....I'll shamelessly plug my own story and article which are posted on the front page as further bits of "what we got" for your review.
I knew the man for 17 years. I know that not every single thing that came out of his mouth was a lie...if that had been the case, lots of us would not have become associated with TWI. I'll go on record as pointing out he told the truth plenty of times, but he used people and used the Bible to further his own aims. He made his claims sound like they made sense. He manipulated people and intimidated them. Each person's experience in TWI is different depending on many factors, but I suggest for those who want to know, that they seek out information about the man from those of us who knew him and read his books, like the PFAL book to see for themselves how he misused scripture and ranted about "unbelievers" among other things. He was a fundamentalist gone wild.
Remember this while you're making up your own mind:
"The fanatic inspires and breathes fear. It is the only tie that binds him to his fellow-man and God.
So afraid is he of doubt that he pushes it outside the law. Whether his dictatorship is intellectual or theocratic, he pretends to possess a unique and eternal truth.
Insist on a discussion, and he takes offense. He accepts questions only if he alone has the right to answer them.
It comes to this: The fanatic accepts only answers – his own – while his tolerant adversary prefers questions."
~ Elie Wiesel
One of the hallmarks of Protestant Fundamentalism is its claim of inerrant scripture. This is a relatively new idea about scripture, coming into play around 1920 when some theologians got upset about the critical and historical study of the documents contained in the Bible and put together about 12 long papers called The Fundamentals. (there are plenty of good books documenting the history of fundamentalism and you can Google The Fundamentals and find them online).
Historical study asks questions like: where did these documents come from, who wrote them, what kind of cultural influences did the writers inherit, etc. The theologians who wrote, The Fundamentals were afraid that such study undermined people's faith in God, Jesus, and salvation. I disagree with that, faith is faith, which by its nature does not depend on a book.
So inerrancy is a "new" claim about scriptures made from what I see as a defensive position. In my view, it stems from a fear that a study of the Bible's sources and different writers, claims, errors, etc. would bother people. I disagree. Plenty of Christians accept the imperfections in the texts while still believing in God, Jesus, salvation, etc.
So back to inerrancy. The history of fundamentalism shows that inerrancy is a man-made idea about scriptures and also of a God that has to be "perfect" which is a theological position and therefore unprovable; that, too, is a matter of faith.
The burden of showing inerrancy of the scriptures, therefore, lies with the authors of The Fundamentals but since they're not around, it falls to anyone making the assertion.
So I ask you, did VP ever prove that the entire KJV was without error or contradiction?
Did he or anyone else ever show how the entire Bible "fit" together perfectly?
A few more observations before I get off my soapbox:
1) VP and most other fundamentalists do not state which Bible they are referring to when they say it "must be perfect because God is perfect."
So the question to ask them is, "Which canon of the scripture is inerrant?"
2) Why is it so important that the scriptures be "perfect"?
Many people find value, inspiration, etc. from scriptures in spite of the various viewpoints or contradictions found in it, like the different perspectives of the gospel writers.
3) If God is without contradiction, how do you account for even this simple example of contradiction about the God of Israel (apparently the same one VP taught us about) . One minute he says don't kill - no exceptions are stated. Two chapters later it says he tells Israel to go for it.
Dueteronomy 5:17: "Thou shalt not kill"
Dueteronomy 7: 2: "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them...:
For those interested, more information about inerrancy is covered in most any book about fundamentalism from writers like James Barr, Ernest Sandeen, George Marsden, and in a book on Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - and Doesn't, by Stephen Prothero.
In closing, I'll just include this food for thought :
"...in addition to reading the Bible devotionally there is a value in reading it historically. To be sure, a historical reading can show many of the shortcomings of the Bible - discrepancies, contradictions, faulty claims, impossible statements, and harmful ideologies. But a historical reading can open up entirely new vistas in our understanding of the Bible and its multifarious messages."
~ Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. Pg.282.
Cheers!
Pen
great posts Penworks! i'll add that "Religious Literacy" book to my list of must-read along with some others you mentioned in the front page article.
and for the record i just want to add i really appreciate not only your input here but the that of other folks who contribute thought provoking ideas which does more than open up some new vistas in understanding - it is sort of a goad to hone one's analytical skills.
