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

[Evil Feminist]

Old enough to enlist in the military and kill people or be killed, but not old enough to take responsibility for letting someone know if she was being sexually harassed against her will? For 5 years? On a regular basis?

:wtf: You are clueless about how mind control works. Unless you've been raped, molested, harassed, assaulted, or whatever, and experienced the kind of manipulation and abuse that she endured, just shut the hell up! It is jerks like you that keep women afraid and silent. The shame alone is devastating enough.

[westchamps]

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 :) )

I've not only listened to the other points of view stated in this thread, I have responded again and again (hence my quick rise in post count).

Without a common frame of reference, discussion is difficult. I believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most of you here seem to believe it is no more than a book of anecdotes and fables, if that. As a Christian, I think it is the most important book in existence. Most of you seem to give it little or no importance at all, it means little or nothing to you. And yet you want to argue interpretation and true meanings of passages of Scripture in a book that means little or nothing to you? You don't recognize it as the inspired Word of God and you don't recognize it's teachings. Yet you want to school me on the Bible really not meaning the things it clearly says. Strange. Why not just say "I don't agree with the Bible and don't consider it to have any authority over my life" and leave it at that?

[westchamps]

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.

lol, I've been wondering when politics was going to become a part of this discussion. Frankly, I'm quite shocked you all have restrained yourself thus far. Feel better now? Not yet? Why don't you just go ahead and rip off a diatribe about Sarah Palin, for old times sake, I know you want to.

Got your Hillary '16 bumper stickers yet?

[Jasmar]

West champs, I am a conservative, homeschooling Christian, albeit not into patriarchy. Your conduct here is shameful and unchristian.

[ThisOlGirl]

So this thread will probably be locked soon. I can help lug the steam cleaner and cleaning solutions over to the next thread. *sigh*

[SamuraiKatz]

So this thread will probably be locked soon. I can help lug the steam cleaner and cleaning solutions over to the next thread. *sigh*

I'd better head out to Lowes for more cleaning supplies. I guess I should lay in a supply of nail polish too. :-/

[theologygeek]

I just love reading all these pretzel-twisting defenses of why it's okay for Christians to use foul/coarse language. By people who say it's okay and they don't give a darn what I think about it, but yet, strangely, feel the need to continue arguing ways to justify it. :? And keep asking me to drop the subject. Yet they continue to keep it alive with more strange defenses of why the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says.

Continue to keep it alive? That's the only post I made regarding cussing. People read the board at different times/days. As for the rest of your post, please tell me that you don't think the biblical definition of swearing is saying "fuck." Because if you do, then you are more bible illiterate than I have you pegged as.

[CloakNDagger]

Lourdes was friends with Jens daughter when the Epsteins attended the Church of Doug. She saw up close and personal what happens when you run afoul of Doug and his inner circle. The Epsteins--Jen in particular was pilloried by Doug and his gang o bullies. The Epstein chidren were treated badly by Church of Doug members at Dougs command. I am sure there are other former Church of Doug members who have received similar treatment when they fell out of favor. Lourdes knew she would be treated the same way if she told any one in the VF circle what DPIAT was doing to her. DPIAT is trying to rally the troops for another Destroy the Victim campaign. Only it seems as though there aren't any troops to be had except for his skeevy lawyers and channel 5 news in San Antonio.

Disclaimer: I do not personally know Jen. Just read her account of her bad treatment by DPIAT and company.

Not only that, but Lourdes has had a front row seat to other manipulations that our Harvey Dent has been involved in. Now that her eyes are open...

Mind you, the Epsteins do have real problems of their own.

[notsocommon]

Since....God said it was in the Bible.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-22.htm. Pick a translation, but here it is in King James:

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.

You don't read the book you thump very well, do you?

[feministxtian]

lol, I've been wondering when politics was going to become a part of this discussion. Frankly, I'm quite shocked you all have restrained yourself thus far. Feel better now? Not yet? Why don't you just go ahead and rip off a diatribe about Sarah Palin, for old times sake, I know you want to.

Got your Hillary '16 bumper stickers yet?

Oh...just because our political beliefs (which range all over the spectrum here) are not worshiped like you worship yours?

I tend to be left of center...but I see no conflict between my political beliefs and my Christian beliefs...(don't trudge out the tired old abortion argument on me...it just doesn't work...)

