they can't hold a Christian meeting on campus after school, even if it's student led. They sue so that a student speaker is unable to pray at a graduation ceremony.

Unfortunately, the ACLJ is quite busy having to defend the rights of Christians as equal citizens with equal rights. And don't even get me started about how Christians are portrayed on sitcoms. If Jews or Muslims or Blacks or Gays were portrayed that way it wouldn't be tolerated. But Christians can be made to look like idiotic lunatics with no problem.

People are convicted by talk of Jesus and righteousness, and laughing at us is a way to try to disarm the power that the Name of Christ holds, I suppose.

I don't know what an SVP is. Student Vice President? ;)

ExPatMatt said...

Yes Dorci, Christians are discriminated in the US [eye-roll]

To quote Jon Stewart;

"Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively"

Christians have had a monopoly in the US for a long time and, like any group that senses they are losing power, they are panicking and calling 'persecution' because the scales are being balanced.

Nohm said...

Dorci said:

"They sue so that a student speaker is unable to pray at a graduation ceremony. "

Dorci, the people who first brought this issue to court... were christians. Catholics, mormons, and JWs to be specific.

As for when the ACLU last defended a Christian's right to practice religion, please check out this link or this link or even this article from "Christianity Today".

And that's hardly an exhaustive list.

I'm curious, and I ask this with all due respect Dorci, but what kind of research do you do into these subjects?

For example, you gave a list where things were not fair for Christians at schools and such. I know most, if not all, of those claims, and I've researched them (that is, read the opinions of both sides and studied what facts exist)... have you?

Nohm said...

SVP = Sexually Violent Predator

More info here.

Dorci said...

Wow. Nothing like getting pounced on. Well, I'm not a lawyer if that's what you mean. I tossed out some cases I could remember off the top of my head.

I'll tell you what, you become a Christian and view it from this side and then we'll discuss it. Okay? ;)

Dorci said...

And even if we take out the political aspect of it, I think the gist of it is more that most individuals want to keep their religion in a little box for Sunday morning. They want to go to church and leave God at church.

The minute you start talking about a personal relationship with God, and repenting of their sins and being righteous in Jesus Christ, they get uncomfortable. Why? Because it threatens to change their lives. It would be for the better, but they don't see that. They see that personal relationship as tearing away things they like..things they want to keep drugs or sleeping with their boyfriends or girlfriends.

Oh, no. They don't want God to get too close. He just might turn their worlds upside down.

Nohm said...


I'm not trying to pounce on you, or get into any political aspects.

To be clear, I'm not a liberal or a democrat.

Here's my issue with your posts, Dorci: you make a lot of claims about how other people think, and you make claims regarding situations that you "remember off the top of my head".

My problem with the former is that you, and I, have no idea whatsoever what goes on in the minds of other people. You've been talking about Jesus, and I haven't been uncomfortable. I don't feel "threatened". You talk about being because of drugs or sleeping with their significant other.

Dorci, you have no way of knowing any of this. Considering I'm part of that group you're talking about, I'm going to speak up, just as you would if I started talking about what goes on in the minds of Christians.

For the latter issue, I'm just trying to make the point that you haven't really investigated the claims of court cases regarding wearing or posting religious material at schools or elsewhere, but you mention them to me as if they should be something new. Yet, these are all issues that I've investigated pretty thoroughly.

Just to be clear, Dorci, there's no hard feelings towards you on my side whatsoever; I feel that you've been very polite in our discussions. I apologize that I came across as "pouncing" on you, but I hope you now understand why I posted what I did.

Dorci said...

Check out this website

And what you may not realize, is that I haven't always been a Christian. For my first 25 years I was not a Christian, so I have that perspective as well.

I also know other people who say they are religious, but they don't want to have anything to do with Jesus Christ. They go to a Christian church, they call themselves Christian, but then when you start talking to them about a relationship with Jesus, they don't want to talk to you about it. That's because religion is about a list of do's, and don't's, and Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Nohm said...

Hi Dorci,

Yes, I know about the ACLJ very well. Was there something specific that you wanted me to read?

Yes, I'm aware that you weren't always a Christian. You mentioned that in another thread on Wayne's site. I pay attention. :-)

Dorci, you said:

"I also know other people who say they are religious, but they don't want to have anything to do with Jesus Christ. They go to a Christian church, they call themselves Christian, but then when you start talking to them about a relationship with Jesus, they don't want to talk to you about it."

