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

[westchamps]

I am really angry for this child - for she was only a child when this began - and all other children who are used and abused under the 'umbrella of protection' of the patriarchy.

And even angrier that any man with daughters cannot envisage this happening to his own and immediately want to defend them against the possibility of this happening.

There is so much wrong with what happened to this girl that quantifying it will take a court case, remedying it will take a lifetime, and preventing it from happening to others will require a culture change that this Westchamps man who acts as an apologist for the abuser is completely unable to comprehend.

And that's why his daughters, and other daughters, will continue to be at risk of abuse - because the patriarchs of this persuasion are purblind, pig-ignorant, perverse and power-hungry.

I have never apologized for his behavior. It was sinful, disgusting and horrific, regardless of whether it was consensual or not. There is no possible way you can say that I have apologized for his adulterous behavior if you have read anything I have written in this thread.

[nausicaa]

Testing is the most easily verifiable standard by which one can judge educational progress. You disagree? Can't win for losing. We get criticized by one person on here for not testing (even though we do), and get criticized by another for testing and mentioning it when faced with comments that all Fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers are dumb hicks. Wish ya'll would make up your minds. :roll:

I agree with the bolded completely. I just find it odd that often (and granted, you did not say this specifically) I find homeschoolers deride public schools for their emphasis on testing, but then are very eager to trot out their own children's test scores when those scores are high. It seems disingenuous to me.

I am glad you test your children occasionally. I do think there is some merit to it.

And why do I need to make up my mind? I haven't contradicted myself. If another poster criticized you for something else, I am not required to agree with him/her.

Edited to fix the quotes so it would be clear as to who said what.

[Arete]

Since Peas n Carrots is too polite to say it, I will:

You are a fucking dirtbag to insinuate she should not have waited 3 years to escape from a situation of sexual harassment when she was the physical support for 2 people. Or do you think if she was wrongfully terminated she would have had justice in time to pay for the next week's groceries or the next month's rent?

For a man who objects to all Christian fundementalists bring characterized as uneducated, you personify the stereotype pretty well.

[fuglyexfundy]

Yes, I will say you should have told someone. I will not say you had it coming to you, for any reason. There is no justification - ever - for sexual advances that are truly non-consensual. And I'd say that applies to both sexes, not just men, although generally only men get held accountable for such actions.

I can see that your situation was a difficult one. However, I don't think this world has gone so crazy that the best and only solution was for you to stay in a situation like that for 3 years, or even 1 year. There had to be other remedies. As far as I'm aware, sexual harassment is against the law. Would not that fact be some protection for you against a "vengeance firing" if you brought a claim of sexual harassment?

Westchamp, I don't know PnC's situation personally, but many sexually harassment situations have the same elements and power disparities. Human Resources does not exist to settle employee grievances, despite the twaddle they feed new employees in orientation. HR exists to protect the corporation from lawsuits. From what I've seen they most typically throw whistle blowers under the bus. Financial hardships and bad situations make many folks, both men and women stay in hostile job situations for years. The economy in many areas don't have even low wage jobs hanging from a tree for all to grab.

Let's call my friend Emmett. He had a decent paying job. His boss, a respectable and prominent man in the local area, would sexually harass him. Emmett was in denial about the harassment at first, until it got worse. When he finally realized that he was experiencing text book trauma and anxiety, just the same as female victims of sexual harassment, Emmett still didn't tell anyone at his job. Why? Because his son had medical issues, there were no comparable jobs in the area, and no one would believe him or take him seriously.Let's not forget about homophobia. That is sexism that men can and do face.

The issues was resolved, thankfully, when Emmett received a lateral transfer. The request was pending before the abuser arrived.

You may be a kind and decent employer/co-worker. Far more aren't. PnC's case may have been tough to prove or legally would have gone nowhere. Power dynamics at play in an organization daily.

[westchamps]

So you are willing to believe that a good-hearted person can suddenly turn bad rather than acknowledge that it is possible that your judgment of a person was wrong. I wonder what you think could possibly have triggered such a dramatic inner transformation that left no public change.

What do you mean by "since you don't like the first scripture I referenced"? As if it were a case of like or dislike! I have no clue where you are getting the meaning you are reading into these verses. How can you read and quote these and then claim that Doug Phillips was a good man who suddenly changed and did horrific things?

How dare you suggest that some members here are evil-hearted for using strong words, then claim that a man who ejaculated on a woman's face while she was crying and begging him to stop was good-hearted while you knew him.

Personally, I find most English swearing limited because they tend to refer to body parts or bodily functions- in which I see no shame. To call Doug Phillips a fucker is to state an obvious truth rather than an insult. I have finally thought of a word for him: demon-spawn.