[thoughtful]

I believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most of you here seem to believe it is no more than a book of anecdotes and fables, if that. As a Christian, I think it is the most important book in existence. Most of you seem to give it little or no importance at all, it means little or nothing to you. And yet you want to argue interpretation and true meanings of passages of Scripture in a book that means little or nothing to you? You don't recognize it as the inspired Word of God and you don't recognize it's teachings. Yet you want to school me on the Bible really not meaning the things it clearly says. Strange. Why not just say "I don't agree with the Bible and don't consider it to have any authority over my life" and leave it at that?

Well, many people here are believing Christians (you never did tell me whether you consider other kinds of Christians to actually be Christian, BTW) who believe that the Bible needs study, context and interpretation. There is no "you think the Bible is literal or you don't care about it" dichotomy.

But, let's address the "why would unbelievers want to debate this stuff" question. Off the top of my head:

- some people inhibit and abuse women based on interpretations of the Bible that they claim are literal.

- some people excuse bigotry against homosexuals and non-whites based on interpretations of the Bible they claim are literal.

- some people would even like to bring back slavery, based on the Bible.

(NB -- before I go on, please notice that I did not include you in those, and no, I am not hinting or implying - I don't remember your saying anything about those)

- people like you hit children based on an interpretation of a part of the Bible that was not supposed to be commands to be obeyed.

- some people find those who think like you, and other fundamentalists and literalists, to be frightening -- folks in the US, in particular, have some genuine worries about their freedom being destroyed by the votes of people who want a faith-based government and crippling restrictions on women.

The five things above (and I'm sure I'm missing some) mean that having knowledge of the Bible, and knocking down the arguments of people who use it in ways that can lead to dangerous changes in society or harm to children, is important to many people.

Some other reasons why people who aren't Bible literalists, or even believers, might be answering you are:

- people like you claim that the Bible must be read and followed literally in one moment, then interpreted in the next, that some things are commands and others aren't, yet claim that Proverbs (which isn't) needs to be followed literally. It's hard not to answer a person who is so all over the place, especially when he has been so arrogant.

- your first post was blasting us for our horror at the actions of a man with whom you are also dismayed and disgusted -- heck, without the handslapping and with some actual explanation about how Doug has changed (maybe even your theories about why he did), you might have found a community of support here for your sadness and anger at his changes. You then continued to badger and tsk-tsk us, mostly over things a lot of us consider stylistic (whether or not one curses has never been a big dramatic subject here). It sounded like you wanted a fight -- you got one.

- the Bible is a collection of writings -- some people are just interested in literature, or in religious history, so reading and interpreting it is of interest to them even if they don't believe.

I'm sure there are lots of other reasons, but those are what popped into my head.

[church_of_dog]

Lourdes was friends with Jens daughter when the Epsteins attended the Church of Doug. She saw up close and personal what happens when you run afoul of Doug and his inner circle. The Epsteins--Jen in particular was pilloried by Doug and his gang o bullies. The Epstein chidren were treated badly by Church of Doug members at Dougs command. I am sure there are other former Church of Doug members who have received similar treatment when they fell out of favor. Lourdes knew she would be treated the same way if she told any one in the VF circle what DPIAT was doing to her. DPIAT is trying to rally the troops for another Destroy the Victim campaign. Only it seems as though there aren't any troops to be had except for his skeevy lawyers and channel 5 news in San Antonio.

Disclaimer: I do not personally know Jen. Just read her account of her bad treatment by DPIAT and company.

My username feels so close to dirty now…

[SamuraiKatz]

My username feels so close to dirty now…

I do sincerely apologize church_of_dog. I just couldn't bring myself to use the name of DPIAT's house of worship. I see nothing Christian about this organization.

[westchamps]

Well, that's pretty much the definition of a troll. Wave that duck, baby, wave that duck.

Another bit of advice about debating -- if you don't use words like "all," "every," "they (with no specifics)," "always," you can't be accused of generalizing to the point where what you say is easily defeated because it can't possibly be true. You're welcome.

To address your generalization above, I am not in high dudgeon. But then, I was not raised in a damaging fundie atmosphere, was not beaten as a child, have never been sexually abused, etc. -- your opinions are not triggers for me. I can be calm and support those for whom they are.

And I do support them -- if there is anger in some posts, I think it is utterly justified anger. Your reaction of thinking it is fun to make someone angry seems rather childish to me.

I post for my own interest, and for lurkers -- drawing out someone with distasteful beliefs and an arrogant attitude, so they state their opinions and ideas, generally leads to their hoisting themselves by their own petard. The Internet is forever, and your inability to support your ideas will be here for anyone to read.

