Doug Phillips is a Tool & Vision Forum is Dead - Part 7

[Palimpsest]

Maxwell: Perhaps he thought you were Westchamps! Or a Westchamps type.

Nolan is internet savvy enough to know that FJ is well aware of his FB page. We know he reads here so he will get your message sometime. I'm thinking he wouldn't have updated his profile pic without knowing we would talk about it. He's also on his honeymoon right now. Give the guy a break!:)

[SamuraiKatz]

Maxwell: Perhaps he thought you were Westchamps! Or a Westchamps type.

Nolan is internet savvy enough to know that FJ is well aware of his FB page. We know he reads here so he will get your message sometime. I'm thinking he wouldn't have updated his profile pic without knowing we would talk about it. He's also on his honeymoon right now. Give the guy a break!:)

Many congratulations to the happy couple.

[snarkopolis]

Can you please point out where the Bible says that being wealthy, having nice possessions, and being in a position of authority/power are things that Christians should not have? I'm not talking about Doug Phillips here, I'm just asking in general. You seem to be somehow equating money/possessions/power with patriarchy=affair.

No, just pointing out that all the UBER CHRISTIAN PATRIARCHS and Doug Phillips (is a Tool) have the same things and the same traits. They have power, influence, money, possessions; something that the guy they claim to be a representative of, you know JESUS CHRIST, eschewed. Seems JC was more interested in hanging out with the poor, healing people, sharing, you know, treating his brother as he wished to be treated. So in MY view, these uberchristians are as christian as the people they dump on. In fact there is no difference between them and many men who are in the same position of power and influence. I can name them if you want; all cheaters on their wives, liars to their followers, and definitely not CHRISTIANS. But then neither is Doug.

[FundieWatcher]

We get it westchamps. You are a great Christian patriarchal man. And you care what we think...why? While you are wasting time here your wife might be in the next room forming her own opinion and your daughter upstairs thinking about going to college. So you best get off here and deal that. You were shocked that the people on snark forum could get nasty? I don't see any reason to believe the Christian bible is the word of God. I don't hate God. You can't hate something you are not sure exists. You are looking for information here? Really? That's like looking for information in a tabloid. You know Doug? Why don't you call him for information?

[Palimpsest]

We get it westchamps. You are a great Christian patriarchal man. And you care what we think...why? While you are wasting time here your wife might be in the next room forming her own opinion and your daughter upstairs thinking about going to college. So you best get off here and deal that. You were shocked that the people on snark forum could get nasty? I don't see any reason to believe the Christian bible is the word of God. I don't hate God. You can't hate something you are not sure exists. You are looking for information here? Really? That's like looking for information in a tabloid. You know Doug? Why don't you call him for information?

Wow, Fundiewatcher, you just took a few words off the ends of my fingertips. Many thanks!

I'm amazed that Westchamps seems to think that we are the National Enquirer. We don't exactly break Fundie scandals here on FJ. We just pick up crumbs that Fundies let drop in public fora and critique them.

Westchamps seemed really annoyed that he had to read a lot of our snarky cussing stuff to get nuggets of information. Why did he not just pick up the phone? Was it the Scotty Brown "code of silence" that prevented him from getting info from real (non-dirty word) sources?

I'm still waiting, Westchamps, to get the answers to my questions to you. Straight answers, not just Fundie Bingo answers about "character" and "fruit" and how we are "demons" and so on. Have you used "walk with the LORD" yet? If not, you are slipping.

Damn, these Fundie invaders bore me. Been there and done that too many times. I'm getting old.

That said, I'm very grateful for the FJers who sling bible quotes right back at them. I could do it, but my patience with fools is very limited these days.

[Maxwell]

Maxwell: Perhaps he thought you were Westchamps! Or a Westchamps type.

Nolan is internet savvy enough to know that FJ is well aware of his FB page. We know he reads here so he will get your message sometime. I'm thinking he wouldn't have updated his profile pic without knowing we would talk about it. He's also on his honeymoon right now. Give the guy a break!:)

Give him a break!?!? He's checking FB and blocking people so he not THAT preoccupied. :D

I'm just as anonymous on FB (sorta forgot that when I sent the request) so I'm really not surprised (or offended). Funny, as the only reason I friended him was to congratulate them and wish them well -- I had no other reason -- AND, I thought it best to do that directly rather than plaster it all over FJ. The best laid plans...

Ah well, if he reads it here, mission accomplished.

