Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s Woman, Then He’s a Woman’

[William Tell]

I'm a cisgendered penguin. Accept me for who I am. I can't be taxed because I'm not human. Kaaaaaw

I assume you were hatched that way?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Many Reconstructionists have supported Santorum, like Douglas Wilson in the last election.

The Reconstructionists always struck me as a bit conflicted, holding up the banner of Calvinism while voting for idolaters, particularly ones with ties to hotbeds of semi-pelgianism like the Opus Dei. I guess it goes with tending towards Biblicism rather than adhering to subordinate confessional standards. Either way, I think Wilson took a very bad position on that one.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

Well-played. It's like you're my brother from another mother...or something along those lines.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The Reconstructionists always struck me as a bit conflicted, holding up the banner of Calvinism while voting for idolaters, particularly ones with ties to hotbeds of semi-pelgianism like the Opus Dei. I guess it goes with tending towards Biblicism rather than adhering to subordinate confessional standards. Either way, I think Wilson took a very bad position on that one.

The thing is, they don't even hold up what can historically be called Calvinism. If Calvinism is what they say it is, count me out. I'll stick with the Bible.

 

[dude58677]

I guess Bruce Jenner can throw his gold medal in the trash can because by his logic everyone has won the gold medal given that everyone wants to win a gold medal.

 

[osan]

Grammar Nazi oops. In the above, 'who' is the subject of the subclause and is therefore appropriate. Whom is used as an object.

to exemplify, used as a subclause like above:

What I really want to know is, who is doing what to whom?

Who is the subject, whom is the object. The same applies even to subclauses like the one in question.

In that post, Cajun was correct in her use of 'who.'

Me personally, I don't care. But I do admit that I get a chuckle out of grammar naziing gone wrong.

I don't think I am wrong Gunny. I will explain. The original statement:

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from.

Note the hanging preposition, "from". The grammatically correct form would be:

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering from whom it's coming.

The preposition "from" objectifies "who", rendering the proper form to "whom".

I may be wrong on this. I am, after all GrammarNAZI, not always GrammarExpert.

A good rule of thumb is that when "who" is used with a modifying preposition, the proper form becomes "whom".

Of WHOM do you speak?

To WHOM do you refer?

With WHOM are you attending?

For WHOM do you work?

Under WHOM are you secretary?

By WHOM do you claim authority?

And so on.

But if I am wrong, I am wrong.

 

[osan]

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

I will turn in the badge, but please and for the sake of mercy allow me my pistol that I may atone for my sins at the foot of my bed.

Wait a minute... did you say "PAID" leave?

Um... OK, here's the gun... I'll be in Aruba if anyone needs me.

 

[pcosmar]

Santorum on Bruce Jenner

Conjures an image that belongs in Hot topics. (or not at all)

 

[hells_unicorn]

The thing is, they don't even hold up what can historically be called Calvinism. If Calvinism is what they say it is, count me out. I'll stick with the Bible.

I think that Rousas Rushdoony had a fairly strong grasp of biblical law, but he struggled applying it consistently. I generally have more in common with the politics of some of the Reconstructionists than I do with the mainstream GOP, but they run into serious trouble in a couple areas, which is why I never identified as one. The main point that they miss the boat on is the historical nature of the Christian faith. Calvin's writings, along with Luther's, Knox's, and the Synods and Assemblies of the Presbyterian and German/Dutch/Other Reformed Churches has a testimonial character to them that provides very beneficial guidance to those trying to comprehend the scriptures and also how to avoid errors. The same basically holds true for pre-Reformation and Early Church writers, though as with any teaching authority subordinate to scripture, they are naturally not infallible, though I would argue that understanding them is of a hypothetical necessity if one wishes to engage in theological combat with the adversaries of the faith.

Probably the biggest commonality I have with the Reconstructionists is their Post-Millennial eschatology. I tend to have an optimistic view of what the future will hold for the church, but I take more of a Revivalist position than a Dominionist one when it comes to implementation.

 

[cajuncocoa]

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

This. GrammarNazi must acknowledge that I left a preposition dangling in my OP sentence.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess Bruce Jenner can throw his gold medal in the trash can because by his logic everyone has won the gold medal given that everyone wants to win a gold medal.

Obviously his medals are invalid as he competed in the men's category.

 

[dude58677]

Obviously his medals are invalid as he competed in the men's category.

That's not what I meant. So many people dream of winning a gold medal so doesn't that make all these people gold medalists? Every Olympian and every aspiring athlete is a gold medalist given that they dream of winning the gold. By his logic, why even have competition if everyone is a gold medalist?

 

[69360]

Maybe Frothy thinks Bruce is purty? That would explain a lot.

 

[erowe1]

I wonder what Jenner's opinion of santorum is.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[osan]

I'll grammar NAZI ya right back. This is one of those rather rare instances in which word order allows a speaker/writer to be freer with declension. If the order was [...]considering from whom it's coming[...], I would agree. cajun's use of the nominative is, IMHO, grammatically correct. Also, "whom" is more of a bookism nowadays (for better or for worse). It has all but gone the way of "thou". Since forums are more like spoken language than written(in practice), "who" is a logical choice.

So far as GrammarNAZI knows, and GrammarNAZI may be wrong, hanging prepositions are never correct even though they are used all the time, even by GrammarNAZI on occasion. Thou may'st be correct... or perhaps thou art in error... GrammarNAZI may have to go look this shit up.

Sieg Fukkineth HEIL!​ Or as GrammarNAZI likes to take license with spelling: Zieg Fukkineth HEIL!, or "ZFH" for short.

 

[osan]

Santorum on Bruce Jenner

Conjures an image that belongs in Hot topics. (or not at all)

Oh sweet Jesus... My mind's eye just went blind.

Thanks a lot.

 

[osan]

I wonder what Jenner's opinion of santorum is.

Ask, but I warn you to don a wetsuit before doing so.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think that Rousas Rushdoony had a fairly strong grasp of biblical law, but he struggled applying it consistently. I generally have more in common with the politics of some of the Reconstructionists than I do with the mainstream GOP, but they run into serious trouble in a couple areas, which is why I never identified as one. The main point that they miss the boat on is the historical nature of the Christian faith. Calvin's writings, along with Luther's, Knox's, and the Synods and Assemblies of the Presbyterian and German/Dutch/Other Reformed Churches has a testimonial character to them that provides very beneficial guidance to those trying to comprehend the scriptures and also how to avoid errors. The same basically holds true for pre-Reformation and Early Church writers, though as with any teaching authority subordinate to scripture, they are naturally not infallible, though I would argue that understanding them is of a hypothetical necessity if one wishes to engage in theological combat with the adversaries of the faith.

Probably the biggest commonality I have with the Reconstructionists is their Post-Millennial eschatology. I tend to have an optimistic view of what the future will hold for the church, but I take more of a Revivalist position than a Dominionist one when it comes to implementation.

I like a lot of what you said here. I am more amillenial because of 1st Timothy 3. But I don't think that Reconstructionists rightly divide grace and law. I was a Reconstructionist for many years.

 

[amy31416]

I just decided that I'm a man.