And, lest you are tempted to do an "I'm rubber, you're glue," I don't get any troll-y pleasure out of upsetting people - I find that practice really creepy. I don't want to anger you -- just let you show your true colors. Stay calm, stay strong, chuckle condescendingly at our opinions -- it all shows how you think.

Your response to the lawsuit against Doug (so victim-blaming and full of suspicion against the woman, and women in general, despite your claiming to disdain The New and Unimproved Doug), and the continuing answers about other things, are so predictable that I no longer want to make Bingo card jokes. Poe's Law comes to mind -- the reality is so extreme and predictable, it can't be differentiated from the parody.

And now I will be predictable, but these questions are hard to avoid, when talking to a Bible literalist. You seem to be having a problem that literalists often do -- sort of a "the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God to be taken literally except when I say so" issue.

But, since you use Proverbs to justify hitting kids, and say that, no matter who is supposed to have written or said something, it is the voice of God, it seems like you are OK with laws and advice that pre-date the New Testament.

Others have asked if you would stone your child to death or sell a daughter as a slave, and I don't remember you answering. I want to know if you have ever worn a fabric blend or eaten shrimp or a cheeseburger? Were Adam and Eve created at the same time, or was she made from his rib?

And I really should stop feeding him, I know. I don't wear nail polish, though. :lol:

Many of the OT laws are not applicable today. For instance, some were directed towards the Levitical priesthood. Some were directed at the Nation of Israel. Some were about the Temple. Parts of the Old Covenant (example: the laws of sacrifice) no longer apply because Christ fulfilled them. The Ten Commandments are referenced throughout the New Testament.

No, I would not stone my child or sell my daughter as a slave. Obviously. :roll:

[doggie]

Without a common frame of reference, discussion is difficult. I believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most of you here seem to believe it is no more than a book of anecdotes and fables, if that. As a Christian, I think it is the most important book in existence. Most of you seem to give it little or no importance at all, it means little or nothing to you. And yet you want to argue interpretation and true meanings of passages of Scripture in a book that means little or nothing to you? You don't recognize it as the inspired Word of God and you don't recognize it's teachings. Yet you want to school me on the Bible really not meaning the things it clearly says. Strange. Why not just say "I don't agree with the Bible and don't consider it to have any authority over my life" and leave it at that?

in other words unless you are like me we can't discuss it. Sorry your emotional evolvement in the bible makes you less then subjective and you add what you want into the bible. you take the bible to mean what you want it to mean and expect it to answer your questions. But you don't get the same out of it as say a catholic or name any other version of christianity you don't follow. If the bible is the word of god why is it not consistent across translations and versions? you would think god would act as translator/editor to make sure his word does not get corrupted.

[SamuraiKatz]

Not only that, but Lourdes has had a front row seat to other manipulations that our Harvey Dent has been involved in. Now that her eyes are open...

Mind you, the Epsteins do have real problems of their own.

I thought maybe she'd seen more...I only had the one public account to reference. Harvey Dent...I like that.

[westchamps]

So sorry, Babycakes. My apologies for getting you confused. I've asked the mods-that-be to correct my post (as I'm out of the official editing period)

It's not just the logic, though. From what I've seen they cannot cope with anyone approaching things from a different set of first principles. To me, one of the defining bits of logic is that you can take first principles and work through to their obvious conclusion. And you can do that without actually believing those first principles are true. Yeah, I can fundy argue from the bible, but that doesn't mean I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. Plus, I was raised Catholic, we don't put so much stock in bible literalism as some of the protestant / fun die religions.

Yup. Then again, there are times I'm sure I have all the answers, too. But that doesn't stop me from discussing other people's wrongness with them :dance:

One of the defining moments in my life was when I could truly and honestly disengage from an argument without changing either mind. It was absolutely OK that the person I was arguing with didn't agree with me. He could continue to be wrong, and that was fine by me. I didn't have to have him admit he was wrong. I knew it, he knew it and it was all OK. :whistle:

Ironically, in this discussion, I have stated multiple times that I had no problem with various people having different points of view on whatever the particular thing was that we were discussing. This is America, and you can have freedom of religion or freedom from religion if you want. Yet there are many in this discussion who don't extend the same courtesy to me. They seem determined not to rest until they get me to admit that the Bible is in fact just a collection of stories and has no real meaning. No "live and let live" when they're the ones who think they're in the right. Funny.

