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

[Curious]

Thanks for your concern. I don't give up easy. They're alternately all planning to ban me, ignore me or eat me, and are all in high dudgeon. I think it's kind of funny, actually. Because of the reaction, they're making me actually want to stick around a while. :lol:

FTR, we aren't "all" planning to do anything to you. Some people are wishing for certain things to happen or taking certain actions (putting you on ignore). We are a bunch of INDIVIDUAL members here and each person handles their account as they see fit.

It's pretty hard to get banned here, sometimes that is a double edged sword :wink-kitty:

[theologygeek]

The scope of this rant is literalists.

It never ends. Another, "Trew Christian" rolls in. Actually, just insert whatever fundamentalist religion in there because it all sounds the same. :roll: To some, the Bible is the word of god and infallible, to others, it's the Koran and the prophet Mohammed through the Hadith, again the word of Allah, again infallible etc... Each believes they have the one right answer, the one right way. And they battle each other and kill each other for centuries upon centuries to prove it. It is absurd, repetitive, and downright dangerous.

When pointed out to this "Trew Christian" he is not stoning people, or the plain language references to cannibalism, putting children to death for not obeying, selling his daughters, owning slaves etc... suddenly, context matters or he doesn't think that is what god meant. Uh, huh. The parts that get attention are the parts about beating children and subjugating women, oh, and pointing out how unchristian other Christians are. He goes all word for word there, but, at least here in the west, he and they, are forced to stop short. Thankfully, women in this culture have the law on their side when they are grown and reject the BS.

Thankfully, in the west there are secular, humanistic laws that spell out basic rights for all, though not enough for children, whose tiny minds/bodies do not deserve to be assaulted. Thankfully, given his parents and his attitude toward his sister, she was born here and not in a legal/political patriarchy. She can make her life as she sees fit, and if she wants, tell them all to go to hell. Without the safety net of our larger culture, she'd be another beaten down casualty relegated to incubator and domestic servant, period.

Hey, Saudi Arabia is clearly following the rules, what with the stoning of women/girls, chopping off of heads, cutting off of hands, the real stripes they leave on people, women covered head to toe without agency etc... That is what it really looks like when patriarchy and legalism rule. And this idiot wants to babble on about following the letter of the bible... because, that's the world we all should live in :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: The whole lot of 'em make me sick. :angry-banghead:

Oh, and fuck you, apologist, just fuck you. Money does not make things better asshat. What that bastard did to her can never be undone. Exposure, telling the story in a big way, holding him publicly and legally accountable is a fine way to begin to heal, leave a public record, and make others aware of who he really is. If money is part of his restitution, fine. She's got one hell of a therapy bill to pay for al long time to come. She has no education because of his teaching and "mentoring". Why on any rational level would she not insure that she never has to be dependent on a man again and why should not the perpetrator pay for what she needs to make her able to do that going forward?

This is our system. She didn't invent it and she gets to avail herself of it. A civil suit does not rule out a criminal one. There really are not enough "fuck you's" to cover the attitude of "IF, he did it, it's awful, BUT, always BUT.... then pointing the finger at the victim in any way possible to how horrible she is for daring to do what she feels is in her best interest after years of abuse at his hands. You have no idea and never will of what's involved mentally or in any other way for a woman raised the way she was, with no inside support to pursue action of any type. How sooper Christian of you.

Edited for clarity

The bible can be infallible without it being law. History books can be infallible (without error) without them being law.

[tropaka]

I really don't get the reasoning of someone coming in here and trying to defend patriarchy/homeschooling (patriarchal style). The ideology that keeps kids out of public schools (because evolution and sexual predators) and isolated from the real world is exactly what kept this young available to a sexual predator and unable to get help/out sooner.

[WonderingInWA]

That's what they all say when you ask about the secret handshake....

If it makes you feel any better, I just went looking for Chatter and couldn't find it. And I'm a card-carrying member! So, there ya go. Maybe you have to request membership to the forum? I guess I'm not going to miss what I can't find. Sigh.

And now back to your regularly-scheduled DPIAT thread.

[Maxwell]

To further confuse people, the place not open to newbies where the not so super secret off-topic stuff is posted is no longer called Chatter. FJ is evil like that. :twisted:

Not a bit surprised. :evil-eye:

Based on my life experience I am prepared for the reality that what I get to 74 posts the requirement will be doubled...