....in some respects coming to Grease Spot has had a major impact on what i believe....not only in questioning every aspect of PFAL and the whole TWI lifestyle/mindset but even going deeper to perhaps the very core of my belief system.....maybe some would consider it "damaged faith" but i guess i've gotten down to the essence of what makes by "faith" [or whatever you want to call it] tick.
it's really just a return to my childhood "faith" - with a love and awe that i held for science and discovering all about this world of ours - there was some kind of reasoning in my head that the God my parents and church referred to truly existed and was responsible for all that.
P.S. I should point out that The Fundamentals were published in the USA. There are probably other theologians in other countries who latched onto inerrancy, too. If I'm remembering correctly, E.W. Bullinger, from England (December 15, 1837 – June 6, 1913) may have been enamoured with the idea of inerrancy of the scriptures, too. He was from across the pond in England. As most TWI people know, his influence on VPW was huge.
Now, this is a conversation I would really enjoy watching unfold......but, I don't hold out a great deal of hope.
Hope for what?
I found this regarding Bullinger and inerrancy:
Most widely known for The Companion Bible--the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Critical, Explanatory, and Suggestive Notes and with 198 Appendixes (Kregel), Bullinger's copious notes contain vast amounts of technical information, typically overwhelming the average reader today. He clearly and faithfully believed that the original canon of Scripture was the inerrant Word of God. However, his views on biblical inspiration contained subtle error, which in turn caused anomalies in his views regarding interpretation. While he acknowledged the Holy Spirit as "guide and teacher of His own Word", he did not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the new-creation believer and thus the biblical doctrine of the Spirit's illumination was conspicuously absent from his theology.
That the points and issue which you have raised are going to be addressed by johniam in a fashion worthy of the subject! That may sound harsh...but I have yet to have any question or point addressed in any genuine or conversational(is that a word?) fashion. I have been called names though! :) insulted, and had my credibility challenged. Points addressed...not so much.
That the points and issue which you have raised are going to be addressed by johniam in a fashion worthy of the subject! That may sound harsh...
but I have yet to have any question or point addressed in any genuine or conversational(is that a word?) fashion. I have been called names though! :) insulted, and had my credibility challenged. Points addressed...not so much.
you could always try a different approach....like crafting a long detailed post analyzing the insults, names and credibility challenges thrown at you - and at the very end you slip in one or two points like "....oh by the way, PFAL sucks and vp was full of chit." .....oh wait - i've already tried that....never mind.
I have been called names though! :) insulted, and had my credibility challenged.
That's why I keep driving home the point ad hominem arguments never work.
First, they're a way of diverting attention away from you inability to address the issue.
Second, the show lack of rationality in your argument, why else would you have to make it personal.
I think the calling names and insulting is carrying on Saint Vic's legecy. After all, Saint Vic being a bully, could only teach others to be bullies too.
You can come up with many ways to say this and elaborate on it, but...
That's all you got.
Case dismissed.
That's a startling thing to say.
If this was from a new poster, I could excuse it as "they have read little" or
"someone misinformed them."
This black-and-white, you-are-against-me-or-for-me type of thinking is typical of
the dysfunctional thinking patterns twi foisted on its participants.
Some of us have rid ourselves of it, some of us have tried and failed, and some
of us are happy with living a simpler life where there are no nuances or anything
in between the extremes.
This position stated above is a bizarre caricature of a position, something nobody
has put forth. (Notice no references to anyone having actually SAID it in any
form, even "many ways" or "elaborated.")
How does one come to the place where posting this is "correct" after years of seeing
it obviously is non-factual? There's a few possibilities:
A) Lying is perfectly acceptable if the poster is the one doing it.
B) One can't see outside the mental "prison" of a framework that only holds extremes.
C) One can distort things if one is upset.
D) One is hallucinating completely and doesn't see the posts others make at all.
I find all the possibilities disappointing and sad.
That's why I keep driving home the point ad hominem arguments never work.
First, they're a way of diverting attention away from you inability to address the issue.
Second, the show lack of rationality in your argument, why else would you have to make it personal.