Nolan, there is a friend request from a Mr. Slarti Bartfast awaiting you. I'll not be upset if you don't accept it as you have no reason to and it's purpose has already been served. I'd be honored it you'd unblock me so I an stalk you on occasion. ;)

[Palimpsest]

Give him a break!?!? He's checking FB and blocking people so he not THAT preoccupied. :D

I'm just as anonymous on FB (sorta forgot that when I sent the request) so I'm really not surprised (or offended). Funny, as the only reason I friended him was to congratulate them and wish them well -- I had no other reason -- AND, I thought it best to do that directly rather than plaster it all over FJ. The best laid plans...

Ah well, if he reads it here, mission accomplished.

Nolan, there is a friend request from a Mr. Slarti Bartfast awaiting you. I'll not be upset if you don't accept it as you have no reason to and it's purpose has already been served. I'd be honored it you'd unblock me so I an stalk you on occasion. ;)

Snorting with unladylike laughter at the bolded name above and a high-five on the "stalk on occasion."

And still standing by my own (perhaps strange) decision not to "friend" anyone on FB that I have not actually met in person. I get enough gossip from public stuff. :lol:

[westchamps]

You pointed out that non-Patriarchal people have affairs, as if we somehow believed that wasn't possible. If I remember correctly, you even accused us of thinking that (I'm not going to back for the quote now -- correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think that's true of anyone here.

People from any background can have affairs. But Patriarchy does set up an entire society in which men lead and women submit and obey, in which men are touted as leaders, regardless of their qualifications or charisma. This man was the head of an entire Patriarchal community, and to some, very charismatic.

Extramarital affairs are no more likely to happen in a "patriarchal" church than they are in any other setting. To suggest otherwise is fiction.

And about that whole "submit and obey" thing. You're not supposed to submit to someone else's husband. You know, a little common sense goes a long way here. You make it sound like the churches with proponents of "patriarchy" are like a big harem of women who must "submit and obey" the pastor at his whim for any "need" he might have, real or imagined. That is absurd. You've let your imagination run wild.

[westchamps]

Re: bolded. Hon - maybe you have poor reading comprehension (fundies often do) or perhaps you haven't been reading quite as carefully as you imply.

Whatever the case, allow me to direct your oh-so-discerning eyes at the TOU (http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15380), particularly the following:

So, let me make sure I've got this straight: Christians at this forum who have engaged in coarse, ribald, very un-Christian like language and discussion, are totally in the clear because the Terms of Registration at this forum says those things are a-ok? That whole "acting like you're actually a Christian" thing is so 5 minutes ago. As long as you're not breaking any of the forum rules, you're good to go? Is that about the gist of things?

Hon - I expect coarse language from those of you who aren't Christians, but I don't expect it from those who profess to be Christians, whether they are fundamentalist or not.

[tropaka]

oh my - Christians do indeed swear - and it doesn't make them any less Christian. I've heard some pretty saucy language out of the mouth of priests, to be sure.

Here's my take. When you are are raised in a church that focuses on men as the leaders in their homes etc, and you have a charismatic/attractive leader, and said leader shows an interest in you, there is a huge imbalance of power and spiritual abuse going on, no matter how "willing" a young lady may seem.

[FundieWatcher]

No westchamp. The can curse, Christian or not. And it is OK because the forum rules say it is. You are not the boss of this. :) And why would they submit to you, you are not their husband. (Lucky them)

[westchamps]

And what "excellent quality re-prints of old books" would these be? By any chance would these be the absolutely sick & perverted Elsie Dinsmore series, complete with its glowing portrayal of African-American slavery? Or, would these books you're referring to be the G.A. Henty books, which are paeans to white male superiority, with stuff like the following (from Sheer Pluck):

Have you ever even read a G.A. Henty book? I seriously doubt it. I have read a fair number and my children have read even more, and I don't recall a single one that spoke slightingly of blacks. If it did, it certainly was not a central theme of the book and not worth my remembrance.

But since you seem eager to take literature from authors (a British one at that) 150+ years removed from the present context of race relations in America in order to try and denigrate Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, how about we look at an actual quote from an American politician a few people have heard of and many people in America admire to this day (including black people): "....If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862

Doug reportedly alienated Beall from her family at or shortly after their marriage. If this is true, would you call this behavior godly/Christian/manly or whatever adjective you "Christian" men like to apply to yourselves?

I'm under the impression that Beall didn't have a great relationship with her family even before she married Doug. I'm also under the impression that I probably have that information from a little closer to the original source than what you think you know.

[J'ean Skirt]

Extramarital affairs are no more likely to happen in a "patriarchal" church than they are in any other setting. To suggest otherwise is fiction.

Citation needed for that.