[Curious]

The Bible is full of admonishment and instruction regarding fools. I hardly think the word would be used so much if it was a bad word.

Hold the phone!

I had to go look up this verse since I'm not a walking encyclopedia of proof texts (no offense meant Artejo) and this is what it says (my bolding of course):

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So you gave us that whole, long list of proof texts yesterday, some of which had a somewhat nebulous connection to swearing and said those should be taken as they were written as CLEAR that the bible said swearing for Christians = no no bad and how DARE Christians on this forum be using such coarse language, but now you want to say that using the word fool is ok when presented with this verse that says you will be in danger of HELL FIRE for saying fool?

What the actual fuck, dude?

You can't have it both ways.

[nausicaa]

Yes. If even half of what she says in there is true, it's disgusting. But, wasn't there enough information known already to know that Doug's behavior was disgusting?

I do think there are some pretty big holes in the credibility of the picture she is trying to paint of herself as some sort of sex slave. Like, for example, the number of years that she supposedly was coerced and forced to put up with this behavior that was so terribly offensive to her, and yet she continued to interact with him and the family for years during all this, never tried to break free until 2012? Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test to me, doesn't paint a very convincing picture that it was all one-sided on his part and she was an unwilling participant through it all. If she was able to break free in 2012, why not in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011?

Maybe one of you women can explain to me what it is about $$$$ that can magically take away the pain of "sexual abuse"? If things really and truly went down just like she stated in her complaint, she should have filed criminal charges against him. Filing for monetary damages is just....gross, in my opinion. If she really was abused, how can money make those emotional scars go away? And how will Doug having to pay out a monetary settlement keep him from abusing some other woman in the future, if in fact he did abuse this woman? If he really did criminally abuse her, shouldn't she be trying to see him behind bars instead of trying to collect $ from him? Sorry, it just makes me feel "ick". I'm expecting any day for Gloria Steinem to sign up as one of her attorneys.

You've stated this more than once. I think you mean Gloria Allred. :roll:

[theologygeek]

I note, by the way, that you didn't address my response to your comments about Scriptures about child discipline with the rod actually being about a shepherd and his sheep....

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but beat means beat and stripes mean leaving marks. If you're not doing that to your children, then you have no room to tell others that they aren't following the bible. I have to work. Now that I've read the entire thread, it's evident that you are not open to learning. I'm not wasting my precious time on someone who is not open to learning. Carry on. Have fun. Knock your socks off and all that.

[Curious]

Ok, so am I the only person who didn't read the article in Late March saying Doug was planning to sue Bob Renaud and Peter Bradrick, and a former Vision Forum employee, Jordan Muela, alleging that "the three of you have conspired together, and with others, in an attempt to destroy Doug Phillips, his family and Vision Forum Inc

christianpost.com/news/doug-phillips-accuses-former-employees-of-conspiracy-to-destroy-family-vision-forum-ministries-116847/

Was this some kind of pre-emptive strike, knowing he was going to be sued soon? If this was discussed, can someone point me to the places>

No you are not the only person! Awww, now I feel kind of sorry for Bradrick! From Golden Boy to under the bus in the blink of an eye.

[Othello]

If you mean, did we look at him as a God-like figure, revere him almost more than God, and hang on his every word, the answer is no. Same with Gothard. We were ATIA, but we did not revere Bill Gothard in the same way that many of his "followers" did. We definitely followed Doug's writings and speeches, though (in my later teens), and at least on a basic level were very much in agreement with much of what he taught. By the way, my parents were not comfortable with my sister going off to college, but they relented under pressure. Keep in mind this was also almost 25 years ago, before anyone even knew who Doug Phillips was and well before any "patriarchy" movement. We were fundamentalist Christians before it became a "popular" movement in homeschooling circles. But no, we never let Doug Phillips, or any other preacher, rule our lives with what he taught, especially if it was extra-Biblical.