I think the calling names and insulting is carrying on Saint Vic's legecy. After all, Saint Vic being a bully, could only teach others to be bullies too.
One of the hallmarks of Protestant Fundamentalism is its claim of inerrant scripture. This is a relatively new idea about scripture, coming into play around 1920 when some theologians got upset about the critical and historical study of the documents contained in the Bible and put together about 12 long papers called The Fundamentals. (there are plenty of good books documenting the history of fundamentalism and you can Google The Fundamentals and find them online).
Historical study asks questions like: where did these documents come from, who wrote them, what kind of cultural influences did the writers inherit, etc. The theologians who wrote, The Fundamentals were afraid that such study undermined people's faith in God, Jesus, and salvation. I disagree with that, faith is faith, which by its nature does not depend on a book.
So inerrancy is a "new" claim about scriptures made from what I see as a defensive position. In my view, it stems from a fear that a study of the Bible's sources and different writers, claims, errors, etc. would bother people. I disagree. Plenty of Christians accept the imperfections in the texts while still believing in God, Jesus, salvation, etc.
So back to inerrancy. The history of fundamentalism shows that inerrancy is a man-made idea about scriptures and also of a God that has to be "perfect" which is a theological position and therefore unprovable; that, too, is a matter of faith.
Pen
Pen I'm just curious, have you ever read any works from F.F. Bruce, or Karl Barth? Specifically, Bruce's book entitled (I think) The Books and the Parchments?
So I ask you, did VP ever prove that the entire KJV was without error or contradiction?
Did he or anyone else ever show how the entire Bible "fit" together perfectly?
A few more observations before I get off my soapbox:
1) VP and most other fundamentalists do not state which Bible they are referring to when they say it "must be perfect because God is perfect."
So the question to ask them is, "Which canon of the scripture is inerrant?"
2) Why is it so important that the scriptures be "perfect"?
Many people find value, inspiration, etc. from scriptures in spite of the various viewpoints or contradictions found in it, like the different perspectives of the gospel writers.
Cheers!
Pen
I'm not a V.P. defender, but in my recollection V.P. said that no translation was the inerrant Word of God. He said the Word of God as it was originally given is inerrant. Of course, he considered himself to be the authority as to how the Word was originally given. So the Fundamentalists don't state the Bible to which they are referring because they don't deem any of them completely accurate.
How could the books of the bible fit together perfectly? Charlemagne made an arbitrary decision about what books to put into the bible.
He threw out many other works such as the Gnostic Gospels and, I'm not sure, but also the book of Wisdom used in the Catholic bible.
SoCrates
SoCrates, that just isn't true. Did you mean to say Constantine instead of Charlemagne? Charlemagne lived quite a bit after the canon of scripture was decided.
Canonization was decided by a council of bishops (The word "bishop" was different than what we think today when we hear that word). The decisions made were far from arbitrary. Their criterion was what was already commonly believed by those of the Christian faith. So, it wasn't as if the council invented books or dictated new doctrine. The same thing is true of the Trinity, by the way, but that's a different topic.
As far as the gnostic gospels, have you ever read a gnostic gospel? If you do, you can easily see why they would hot have been accepted as canon. They weren't "repressed" as the DaVinci Code would suggest. The gnostic gospels in many instances contradict what was written in what is considered canon. They were also written, or supposedly surfaced, after the death of the original 12 Apostles.
You know, of course, the books of the old testament were already set. The early Christians did not see a need for a written canon as long as the original 12 disciples were around. When it was apparent they were going to die prior to Christ's return, they started seeing the importance of written records. They needed to arrive at a consensus as to what would be accepted as doctrine.
So inerrancy is a "new" claim about scriptures made from what I see as a defensive position. In my view, it stems from a fear that a study of the Bible's sources and different writers, claims, errors, etc. would bother people. I disagree. Plenty of Christians accept the imperfections in the texts while still believing in God, Jesus, salvation, etc.
If God is not perfect, then Jesus was not perfect, then our very salvation, eternal life, access to God is also in question. I refuse to debate this. God IS perfect, our salvation is a done deal, and Jesus finished the works his Father gave him to do. Scripture validates this.