(Emphasis mine in the above)

Dorci, you're still talking about what goes on in the heads of others. Until I'm convinced that, much like Professor X, you have telepathic powers, I have to discount all of this.

Again, Dorci, I don't think you would appreciate it very much if I started talking about how you think and what your opinions are, because I don't know, just as you don't know what goes on in the heads of the people you talk about in the paragraph above.

Nohm said...

Also, Dorci, just because you weren't a Christian for your first 25 years doesn't mean that you have "that" perspective... it just means that you have your perspective, just as I have mine from being a Christian for the first 21 or so years of my life.

Also, I think you'll agree that the way you looked at (non-religious, for example) things in your teen years and early twenties is vastly different from how you view things later on.

I don't know your age, but I'm 37, and my view on issues now is far more refined (although still needs tons of work) compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Dorci said...

Well, the reason I can fairly well summise the some people feel this way is because that's the way they live their lives. And I just said that I know people who have expressed that opinion.

You know, you're right. I didn't have the perspective of every unbeliever. I always believed that Jesus was God and always felt drawn to Him. But I didn't live my life that way.

Do you not agree that many claim to be Christians and yet, for some reason, don't act like a Christian? There may be a reason for that.

No, there wasn't any particular story I wanted you to look at on ACLJ. Just the fact that yes, Christians really are discriminated against. People don't see it because it isn't talked about in the media for the most part.

Let's just say I'm older than you. ;)

Dorci said...

Even in many churches, what is being taught is not the bold and convicting teachings of the bible, but things that are emotion-driven, like "you're a good person, and we're all good, and feel good about yourself and blah blah blah. Or the divine healing as in the original post. People want to be physically healed so they'll go to a "healing service." But do people want to be spiritually healed? Some yes, some no.

This is just the way many churches are moving toward now..shorter services, professional worship whether the people singing/playing are Christian or not, and "feel-good" teachings.

Nohm said...


To say that I don't accept many of the claims of the ACLJ is putting it lightly.

Having said that, do I think that there is discrimination against Christians that should be fought against, whether by the ACLJ or the ACLU? Absolutely, yes.

Do I think there is discrimination against all sorts of people, from atheists to african-americans to women to gays and so on, in greater percentages (per population) than discrimination against Christians? Yes.

Lastly, even by viewing the way they live their lives, you only see a small percentage of their lives, right? And you accept that you are unable to read their minds, right? Because that's the point I was trying to make.

Dorci said...

No, I can't read minds. I only go by what people say and the fact that they live their lives oppositional to what a life who loves God and is following Jesus would be. And because I'm a Christian and live within this realm of Christianity I see what goes on in the religious community. I see many who would say they are religious, and want the emotional aspect of that, but who don't want to just be changed on this inside by the Lord.

Dorci said...

Do you think the ACLJ is contriving those stories for the sake of a business? They are legitimate.

Nohm said...


No, I don't think they're contriving stories; I think they honestly believe that those are stories of discrimination.

I just don't believe that, in many of the cases ACLJ has been involved in, discrimination has actually occured. I point to their win-loss record as evidence of this; the judges seem to have agreed with me in many cases.

"I see many who would say they are religious, and want the emotional aspect of that, but who don't want to just be changed on this inside by the Lord."

So you can't read minds, yet you know what they want. I seriously doubt that anyone has said to you, "yes, I'm a christian, but I don't want to be changed by the Lord." Unless by "religious" you were talking about hindus, muslims, jews, etc... in which case, yes, of course they don't view Jesus as "the Lord".


Ok, I'm dropping that issue (about you making claims on what other people think, feel, and want), since I'm making absolutely no headway whatsoever.

Nohm said...

To clarify:

It's not necessarily my opinion that the ACLJ contrives cases.

It's my opinion that the ACLJ puts a large spin on cases.

Dorci said...

Funny how you'll argue with what I'm saying, but not about Wayne's original post, which is basically what I'm expounding on. That's okay. See ya.

Nohm said...

The only argument I could have against Wayne's orginal post is that I don't see "a world that now is in more rebellion than ever!"

But that's a theological claim, and I don't tend to argue theological claims. If you look back at my discussions with you, you'll see that I don't argue with any of your theological claims.

Wayne then writes about what Noah preached, and then what Alexander White once wrote.

Actually, looking at the post again, it appears that these are the words of Leonard Ravenhill, and not Wayne. So I wouldn't have an argument with Wayne about it, regardless. Also, Alexander White is not here for me to argue with him about reading people's minds.