But so much of what he teaches *is* extrabiblical! Or at the very least he's spinning a passage to mean something that it doesn't, never did and certainly won't in this cultural context. I believe Scripture is inspired, but can't you see that much of Scripture is operative within a cultural context that we don't have today? The law concerning rapists and their victims being forced to marry is a prime example. In that cultural context, that essentially saved the woman's life (she'd be ostracized and left to starve otherwise; now at least she is provided for), but today that seems horrific. Then why do we have to bring in similar instances, that dehumanize women—good ol' Doug didn't believe women should vote. Are they persons, or, like the early American compromise, 3/5ths, like a slave was counted? Nevermind, he'd probably defend that too.

These men, if given the opportunity, would reestablish a Calvin-in-Geneva scenario. Would you support them? Again, I reiterate, why then do you defend them?

[usmcmom]

Actually, no, it isn't. The Bible is pretty clear about what God expects of us. If it goes against His written Word, it's a pretty safe bet Christ isn't making exceptions for individual Christians to act differently than what the Bible says.

Believe what you want, won't keep me up at night that you think I'm being dishonest when I know I'm not.

Actually, it is. It is about how each Christian INTERPRETS the Bible and how that interpretation leads them to live his or her life. For instance, some families believe that women should literally wear a head covering, whether for worship only or all the time; while others believe a literal head covering is not ordered. Some believe that "covering" means the metaphorical protective covering of a husband or father.

I am sure your interpretation of "submit" is much different than that of other Christian men. There are many passages in the Bible that even you have said are not relevant to your daily walk. What men like you have a hard time accepting is that there are many Christians in the world who happen to interpret the Bible differently. I do not live my life based on what a man like you expects. I life my life based on what I believe the words in the Bible tell me - how I interpret those words.

[Tesseract]

theologygeek: The bible can be infallible without it being law. History books can be infallible (without error) without them being law.

Yes, I completely agree. Thank you for adding that!

[Marian the Librarian]

Westchamp, I'm not being snarky asking you this, so hear me out: knowing what you know now, if Doug had asked you to allow your daughter to work for him would you have done so? If your daughter had come back and told you she had been treated by Doug in a similar way he treated Ms. Torres-Manteufel, would you think your daughter was lying and looking for money? Would you not sue Doug for everything he has?

Thank you - you took the words out of my mouth. The fact that this man can come here to smug-brag on his own precious, brilliant, always-testing-above-grade-level home-schooled daughters, then accuse Ms. Torres-Manteufel of sticking around too long for the abuse/lying/only being interested in money, makes for some serious cognitive dissonance. At the risk of stating the obvious - she's somebody's daughter, too.

ETA: I sincerely hope that Westchamps' daughters are never, ever subjected to the sort of emotional, sexual and spiritual abuse that Doug inflicted on Lourdes - but if that did happen, I think he'd be singing a very different tune.

[ThisOlGirl]

LADYPERSONS OF THE CHRISTIAN PERSUASION: WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE BETTER CHRISTIANS (according to our new troll)?

It's easy! Simply replace the swear words in your posts with (noun), (verb), (adjective), (adverb), (determiner), (preposition), or whatever other part of speech is appropriate. All clean! Once you've made sure that once again butter won't melt in your mouth, just wait and a handy-dandy Godless Heathen (myself or one of the other Hellbound Jezebels) will be along to fill in the blanks, so to speak!

Free Jinger: All the fun of Mad Libs, now with even more swearing!

My Madlibs always had dirty words in them, even when I was a kid. Not only am I going straight to hell, but my parents probably are too, for not raising me "properly".

[Curious]

:shifty-kitty: Uhoh, people know about Chatter!?! :shifty-kitty:

:lol: honestly, it can be interesting, but it is actually pretty ordinary stuff that gets posted in there. Nothing super secret or anything.

Here is a (not so) secret. I would get rid of Chatter (now called Are you there Free Jinger, It's me Margaret) if I could, for the exact reason that it's become some mythical land where All Good Things Are Hidden[tm][/tm]. It's too much of the board culture now to do that, unfortunately.

I know some members really like it and that's great. It's just annoying from an administrative standpoint :)

[formergothardite]

Hold the phone!

I had to go look up this verse since I'm not a walking encyclopedia of proof texts (no offense meant Artejo) and this is what it says (my bolding of course):

So you gave us that whole, long list of proof texts yesterday, some of which had a somewhat nebulous connection to swearing and said those should be taken as they were written as CLEAR that the bible said swearing for Christians = no no bad and how DARE Christians on this forum be using such coarse language, but now you want to say that using the word fool is ok when presented with this verse that says you will be in danger of HELL FIRE for saying fool?