[thoughtful]

Many of the OT laws are not applicable today. For instance, some were directed towards the Levitical priesthood. Some were directed at the Nation of Israel. Some were about the Temple. Parts of the Old Covenant (example: the laws of sacrifice) no longer apply because Christ fulfilled them. The Ten Commandments are referenced throughout the New Testament.

No, I would not stone my child or sell my daughter as a slave. Obviously. :roll:

Well, of course not -- that's why I asked you the less inflammatory questions, which you ignored.

If the whole Bible is the inspired word of God, no matter through whom He was speaking (which is what you said), and you defend the rod verses from Proverbs as meaning to literally hit children in this day and age, Jesus notwithstanding, how can you defend what you said above?

That's interpretation, context, and "hey, those were instructions for Bronze Age Israelites and subsets of those Israelites, not for us," which is what non-literalist Christians, non-Christians, and non-believers say, and that you scorn when they say it.

Oh, and BTW, you never answered the question about two versions of Genesis.

C'mon, Westchamps -- you don't take the entire Bible literally, because it's not actually possible. It's OK to have an interpretation, we all do and we admit it.

Just step up to the lectern, and say, "Hello, my name is Westchamps, and I am a Bible interpreter."

Edited because we crossposted, and I think it's funny that my post appeared after Westchamp's, considering what he said.

Just so you know for sure -- I was kidding about that "step up to the lectern" stuff.

I don't think people are trying to change your mind, because I doubt it's possible. They're just pointing out your errors.

[twin2]

Many of the OT laws are not applicable today. For instance, some were directed towards the Levitical priesthood. Some were directed at the Nation of Israel. Some were about the Temple. Parts of the Old Covenant (example: the laws of sacrifice) no longer apply because Christ fulfilled them. The Ten Commandments are referenced throughout the New Testament.

No, I would not stone my child or sell my daughter as a slave. Obviously. :roll:

I believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most of you here seem to believe it is no more than a book of anecdotes and fables, if that. As a Christian, I think it is the most important book in existence. Most of you seem to give it little or no importance at all, it means little or nothing to you. And yet you want to argue interpretation and true meanings of passages of Scripture in a book that means little or nothing to you? You don't recognize it as the inspired Word of God and you don't recognize it's teachings. Yet you want to school me on the Bible really not meaning the things it clearly says. Strange. Why not just say "I don't agree with the Bible and don't consider it to have any authority over my life" and leave it at that?

So, the Bible is the inspired word of god. In other words in the BC time god was totally OK with stoning children and selling ones daughter into slavery. However, after he became a papa he changed his mind on this.

GOD IS A FLIP-FLOPPER!!!!!

[salex]

No, I would not stone my child or sell my daughter as a slave. Obviously. :roll:[/

I've not piped in here but it is not "obvious" because there are quite a few people who suggest that stoning a recalcitrant child is something that should not just be allowed, but mandated. We have no way of knowing where on the spectrum you fall, thus it is a legitimate question.

“Vision Forum is run by Douglas W. Phillips, son of Howard Phillips, a longtime Republican operative and former Nixon administration official who drifted into Reconstructionism during the 1990s. The organization doesn’t flaunt its alignment with Reconstructionism – probably aware of its controversial nature – but Reconstructionist writers are a staple on its Web site.

Tellingly, the site is littered with columns by William Einwechter, a Pennsylvania pastor who in 1999 authored a controversial essay arguing that the Bible mandates the stoning of “disobedient†teenagers. (Einwechter spoke at the Vision Forum’s 2008 Witherspoon seminar in Fredericksburg, Va., offering lectures on “Christian Jurisprudence†and “The Bible and Female Magistrates.â€)

http://rethinkingvisionforum.org/2011/0 ... sm-stonin/

[notsocommon]

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.

1) word

And

2) dammit to fucking hell! I knew someone would beat me to posting that verse. I need to find a way of getting paid to play online all day so I can keep up with stuff.

[feministxtian]

So...Westcramps...you are more of a biblical literalist...so...which of the two creation stories in Genesis is true?

Or do you understand the idea of a creation myth?

Eagerly awaiting your response (and glad I can't post while I'm at work).

[Curious]

Perhaps you should take your own advice. The words used for "fool" in Matthew 5:22 and Luke 24:25 are two completely different words in the Greek, with different meanings. Never mind that it's two different gospels, written by different authors, from completely different times in the life and ministry of Christ, and He was using them in completely different contexts.

Guess that just goes to show that's it not the word f-o-o-l itself, but the meaning behind it that is important. I did mention "context" in my previous post.