I argued with you when it was you who was making claims about the thoughts and desires of others. If Ravenhill or White jump onto this comment thread, then I'll take my issues up with them.

But, generally, I avoid arguments about a person's personal theological beliefs, as I've avoided doing any arguments with you about your personal views on God and Jesus, as you can see above.

Wayne Dawg said...

Apologies to all for not staying at the helm of the ship -

It seems like all I have time to do lately is post and run.

I try to post something first thing in the morning before my day gets crazy and then the evenings are so full that I don't have time to check back.

Dorci - You are doing a great job defending and contending!

After this weekend I should be back to the helm on a more regular basis.

Nohm - All of the latest post are words from Ravenhill.

I don't think Alexander White makes such a broad claim that cannot be proved out -

As long as you are tickling the ears of a lot of believers and as long as you preach 'any ole' way to God you can almost be assured that there will be no opposition.

The moment you start preaching holiness, justice and the righteousness of God, people will start protesting intolerance.

Nohm, I know it is your opinion that the ACLJ puts a lot of spin on the cases they bring either to court or on the website/radio program, but I would like to know where the information is found to point to a 'win/loss' as proof of the cases where judges believe that the ACLJ brought these cases to court based on sensationalized discrimination.


Nohm said...


The "win/loss" record is something that a group of us researched a little while ago, but I'll have to look up again.

My point wasn't that I thought the judge believed that the ACLJ brought these cases to court based on sensationalized discrimination. I don't know if all of the judges thought that or not.

My point is that *I* believed that the ACLJ brought those cases to court based on sensationalized discrimination.

I believed (and believe) that due to reading the cases (granted, I'm not a lawyer) and viewing the ACLJ's win/loss record... my opinion is that if you lose more cases than you win, that means that most of your cases are not actual discrimination, at least in the judge's eyes (and that's who I go with).

Also, I don't assume that the ACLJ view what they do as "spin"; I have no problem believing that the ACLJ honestly believes that they are presenting the cases correctly and that these are actual cases of discrimination. In other words, I don't assume that the ACLJ is intentionally dishonest.

For example, what would you say has been the ACLJ's biggest "win" since their inception?

Lastly, I don't think this is correct, unless you can show me examples to support it: "The moment you start preaching holiness, justice and the righteousness of God, people will start protesting intolerance."

I don't think that most people are bothered with the concepts of the holiness, justice, and righteousness of God; it's when you give specific examples of this that are intolerant to other people that the protesting begins.

To take an extreme example, if the Fred Phelps clan simply said, "God is holy, just, and righteous, so you better get right with him or you're going to the hot place!", he'd be largely ignored by the people who would protest.

Because Fred Phelps then gives a very specific example of one of God's (supposed) opinions (i.e., that He hates a certain group of people) that the protests will begin.

Nohm said...

Hmmm, well, after a short look online (i.e., googling), it appears that the blog is no longer where we figured out the win/loss record. Also, it appears that the wayback machine was prevented, for whatever reason, from saving that site.

Which really sucks, because it took a lot of effort to compile that information. We had to go through every single ACLJ case we could find and record the decision.


Ok, until and unless I'm able to find that info, I can't support that claim, and I *really* don't feel like trying to compile all of that info again, especially since it would be just me doing it this time.

So, I'll just say that it's my personal experience that the ACLJ has lost more cases that it has won, which combined with my personal opinions after reading their cases, leads me to the opinion that the ACLJ (I'll say "unintentionally", to give them the benefit of the doubt) spins their cases to the media and public.

My main issue was that a claim was implied that the ACLU not only doesn't defend Christians, but that it fights against them... and I think that claim was easily debunked above.

Nohm said...

So, there is the Wikipedia page on the ACLJ, but it only lists 12 of their cases. The research we had done was all of their cases (that we could find) up to the time of our recording.

I'll also point out that one of the cases listed on the wikipedia page shows the ACLJ and ACLU working together, which again goes to the main point I was trying to make: not only does the ACLU not hate Christians, but that they'll defend them in discrimination cases.

In short, it's my personal opinion that the ACLU does not have a dog in the fight of the cultural war, but that the ACLJ does.

Nohm said...

Lastly, I'll say that I'll accept preaching of righteousness before I'll accept preaching of divine healing or prophecy, but that's just me.

That's probably why I took exception to the claim:

"You can preach divine healing, you can preach prophecy, you can preach anything, but you can't preach righteousness; people won't have it."