2 Peter 1:20,21 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy ghost.
That says inerrancy to me.
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.
If the scripture cannot be broken, then the scripture is inerrant.
We can and do debate what constitutes scripture. Example: the comma in 'verily I say unto you, today' or 'unto you today,' etc. VP has just as much right to reach conclusions as anybody else. I have as much right to choose him as a competent authority as others have to choose someone else.
quote: How does one come to the place where posting this is "correct" after years of seeing
it obviously is non-factual? There's a few possibilities:
A) Lying is perfectly acceptable if the poster is the one doing it.
B) One can't see outside the mental "prison" of a framework that only holds extremes.
C) One can distort things if one is upset.
D) One is hallucinating completely and doesn't see the posts others make at all.
I find all the possibilities disappointing and sad.
You keep attacking my credibility, yet you continue piling on as if the "integrity of GSC is always at stake". THAT is what is sad.
John, you've been posting here for a decade. Do you still not understand the concept of making your posts more readable? Use the quote function. Use the bold option. Use different colors. Use something. Anything. If you want people to take you seriously, make a serious effort to be more easily understood.
Is it possible Johniam could suffer from Asperger's syndrome?
I can't think why else he would be so obsessed with one principal idea (about VP) and so lacking in empathy to other people - and so quick to jump from one thing to another and never stay on topic. Aspergers syndrome
Sorry, that's a bit personal, John, but I really do not understand why you don't empathize and follow along with conversations.
If there's a reason, I think we'd all be glad to cut you some slack.
Penworks, good to see you on this thread. You don't seem to have been around for a while.
You can come up with many ways to say this and elaborate on it, but...
That's all you got.
Case dismissed.
False teaching is not a sin of the flesh...it issues from the heart. "...Ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" That means that they twist the meaning of grace into a pretext for sin. Wow, does that sound like a familiar theme that runs through the stories of sexual abuse given by VP's victims. Imparting "healing wholeness"...that was when he sinned in the flesh...his rationalization and justification using God and scripture as a pretext.....that was something else.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
40
46
44
Popular Days
Mar 11
55
Mar 29
34
Mar 16
23
Mar 21
22
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 39 posts
Ham 40 posts
waysider 46 posts
So_crates 44 posts
Popular Days
Mar 11 2011
55 posts
Mar 29 2011
34 posts
Mar 16 2011
23 posts
Mar 21 2011
22 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
"I could use the same argument when sex abuse victims tell their stories. I could say that in India it's still possible for a husband to find his wife not pleasing and have her burned. That twi sex ab
WordWolf
Sounds like you have a LOT of different "they's". Are "they" all one big "they", or are there many independent "theys" that lack specific names? "They" is INCREDIBLY vague- and thus INCREDIBLY CONV
waysider
Posted Images
soul searcher
Great post, Pen! Very enlightening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
great posts Penworks! i'll add that "Religious Literacy" book to my list of must-read along with some others you mentioned in the front page article.
and for the record i just want to add i really appreciate not only your input here but the that of other folks who contribute thought provoking ideas which does more than open up some new vistas in understanding - it is sort of a goad to hone one's analytical skills.
....in some respects coming to Grease Spot has had a major impact on what i believe....not only in questioning every aspect of PFAL and the whole TWI lifestyle/mindset but even going deeper to perhaps the very core of my belief system.....maybe some would consider it "damaged faith" but i guess i've gotten down to the essence of what makes by "faith" [or whatever you want to call it] tick.
it's really just a return to my childhood "faith" - with a love and awe that i held for science and discovering all about this world of ours - there was some kind of reasoning in my head that the God my parents and church referred to truly existed and was responsible for all that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
P.S. I should point out that The Fundamentals were published in the USA. There are probably other theologians in other countries who latched onto inerrancy, too. If I'm remembering correctly, E.W. Bullinger, from England (December 15, 1837 – June 6, 1913) may have been enamoured with the idea of inerrancy of the scriptures, too. He was from across the pond in England. As most TWI people know, his influence on VPW was huge.
http://en.wikipedia....E._W._Bullinger
This is a little more info on inerrancy that might help.
http://en.wikipedia....lical_inerrancy
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Now, this is a conversation I would really enjoy watching unfold......but, I don't hold out a great deal of hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hope for what?