What the actual fuck, dude?

You can't have it both ways.

If you can't believe that the Bible means what it says, then what, exactly, is the point of being a Christian :lol:

Did he ever address the article you posted Curious? I am skimming some and didn't see if he read and addressed anything in it, but I might have missed.

[usmcmom]

Hold the phone!

I had to go look up this verse since I'm not a walking encyclopedia of proof texts (no offense meant Artejo) and this is what it says (my bolding of course):

So you gave us that whole, long list of proof texts yesterday, some of which had a somewhat nebulous connection to swearing and said those should be taken as they were written as CLEAR that the bible said swearing for Christians = no no bad and how DARE Christians on this forum be using such coarse language, but now you want to say that using the word fool is ok when presented with this verse that says you will be in danger of HELL FIRE for saying fool?

What the actual fuck, dude?

You can't have it both ways.

Thank you, Curious!! That really irked me too. I wanted to reply but had not my granola bar and coffee yet, so all I could do was stomp my foot and say "uh....that's not fair!!!"

[Curious]

If you can't believe that the Bible means what it says, then what, exactly, is the point of being a Christian :lol:

Did he ever address the article you posted Curious? I am skimming some and didn't see if he read and addressed anything in it, but I might have missed.

No, he didn't. I was giving him time, since he was responding in post order, but he's well past my post now, so he obviously just ignored it or found it unworthy of comment :roll:

Based on his responses thus far, he seems to believe that there is no need to study the bible in the original language because you can read it in English and take it as it's plain meaning as the literal, infallible word of God. Even as a recovering Catholic, I find this to be a short-sighted view. If I was going to be a bible literalist, I would want to put a little more effort into knowing what was ACTUALLY said at the time it was written (particularly if it involved potentially hitting my children with implements), but people have called me things like "anal" and "obsessive" before, so maybe that's just me ;)

[Alcyone]

I am not familiar with Clay Clarkson. I'll take a look at his book. But, if what he writes is contradictory to what the Bible clearly says about child discipline, then I'm not sure why I'd really be interested in what he has to say? Between what the Bible says and what has been our own personal experience (both in my childhood and as a parent myself), we really don't have any questions or doubts as to whether the way we discipline our children is the right or wrong way.

I understand that at this time you and your wife and your parents have no doubt about your discipline methods being the correct ones. My concern is about your young children and the children of your friends and associates whose parents may be influenced by your idiosyncratic interpretations of a couple of verses in a book of proverbs. Do your children get a say in the discipline method employed in your home? If not, why not? The one other person I would ask you to consider is your future self. I know your current self is fully satisfied with what is taking place in the home in the area of child discipline. Please consider the possibility, though, the your future self may be thoroughly horrified to realize that you hit someone with a rod and that someone was your own child.

[J'ean Skirt]

About that anti-intellectualism...

I've seen a couple places in this discussion when [westchamps] just declares "If you don't believe what I believe, I'm not going to talk to you." This, to me, is what anti-intellectualism is. It's the inability to even comprehend that you may not know everything and that people who disagree with you can be talked to.

When I was actively working in research, I don't think I ever heard anyone say "If you think that, I won't talk to you." Did we disagree? Absolutely. As scientists we argued all the time. In every case, though, even when someone held an out-there opinion the discussion was "show me your evidence" or "convince me." Part of being an intellectual is listening to the evidence about things you disagree with.

The flip side of that, though, is sometimes that other evidence is persuasive. When that happens, you end up learning new things and changing your views.

[westchamps] has demonstrated, in this very thread, how anti-intellectual he is. He's not listened to anyone, he's actively declared that unless you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then he won't talk to you. This is the behavior of someone who is scared of having to change their mind. This is the behavior of an anti-intellectual.

His repeated claims on intellectualism fail because he has demonstrated zero ability to listen to contradictory information.

(Not trying to feed the troll, but I was thinking about this and thought I'd share :) )

[doggie]

Actually, no, it isn't. The Bible is pretty clear about what God expects of us. If it goes against His written Word, it's a pretty safe bet Christ isn't making exceptions for individual Christians to act differently than what the Bible says.