Suddenly? Possible, but more likely it was a gradual change. As he became more and more well-known and almost "idolized" by some, his feeling of power and authority no doubt increased. He certainly wouldn't be the first. I'm not sure why people here seem to have difficulty with the concept that a person can change over a period of many years. Doug Phillips is not a unique individual in that regard.

[MrsFoxx]

I didn't want to be in that situation, but when your leaders/bosses are male, are in cahoots, and you are in a situation where you cannot leave your job it's not so easy to say "oh I must go tell someone." You have to either suck it up until there is a way to escape the situation either through realizing your own agency and/or by having a support system in place.

I don't think you are necessarily and a-hole and I'm not going to tell you where to go. I'm saying this knowing you have daughters, and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that as a father you would do anything to protect them. Lourdes was someone's daughter, and to understand why she came out several years later you have to understand the nuances of the situation. It is never so black and white as something bad happened/go tell someone. You can bet that Lourdes, myself and other people who have experienced sexual harassment were targeted because there was some gray.

I admit, I probably would have had a less sympathetic view of Lourdes if I hadn't experienced what I did myself. I just encourage you to find empathy for a young woman whose life was turned upside down by your friend. $10M (which I guarantee she won't get ...the attorney is setting the amount high so they can negotiate on a settlement) won't ever get back the years she lost to Doug, and it's probably the only way she could ever hurt him by hurting him in the pocketbook.

AMEN, SISTER. westchamps, I would love for you to read this:

kotaku.com/5910857/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is

And tell us, please - have you ever walked to your car after work in the dark scared of the man walking past for no other reason than that he's a man and you're a woman? Have you ever been discriminated against at your work because of your race, religion, sexual identification or gender? As peasandcarrots said, it's obvious you have never been sexually harrassed. When you have, then please, by all means, judge Lourdes for what she did or didn't do. Until then, shut your trap. It's abuse regardless of age, regardless of how quickly she sought help.

[westchamps]

What the ever loving Fuck?

The entire premise if patriarchy is that girls CANNOT be left unprotected. That men are predators. That girls MUST be sheltered. This is WHAT PATRIARCHY TEACHES.

Patriarchy prevents girls and women from having agency. It explicitly tells them THEY MUST SUBMIT TO MEN IN LEADERSHIP.

Doug is a predator, and Doug is a predator that set up a system whereby he was given access to girls and women (and possibly boys) that are told they MUST submit to him.

That's even before we get to the teaching that girls and women are responsible for men "stumbling."

Everything about what Doug teaches set up just this situation and left it such that whatever a woman does Doug's actions are her fault.

This Is Patriarchy.

Anyone who understands patriarchy cannot expect a girl, raised her whole life to be sheltered by fathers and then husbands, to stand up to a powerful, respected, male leader, and tell people that he assaulted her. Everything she was taught tells her that the assault is her fault. That she, somehow, failed.

:pull-hair: :pull-hair: :pull-hair:

So, westchamps, you can just Fuck Right Off with your "but she was an adult." So was Doug. Why are you not holding HIM accountable for his actions? Why aren't you expecting him to not sexually assault a woman living in his home? Why are you not expecting him to repent? Why is it all about her?

Fuck. You. And. Fuck. Patriarchy.

Show me one single instance where any respected Christian "patriarchy" figure has said that women must in all cases submit to the commands of a man who is not their husband or father, even in matters of a sexual nature. I've been attending Fundamentalist Christian churches and been reading articles and listening to speeches by the big "patriarchy" figures my entire life and I've never heard or read any such thing. Ever.

And I have held Doug accountable time and time again in this thread for his behavior, regardless of whether it was consensual or not. I just did it again about 3 posts ago. You only see what you want to in my posts because you have a preconceived notion of what type of person you think I must be because I profess to be a Fundamentalist Christian who was at one time many years ago strongly guided and influenced by DP.

[CloakNDagger]

This blows my mind. What is wrong with people. The fact that they knew "years back" makes me question even more what was in her legal filing, though. Would parents be shamed into silence about a secret "affair" their adult daughter was having with a public figure? Yes, maybe. Would they be shamed into silence about habitual and continuing outright sexual abuse that was being perpetrated on their daughter? Hard to believe anyone could be so scared and/or callous as to let something like that continue to happen, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

Again, I know her, and it doesn't blow my mind, and I obviously believe that there is some truth in her stories, but then I've been seeing things in a different light for a while now.

That said, even if she was only telling the truth 10% - Doug's actions, and current responses are still an embarrassment. HIS actions and reactions are what has blown this up.

[westchamps]

Leave the League of Shadows and realize that Harvey Dent is a real good metaphor for this situation.

If you don't mind my asking, when did you first know Doug very well?

[westchamps]

Again, I know her, and it doesn't blow my mind, and I obviously believe that there is some truth in her stories, but then I've been seeing things in a different light for a while now.