I found this regarding Bullinger and inerrancy:
Most widely known for The Companion Bible--the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Critical, Explanatory, and Suggestive Notes and with 198 Appendixes (Kregel), Bullinger's copious notes contain vast amounts of technical information, typically overwhelming the average reader today. He clearly and faithfully believed that the original canon of Scripture was the inerrant Word of God. However, his views on biblical inspiration contained subtle error, which in turn caused anomalies in his views regarding interpretation. While he acknowledged the Holy Spirit as "guide and teacher of His own Word", he did not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the new-creation believer and thus the biblical doctrine of the Spirit's illumination was conspicuously absent from his theology.
http://withchrist.org/bullinger.htm
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
That the points and issue which you have raised are going to be addressed by johniam in a fashion worthy of the subject! That may sound harsh...but I have yet to have any question or point addressed in any genuine or conversational(is that a word?) fashion. I have been called names though! :) insulted, and had my credibility challenged. Points addressed...not so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
you could always try a different approach....like crafting a long detailed post analyzing the insults, names and credibility challenges thrown at you - and at the very end you slip in one or two points like "....oh by the way, PFAL sucks and vp was full of chit." .....oh wait - i've already tried that....never mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
That's why I keep driving home the point ad hominem arguments never work.
First, they're a way of diverting attention away from you inability to address the issue.
Second, the show lack of rationality in your argument, why else would you have to make it personal.
I think the calling names and insulting is carrying on Saint Vic's legecy. After all, Saint Vic being a bully, could only teach others to be bullies too.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's a startling thing to say.
If this was from a new poster, I could excuse it as "they have read little" or
"someone misinformed them."
This black-and-white, you-are-against-me-or-for-me type of thinking is typical of
the dysfunctional thinking patterns twi foisted on its participants.
Some of us have rid ourselves of it, some of us have tried and failed, and some
of us are happy with living a simpler life where there are no nuances or anything
in between the extremes.
This position stated above is a bizarre caricature of a position, something nobody
has put forth. (Notice no references to anyone having actually SAID it in any
form, even "many ways" or "elaborated.")
How does one come to the place where posting this is "correct" after years of seeing
it obviously is non-factual? There's a few possibilities:
A) Lying is perfectly acceptable if the poster is the one doing it.
B) One can't see outside the mental "prison" of a framework that only holds extremes.
C) One can distort things if one is upset.
D) One is hallucinating completely and doesn't see the posts others make at all.
I find all the possibilities disappointing and sad.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Do I have to say it?
According to your chosen belief system:
Renewed mind? Anyone?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Pen I'm just curious, have you ever read any works from F.F. Bruce, or Karl Barth? Specifically, Bruce's book entitled (I think) The Books and the Parchments?
Did I already ask you this before?
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I'm not a V.P. defender, but in my recollection V.P. said that no translation was the inerrant Word of God. He said the Word of God as it was originally given is inerrant. Of course, he considered himself to be the authority as to how the Word was originally given. So the Fundamentalists don't state the Bible to which they are referring because they don't deem any of them completely accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
How could the books of the bible fit together perfectly? Charlemagne made an arbitrary decision about what books to put into the bible.
He threw out many other works such as the Gnostic Gospels and, I'm not sure, but also the book of Wisdom used in the Catholic bible.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
SoCrates, that just isn't true. Did you mean to say Constantine instead of Charlemagne? Charlemagne lived quite a bit after the canon of scripture was decided.
Canonization was decided by a council of bishops (The word "bishop" was different than what we think today when we hear that word). The decisions made were far from arbitrary. Their criterion was what was already commonly believed by those of the Christian faith. So, it wasn't as if the council invented books or dictated new doctrine. The same thing is true of the Trinity, by the way, but that's a different topic.
As far as the gnostic gospels, have you ever read a gnostic gospel? If you do, you can easily see why they would hot have been accepted as canon. They weren't "repressed" as the DaVinci Code would suggest. The gnostic gospels in many instances contradict what was written in what is considered canon. They were also written, or supposedly surfaced, after the death of the original 12 Apostles.