In fact, Conservative marriages are more likely to fail than liberal marriages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

According to researchers who took into account race, income and other factors, marriage and fertility trends that are common among conservative Protestants — younger marriage, more kids, less higher education — affect all people in areas most populated by conservative Protestants, no matter their personal religious affiliation.

“Conservative Protestant community norms and the institutions they create seem to increase divorce risk,†researchers say in the study.

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/imp ... rce-rates/

Glass and Levchak believe that [high divorce rates come] from living in a cultural climate where most people expect to marry young and there is little support from schools or community institutions for young people to get more education and postpone marriage and children. Abstinence-only education, restrictions on the availability of birth control and abortion, support for marriage as the resolution of unexpected pregnancies, and distrust of secular education (especially higher education) among the populace in religiously conservative counties work to create an environment where young people of every religious belief – or none – tend not to pursue higher education or job training, and instead to engage in early marriage and child-bearing.

And about that whole "submit and obey" thing. You're not supposed to submit to someone else's husband. You know, a little common sense goes a long way here. You make it sound like the churches with proponents of "patriarchy" are like a big harem of women who must "submit and obey" the pastor at his whim for any "need" he might have, real or imagined. That is absurd. You've let your imagination run wild.

Actually, isn't that what happened here? DPiaT abused his position as a leader and an elder to coerce a young woman into an inappropriate relationship? Even more, because his wife was directed and instructed to submit to him, she did not have the authority to tell him to knock that shit off. The whole culture of patriarchy sets up a situation where men (husbands in particular) can do whatever they want and their wives have zero recourse to insist they change their behavior. Wives can "submit more" or "pray harder" but because they are put in the submissive role, the husband can ignore her.

Patriarchy is part of the problem because it systemically teaches women that they have zero power and authority in their marriage. All they can do is pray and submit.

In more liberal marriages, however, wives don't have to sit passively by listening to her husband and his mistress and his mistress' parents talk about how her husband has had an affair. She can act and tell her husband his behavior is unacceptable and that he makes a choice. Either he lives by the vows he made to her and the teachings he has been preaching or she leaves.

It is patriarchy that facilitated Doug's ability to commit adultery without any consequences.

(Edit because I do know how to construct possessives)

[Palimpsest]

So, let me make sure I've got this straight: Christians at this forum who have engaged in coarse, ribald, very un-Christian like language and discussion, are totally in the clear because the Terms of Registration at this forum says those things are a-ok? That whole "acting like you're actually a Christian" thing is so 5 minutes ago. As long as you're not breaking any of the forum rules, you're good to go? Is that about the gist of things?

What? You are still fixated on (so called and by your mealy-mouthed standards) un-Christian language while avoiding all substantive issues with every fiber of your cowardly little being. Answer the questions, dimwit!

I bite my thumb at you!

[FundieWatcher]

Have you ever even read a G.A. Henty book? I seriously doubt it. I have read a fair number and my children have read even more, and I don't recall a single one that spoke slightingly of blacks. If it did, it certainly was not a central theme of the book and not worth my remembrance.

But since you seem eager to take literature from authors (a British one at that) 150+ years removed from the present context of race relations in America in order to try and denigrate Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, how about we look at an actual quote from an American politician a few people have heard of and many people in America admire to this day (including black people): "....If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862

I'm under the impression that Beall didn't have a great relationship with her family even before she married Doug. I'm also under the impression that I probably have that information from a little closer to the original source than what you think you know.

You have so much inside information. Yet here you are looking for facts. Or gossip. And you are virtually surrounded by evil feminist and atheists. Poor you.

[Want More Babies]

Hon - I expect coarse language from those of you who aren't Christians, but I don't expect it from those who profess to be Christians, whether they are fundamentalist or not.

Well, well, we now know what westchamps thinks of Mark Driscoll. :lol: Funny how MD seems to get a pass from fundies in that regard.

[westchamps]

The guy who was struck dead for withholding part of the proceeds from the sale of his property from the Church collective was Ananias. His wife Sapphira was also struck dead for repeating his lie to Peter a few hours later. That story scared the daylights out of me as a child.

So were they struck dead because of the money or because they lied about it?

I'm not surprised that Westchamp is ignorant about these New Testament stories.

I'm not, but I would like to know what practical application this story has to Christians today? Are we to pool all our money and give it to the apostles? I think the more salient takeaway is that God will not be mocked.

In my experience, many of these Patriarchal "Christian" Dominionists also subscribe to Prosperity Theology.

Really? I'd love to hear about your experience on this. Because in my experience, that is a load of pure, unadulterated nonsense. I have never, ever heard anything come out of Doug Phillips' mouth that remotely resembles something that Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland or Kenneth Hagin preaches about Christian "prosperity".