That said, even if she was only telling the truth 10% - Doug's actions, and current responses are still an embarrassment. HIS actions and reactions are what has blown this up.

You are 100% correct. I have never said anything to the contrary in this thread.

[salex]

Parents. Friends. Other Church Elders. VF Board Members. The Police. The list goes on and on of people she could have gone to for help if indeed this entire relationship was against her will.

One friend of mine was told by the family employee who raped her that if she told anyone, he would come back and kill her and her whole family. She was young, and believed it and didn't tell anyone for 20 years.

Generally, abusers like this will repeat and repeat that "no one will believe you." Does an nanny-- a girl then woman in a church that does not allow women to speak in church -- just go by herself to talk to Elders or Board Members to accuse one of their peers--actually THEIR boss-- of this kind of thing, when he has told her often that they won't believe her and if they do, will blame her?

I probably could have gone to my parents, but they weren't in a cult. From what I've read of this group, talking to friends is considered gossip and taking any church business to the police is considered a sin-- the church is supposed to handle things on its own.

Hindsight, especially for people who were not in the situation, is remarkably 20-20. But there is a reason that many many sexually abused young people in a variety of religious, educational or sports settings don't come forward for years-- are each and every one of them really consenting all along?Should all of them just shut up and let bygones be bygones?

And, as for why sue for money--lots of money? As punishment for bad acts and for allowing bad acts to occur in your company. That is why VF ministry and business and Doug the Wanker are all being sued. You can't put a company that allows sexual abuse in jail, but you can find the company til it hurts. And, while the evidence needed for a criminal trial related to the sex may have been washed away years ago, evidence in the civil trial can be factual and compelling.

I am also very interested in some of the things people have talked about earlier. Does the Boerne Church /Vision Forum Ministry have this kind of insurance? Since VF the business shut down, is its insurance, if any, still in place? Does Doug himself have insurance for this kind of thing? I am also very interested on if any of this will lead to further investigations of Doug or any of the organizations he was involved with.

[fuglyexfundy]

This blows my mind. What is wrong with people. The fact that they knew "years back" makes me question even more what was in her legal filing, though. Would parents be shamed into silence about a secret "affair" their adult daughter was having with a public figure? Yes, maybe. Would they be shamed into silence about habitual and continuing outright sexual abuse that was being perpetrated on their daughter? Hard to believe anyone could be so scared and/or callous as to let something like that continue to happen, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

There's this organization called SNAP, you might want to check it out. Many SNAP members' parents were shamed into silence when they found out priests abusing their sons or daughters. Why? Fairy stories and mythology, (yeah, I wrote that), fear of rejection of the community at large....that excommunication threat, you know what that meant to Pre-Vatican II Catholics, don't you. Some parents, maybe they were traumatized themselves, see this abuse as normal occurrence. My parents would have been the LAST PEOPLE I could have told about clergy abuse. They, like many SNAP member's parents would have said something like, "Forgive the church/priest. Don't risk your salvation...Why didn't your stupid ass get out of they way...You didn't fight, you must have therefore liked it...." and so on and so forth. Thankfully this never happened to me. It happened to many others.

Let's not forget that according to the complaint, grooming started at 15. Please read that complaint carefully. It will all make sense.

[westchamps]

Oh so NOW we need to do deeper study and have context?

I never said all Scripture was easily understood by all laymen. Certainly there are some things where context might need to be studied more fully. Like where Jesus himself uses a word that elsewhere in the Bible it says will get you condemned to Hell fire.

Actually, we just need to understand that words have meaning. Calling someone a fool is not the same as saying somethingone is foolish. :roll:

.

Fixed it for you. And yeah, if you're going by the word itself, they're pretty much the same thing. By the meaning of the word in the context in which it was used? Could be a different story.

[J'ean Skirt]

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?

You're spending a lot of time telling us you disagree, that isn't what I meant by "listening." In context (y'know, that thing that you say is important for interpreting the bible) Listening is more than just hearing, but actually understanding what we've said.

It means being able to go outside of YOUR frame of reference and enter someone else's. It means being able to have a discussion even without a common frame of reference.

Those of us who are arguing scripture with you, even if we don't necessarily believe in it, are listening to you. We're entering your frame of reference in order to have a discussion. You're insisting we have the discussion on your terms, so we are. We're entering your frame of reference from a point of "OK, assume this is true. If it is true, then why are there 2 creation stories?" "If it is true, why do the laws about stoning daughters not count, but the stories about hitting children do?"

We're trying to meet you inside your frame of reference, in order to have a conversation. We're trying to understand what you believe and why some verses require context and others don't. But you don't appear to be able to explain that.

Edit: fix quotes

[westchamps]

She needs to sue Doug for money because bottom line he is a crafty bastard who knew exactly how far to go with her to skirt the definition of rape as outlined by the laws of Texas. He is trying to skirt the definition of clerical sexual abuse in Texas by trying to erect an artificial distinction between "pastor" and "elder".