Believe what you want, won't keep me up at night that you think I'm being dishonest when I know I'm not.

If the bible is clear why can't Christians agree on it? Why are there 10,000 different versions of Christianity and none can agree on what the bible says? The reason you. Think the bible is so clear because you believe you have the right interpretation. But yours is no more accurate then anyone else's.

[Tesseract]

If the bible is clear why can't Christians agree on it? Why are there 10,000 different versions of Christianity and none can agree on what the bible says? The reason you. Think the bible is so clear because you believe you have the right interpretation. But yours is no more accurate then anyone else's.

QTF

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

About that anti-intellectualism...

I've seen a couple places in this discussion when [westchamps] just declares "If you don't believe what I believe, I'm not going to talk to you." This, to me, is what anti-intellectualism is. It's the inability to even comprehend that you may not know everything and that people who disagree with you can be talked to.

When I was actively working in research, I don't think I ever heard anyone say "If you think that, I won't talk to you." Did we disagree? Absolutely. As scientists we argued all the time. In every case, though, even when someone held an out-there opinion the discussion was "show me your evidence" or "convince me." Part of being an intellectual is listening to the evidence about things you disagree with.

The flip side of that, though, is sometimes that other evidence is persuasive. When that happens, you end up learning new things and changing your views.

[westchamps] has demonstrated, in this very thread, how anti-intellectual he is. He's not listened to anyone, he's actively declared that unless you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then he won't talk to you. This is the behavior of someone who is scared of having to change their mind. This is the behavior of an anti-intellectual.

His repeated claims on intellectualism fail because he has demonstrated zero ability to listen to contradictory information.

(Not trying to feed the troll, but I was thinking about this and thought I'd share :) )

Um, I think you mean westchamps

[lipstickgoalie]

Guess I have to ask the question again since I didn't get an answer the first time.

"According to that definition, I am definitely not anti-intellectual. Does that mean I can no longer be a Fundamentalist Christian?"

If you can't understand what I was implying by the above questions you are definitely answering your own question. You are not an intellectual, you fancy yourself one, but you are not. So you can be a fundamentalist all day long. Whatever lifts your luggage.

You are a real piece of work by the way. You are intellectual in the same way a member of the tea party is politically informed which is to say not at all.

[formergothardite]

About that anti-intellectualism...

I've seen a couple places in this discussion when [westchamps] just declares "If you don't believe what I believe, I'm not going to talk to you." This, to me, is what anti-intellectualism is. It's the inability to even comprehend that you may not know everything and that people who disagree with you can be talked to.

When I was actively working in research, I don't think I ever heard anyone say "If you think that, I won't talk to you." Did we disagree? Absolutely. As scientists we argued all the time. In every case, though, even when someone held an out-there opinion the discussion was "show me your evidence" or "convince me." Part of being an intellectual is listening to the evidence about things you disagree with.

The flip side of that, though, is sometimes that other evidence is persuasive. When that happens, you end up learning new things and changing your views.

[westchamps] has demonstrated, in this very thread, how anti-intellectual he is. He's not listened to anyone, he's actively declared that unless you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then he won't talk to you. This is the behavior of someone who is scared of having to change their mind. This is the behavior of an anti-intellectual.

His repeated claims on intellectualism fail because he has demonstrated zero ability to listen to contradictory information.

(Not trying to feed the troll, but I was thinking about this and thought I'd share :) )

Babycakes is the fundie who said she doesn't hand slap since she knows what this forum is about. Westchamp is the recent fundie who seems more upset about Christians cussing than Doug masturbating in a young woman's face.

I think many of the times fundies come here to try and argue about their beliefs they do so thinking that they really are intellectual and that they can easily defend themselves. Fundie beliefs are pretty impossible to defend using logic and reason, though, so the fundie will always lose. But most fundies haven't experienced this. I am reminded of Country Boy who declared that he would have no problem discussing his beliefs and then within a few posts discovered that he couldn't even defend his anti-gay rights belief.

Having been raised fundie I remember the feeling that I was the intellectual one and everyone else was wrong and that I had all the answers. So I don't doubt for one second that westchamps thinks he is intellectual, but the fundie system of belief prevents any sort of real questioning and digging for answers outside of the narrow fundie approved list of answers.