You know, of course, the books of the old testament were already set. The early Christians did not see a need for a written canon as long as the original 12 disciples were around. When it was apparent they were going to die prior to Christ's return, they started seeing the importance of written records. They needed to arrive at a consensus as to what would be accepted as doctrine.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Thanks, BA.
I seemed to have gotten my rulers crossed. I appreciate the correction.
Yes, I read the Gospel of Thomas some time back. It was amusing.
Thanks. I wondered why we chose the books of the New Testement we chose.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
So inerrancy is a "new" claim about scriptures made from what I see as a defensive position. In my view, it stems from a fear that a study of the Bible's sources and different writers, claims, errors, etc. would bother people. I disagree. Plenty of Christians accept the imperfections in the texts while still believing in God, Jesus, salvation, etc.
If God is not perfect, then Jesus was not perfect, then our very salvation, eternal life, access to God is also in question. I refuse to debate this. God IS perfect, our salvation is a done deal, and Jesus finished the works his Father gave him to do. Scripture validates this.
2 Peter 1:20,21 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy ghost.
That says inerrancy to me.
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.
If the scripture cannot be broken, then the scripture is inerrant.
We can and do debate what constitutes scripture. Example: the comma in 'verily I say unto you, today' or 'unto you today,' etc. VP has just as much right to reach conclusions as anybody else. I have as much right to choose him as a competent authority as others have to choose someone else.
quote: How does one come to the place where posting this is "correct" after years of seeing
it obviously is non-factual? There's a few possibilities:
A) Lying is perfectly acceptable if the poster is the one doing it.
B) One can't see outside the mental "prison" of a framework that only holds extremes.
C) One can distort things if one is upset.
D) One is hallucinating completely and doesn't see the posts others make at all.
I find all the possibilities disappointing and sad.
You keep attacking my credibility, yet you continue piling on as if the "integrity of GSC is always at stake". THAT is what is sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
According to your chosen belief system:
If you believe people are attacking your credibility, they are attacking your credibility. But its your negative believing causing it
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
John, you've been posting here for a decade. Do you still not understand the concept of making your posts more readable? Use the quote function. Use the bold option. Use different colors. Use something. Anything. If you want people to take you seriously, make a serious effort to be more easily understood.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
(shakes head sorrowfully)
Is it possible Johniam could suffer from Asperger's syndrome?
I can't think why else he would be so obsessed with one principal idea (about VP) and so lacking in empathy to other people - and so quick to jump from one thing to another and never stay on topic. Aspergers syndrome
Sorry, that's a bit personal, John, but I really do not understand why you don't empathize and follow along with conversations.
If there's a reason, I think we'd all be glad to cut you some slack.
Penworks, good to see you on this thread. You don't seem to have been around for a while.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oh, please.
Over a decade, and you STILL don't know how the internet works?
If you post ridiculous tripe, people will "call you" on it.
As they should.
Look-
if I posted some ridiculous nonsense without supporting it, I'd get replies pretty fast.
The nicer posts would insist on some evidence to support my claim.
The rest of the posts would show my claim was silly.
If I said
"vpw used to dress in women's clothing at the SNS, and preferred to be called "Sapphire"
when he was dressed up,"
you'd be all over that in a second.
The same is true of everyone, all over cyberspace.
But you seem to think you're special and get special treatment.
That would be cute if THAT wasn't sad also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i thought the case was closed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The sad reality is that the case is never closed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
There's your error: the case was never closed, it was dismissed. So a mistrial can be declared.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
False teaching is not a sin of the flesh...it issues from the heart. "...Ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" That means that they twist the meaning of grace into a pretext for sin. Wow, does that sound like a familiar theme that runs through the stories of sexual abuse given by VP's victims. Imparting "healing wholeness"...that was when he sinned in the flesh...his rationalization and justification using God and scripture as a pretext.....that was something else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pharisees saw the work of The Holy Spirit in Jesus when He did miracles.....and they attributed it to Satan.
Saying Jesus of the church (paraphrased) is a devil spirit....is just another way to basically say the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.