They far prefer cherry-picking texts from the Old Testament to fit their beliefs to actually reading the Gospel. I forget where I saw this -- perhaps it was CnD or Nolan who said that Doug Phillips rarely preached from the Gospels.

I have a few questions for Westchamp:

- Do you think that Doug has repented from his sin? - I hope so, but I doubt it, based upon his actions since being found out. You have no way of knowing the answer, either.

- What do you think about Doug's threatening legal action against 3 of the men that confronted him? - I think it is wrong, sinful, un-Biblical and it is probably the #1 indicator to me, personally, that makes me question whether he has truly repented of his sin.

- What would you consider evidence that Doug has truly repented from his sin? - Withdrawing his legal complaint against said 3 men. For starters. Beyond that, it is between Doug and God and not for us to know.

- If Doug recreates his business in the future will you continue to buy his products? - Possibly, I can't say for sure right now. If God can forgive Doug, who am I to withhold forgiveness from him if he is truly repentant?

- When, if ever, do you think Doug will return to a pastoral position? - Hopefully never. I think he has disqualified himself from future pastoral ministry. That doesn't mean he can't be truly repentant and try to once again further the principles that he used to believe in but has currently betrayed.

Because many of you are laboring under a largely caricatured impression of fundamentalist Christian families. And because Doug Phillips' sin doesn't invalidate Biblical teaching, it only invalidates him.

[westchamps]

This quote pissed me off more than the rest of the westchamps holier-than-thou rant about how little people outside of him understand the true nature of DPIAT. So, infidelity is the least bad if you have a wife and kids who are just so-so? By whose standards are we judging which women and children make infidelity worse?

And when your career is based on principles related to fidelity, that makes it worse. Okay, check.

And when your reputation is based on principles opposed to infidelity. (Um...aren't most reputations?!)

Good grief. Stop looking for offense around every corner. I was speaking specifically of Doug's wife and kids. But if it makes you feel better if I had said a man with any wife and kids, then consider it said. :roll:

[tropaka]

Because many of you are laboring under a largely caricatured impression of fundamentalist Christian families. And because Doug Phillips' sin doesn't invalidate Biblical teaching, it only invalidates him.

T

Before Phillips was outed as a cheating bastard, it's long been pointed out that many of the views he espoused weren't especially biblical or Christ focused. The claptrap about women being confined to home/parenting etc adds insult to injury in this whole affair/abuse of power mess.

[westchamps]

OH FFS.

You know better than this--or should if you've read your Bible. And I SHOULD know better than to actually craft an adequate response, but, apparently I don't. (Power is a separate discussion, so we'll just deal w/ the bolded)

Places the New Testament decries being wealthy/having nice possessions. There are more--lots more, but I chose those that were very clearly condemnations of wealth, rather than condemnation of failing to give (although they're part and parcel of the same discussion):

From Luke 3:10-14 (NIV)

“What should we do then?†the crowd asked.

John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.â€

Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,†they asked, “what should we do?â€

“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,†he told them.

Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?â€

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.â€

James 5:1-5 (NIV)

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.

Luke 16:13

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.â€

Matthew 6:21

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 19:21-23

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â€

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.â€

THere are more, these are the ones I knew to look up off the top of my head.

As I said previously, the Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil. It says the love of money is the root of all evil, which most of the scriptures you posted above demonstrate very well.

So, what is the Bible-mandated "cut-off" for when you have too much money? I don't recall seeing anything about that in the Bible.

It's not about money and possessions. It's about the love of money and possessions, at the expense of love for God.

And what exactly did you intend for the "FFS" to mean? From your posting of scripture "off the top of your head", I'm assuming you consider yourself to be a Christian. Do you think the "usual" meaning for "FFS" is edifying language for a Christian to be using, especially in conversation with another Christian?

[westchamps]

In case westchamps missed what has already been pointed out - -

When Doug was impressing you with his oh-so-godly devotion to his wife and family and god, he was already actively breaking his vows and abusing his position of authority by engaging in a sexual relationship with the unpaid household help.

Nope, I didn't miss people jumping to unjustified, and in this case, 100% incorrect, conclusions. Doug didn't even know this girl when I was good friends with he and Beall.

[lemonhead]

Because many of you are laboring under a largely caricatured impression of fundamentalist Christian families. And because Doug Phillips' sin doesn't invalidate Biblical teaching, it only invalidates him.

I just have to note that many of us here--myself included--grew up in fundamentalist Christian families, and what we see in BCA and Dougie is sadly not "largely caricatured." Rather, it is largely representative of our experiences, but admittedly wrapped up in an abundance of soaring cellos and mazel tovs.