NO! That is NOT what it means. The word fool and the word foolish are NOT the same word. They might have the same root word, but that does not mean they are the same word. If they were the same word, they would be exactly the same (I feel like a DUH needs to be said here). While I agree that context is important, it is YOU that is using context improperly, not us. You are not only not using context, you are not even using the words right since they are 2 completely different words (and apparently in the original Greek it's also 2 different words. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to provide those for you).

fool

1 [fool]

noun

1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.

2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.

3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.

4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.

5. a weak-minded or idiotic person.

Here are synonyms for the word fool:

Synonyms

1. simpleton, dolt, dunce, blockhead, numskull, ignoramus, dunderhead, ninny, nincompoop, booby, saphead, sap. 2. zany, clown. 5. moron, imbecile, idiot. 6. delude, hoodwink, cheat, gull, hoax, cozen, dupe, gudgeon.

Notice that foolish is not among them. That means that they are NOT interchangeable words because they DO NOT mean the same thing.

fool·ish

[foo-lish]

adjective

1. resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech.

2. lacking forethought or caution.

3. trifling, insignificant, or paltry.

Here are the synonyms for foolish:

Synonyms

1, 2. senseless, vacant, vapid, simple, witless. Foolish, fatuous, silly, inane, stupid, asinine imply weakness of intellect and lack of judgment. Foolish implies lack of common sense or good judgment or, sometimes, weakness of mind: a foolish decision; The child seems foolish. Fatuous implies being not only foolish, dull, and vacant in mind, but complacent and highly self-satisfied as well: fatuous and self-important; fatuous answers. Silly denotes extreme and conspicuous foolishness; it may also refer to pointlessness of jokes, remarks, etc.: silly and senseless behavior; a perfectly silly statement. Inane applies to silliness that is notably lacking in content, sense, or point: inane questions that leave one no reply. Stupid implies natural slowness or dullness of intellect, or, sometimes, a benumbed or dazed state of mind; it is also used to mean foolish or silly: well-meaning but stupid; rendered stupid by a blow; It is stupid to do such a thing. Asinine originally meant like an ass; it applies to witlessly stupid conversation or conduct and suggests a lack of social grace or perception: He failed to notice the reaction to his asinine remarks. 1. imprudent, unreasonable, foolhardy, irrational; thoughtless, nonsensical, ridiculous, absurd, pointless, preposterous.

Once again, notice that fool is not a synonym for foolish. These are NOT interchangeable words.

You might also note that one is a noun and one is an adjective. That means that one is a person, place, animal, thing or idea (generally) and one is a descriptor. Again, they are NOT interchangeable. They are 2 different words. It doesn't matter what context they are in because they are not interchangeable in any context. They are not the same word. They do not have the same meaning. Period.

This lesson brought to you by the letter F and the number 8. Also the PUBLIC school system.

[Peas n carrots]

Westchamp, I have a story for you from one of my favorite authors, who happened to pass away today - Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~aargyros/hansomest.htm

I hope you read this story, and I hope you reflect on your lack of empathy for the young woman. It's easy to glance at the bare facts and make a judgement, but there are many, many shades of gray that even the survivor had to work through for years before she found the courage to stand up for herself.

You made it clear you wouldn't stand for your daughters to be put into such a bad position, and you would believe them if they accused someone of molesting them. What makes you disbelieve Lourdes Torres?

[theologygeek]

I'd like to punch Doug Phillips in the face too. But we're talking about an adult woman here, not a child. If everything she described in her legal complaint did in fact happen the way she describes it....she had so little willpower that she let it go on for 5 years or thereabouts - completely against her will - without telling anyone or asking anyone for help? This was not an unprotected girl. She had parents (who from the sound of the complaint might have been sleeping in a nearby room during some of these encounters) and at least one sibling, and she had friends at church. Did Doug take advantage of her? I think that is more than likely true. Was she a willing participant through some of this time? I think that is also more than likely true. It has been reported that Lourdes herself copped to some personal responsibility in this saga and knew that her actions were wrong, whatever may have been Doug's actions. Seems to be singing a different tune in the legal filing.

Doug Philips was a cult leader and played mind games with people. A cult doesn't always have to be a commune type setting where everyone lives together. Cults come in different forms. Cult leaders are cunning. They also have a great deal of influence over their followers. Lourdes wasn't the first adult to fall victim to a cult leader and she won't be the last. Here is some info on why people don't leave cults. http://www.cults.co.nz/cultfaq/leave.php