But my experience is mostly with Gothardism, not Dougie, so I will go back to lurking on this thread.

[westchamps]

You answered your own question with one of your paragraphs further below: "they were enthusiastic about their interests and causes (which often lined up with mine). They didn't sit and pontificate -- they got out and did things, including some very kind and useful things."

As I said, I really don't. Not that I haven't been pulled in by people in the past -- not so much for embellishing, as for other charismatic qualities.

I was brought up by very down-to-earth, honest parents. That created a view of bloviaters and embellishers that may seem contradictory at first. I was very savvy about some, and a ready victim for others.

If the style of the puffed-up person, and the things they espoused, were similar to those of the people in our everyday life (or TV preachers and other public personalities) whose conceit my parents had discussed, I learned to avoid them.

But I've met people who had a combination of traits that I didn't realize were as toxic, and it took me longer to realize they were harmful. Because of my straightforward parents, I had a tendency to assume people were saying what they meant, and had no hidden agenda or unspoken needs.

So I can tell you how I got pulled in by some people -- they were not embellishers, but they were enthusiastic about their interests and causes (which often lined up with mine). They didn't sit and pontificate -- they got out and did things, including some very kind and useful things.

But I gradually realized that they were willing to use others and break rules that got in their way, always had to be the center of attention (or the victim of perceived "persecution"), and voraciously in need of ego-feed. Some could turn out an official apology, as Doug did, when they were caught and had no choice -- some never admitted that anything was their fault or responsibility.

One hard lesson I had to accept is that they had always been that way, and will probably always be that way. Some, I think, really had no idea why what they did was wrong. I admit I was pulled in by them, when I was younger, but I try to steer clear of them now.

So, as someone who has been through similar disappointments, but who sees Doug as someone full of red flags and easy to see through (in fact, as a bizarre combination of truly heinous and really ridiculous), I am very curious as to the details of what made the Early Doug different, in your eyes.

And that still leaves me with curiosity about what the everyday, detailed differences are. I have a hard time imagining Doug being truly different in years past. I think he just didn't have the means and opportunity to let the megalomania flower.

That's because you no more know him now than you knew him then.

Maybe you were young and innocent and pulled in by a con man. That's no crime, and nothing to be ashamed of. But your current behavior - full of puffed-up self-righteousness, defining Christianity by things like not being "coarse," etc., seems to be very reminiscent of Doug - recent Doug, if you insist there is a difference.

I don't consider expecting Christians to act like Christians to be "puffed-up", and I'm interested to know that you think being "coarse" is okay for Christians.

(edited for clarity)

[fundiefan]

Wow. Look at all you uppity wimmen getting put in your place for your use of naughty words. I won't engage the man because I am not worthy but it's getting fun to watch him continually go back to harping on words. Any time he tries to say something else I can almost see the steam coming from his ears because it goes against everything he believes to have to engage and discuss with women. And non Christian women at that.

For fucks sake.

[westchamps]

Why? It has nothing to do with what I was saying. As I said, the only definition I know of for being Christian is believing that Jesus was not just a man -- that he was divine. I thought that made it clear that I don't think that having money in any amount makes someone not a Christian.

It is not my place to judge others for their "level" of Christianity (FTR, I've never been Christian, if that matters to you) - you seem to be doing so, and doing so for something that I don't remember Jesus caring about, and that's what I was pointing out.

In what way? Cursing? Discussing sex? Being angry about hypocrisy in someone who claims to be a spiritual leader (hmmmm, that last part reminds me of someone . . . )?

It may not appeal to you, but how does it make people less Christian?

And? This quote seems to make you feel secure that you are a True Christian, and the people here (all of them? some of them? only the ones who are "coarse?" only the Catholics? details, please) who identify as Christian are not.

How about admitting that the comment you made was a potshot, something you are used to doing in a setting where, if someone uses a "bad word," you can say "well, you are hardly being Christian!" and everyone agrees.

Again, I'm no expert, but I don't think you get to decide what is "Christian."

But, if one was going to choose one aspect of life as a possible indication that one (whether Christian or not) is not doing their best to emulate Jesus, I just found it ironic that you chose "coarseness," whatever you meant by that. As others who know their Bible better than I have pointed out, Jesus had a lot to say about the dangers of wealth. Did he say anything specific about being "coarse?"

Ephesians 5:4

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

Ephesians 4:29

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Colossians 3:8-10

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Matthew 12:37

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Matthew 15:10-11

And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.â€

2 Timothy 2:16

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness

James 3:10

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

Proverbs 11:13

Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.