For those of us who live in the real world and not evangelical la-la land, we understand that victims cannot bring criminal charges against a perpetrator. That is done at the discretion of the duly appointed prosecutor of each jurisdiction. Furthermore, in the real world, prosecutors prioritize what crimes go to court and in which order based on budgets, danger to the greater community at large, and physical damage. That means, westchamps, that Lourdes doesn't get to decide if DP undergoes criminal prosecution.

What she does get to decide is if she brings civil charges. Civil charges will will result in Doug having to be accountable for and justify his actions. If she gets a monetary judgement, not only will she have compensation for the free labor she gave, she will have the ability to pay for therapy and further her education. It will NEVER mitigate her emotional pain, but in the real world where the rest of is live it will help her secure her future.

Also, down here in the real world a monetary judgement will send a collective shudder through a lot of these church organizations. They will learn to take the warning signs that Doug was definitely demonstrating a lot more seriously. Nothing teaches a lesson better than a hit in the pocketbook to an organization.

In which case, if her story is credible, it should be a no-brainer that the prosecutor will pursue criminal charges. If her story is true, I hope the prosecutor does pursue criminal charges.

[danvillebelle]

I never said all Scripture was easily understood by all laymen. Certainly there are some things where context might need to be studied more fully. Like where Jesus himself uses a word that elsewhere in the Bible it says will get you condemned to Hell fire.

.

Fixed it for you. And yeah, if you're going by the word itself, they're pretty much the same thing. By the meaning of the word in the context in which it was used? Could be a different story.

But...no, because He used two different words. That don't mean the same thing. Which I already pointed out to you, but you brushed it off. I'm seeing a pattern here.

[CloakNDagger]

If you don't mind my asking, when did you first know Doug very well?

That will have to remain my secret.

[Talitha Cumi]

Suggest you do a little deeper study on that particular scripture to see if perhaps there is some context necessary to fully understand/interpret that scripture. My guess is yes. Otherwise, Jesus himself would be condemned to hell fire, as He said in Luke 24:25, "He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"

Uh-uh, no. You can't reject context in one sin and not in another. Well, you can if you're picking and choosing, but not if you're purporting to read the Bible literally.

That leads me to a question I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to. Exodus chapter 20 of the KJV Bible contains the following commandment (4th out of the 10).

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This has always been Saturday. As a Jew, even Jesus worshiped on Saturday. This day was not changed in the New Testament, not by Peter, not by Paul, not by anyone. Do you keep Saturday as the Sabbath? If not, why not? As my question does not contain vulgar words, you should have no problem in responding.

[westchamps]

You're spending a lot of time telling us you disagree, that isn't what I meant by "listening." In context (y'know, that thing that you say is important for interpreting the bible) Listening is more than just hearing, but actually understanding what we've said.

It means being able to go outside of YOUR frame of reference and enter someone else's. It means being able to have a discussion even without a common frame of reference.

Those of us who are arguing scripture with you, even if we don't necessarily believe in it, are listening to you. We're entering your frame of reference in order to have a discussion. You're insisting we have the discussion on your terms, so we are. We're entering your frame of reference from a point of "OK, assume this is true. If it is true, then why are there 2 creation stories?" "If it is true, why do the laws about stoning daughters not count, but the stories about hitting children do?"

We're trying to meet you inside your frame of reference, in order to have a conversation. We're trying to understand what you believe and why some verses require context and others don't. But you don't appear to be able to explain that.

Edit: fix quotes

:lol: :lol:

Sorry, this made me laugh. A lot.

You're no different than me. You come to the discussion with a pre-determined set of beliefs. One of your purposes in engaging in this conversation is to try to convince me of the rightness of your beliefs. Don't go all "we're trying to understand you" on me, that's not remotely credible, especially when we're talking about a book that is my "Bible" and to you is nothing but a book of stories.

[westchamps]

Westchamps:

You said you've never heard Doug preach. Isn't he a preacher? How well do you know him? What was the nature of your relationship when you knew him?

He's a public speaker. I never thought of him as a "preacher". He was not when I knew him. I knew him very well many years ago. I worked with him, but we were also friends outside of work.

[westchamps]

Having a potty mouth vs Committing sexual abuse

Let's weigh the sins to figure out which is worse.

Nice try Westchamps.

Let me know when you find where I said committing sexual abuse was okay or less of a "sin" than Christians using coarse/foul language.

[Marian the Librarian]

This blows my mind. What is wrong with people the sick, dysfunctional, secretive, power-imbalanced, sorry-excuse-for-Christian system known as Vision Forum/Boerne Christian Assembly that Douglas Winston Phillips established and maintained, lo these many years, aided and abetted by some other members in positions of power willing to turn a blind eye? The fact that they knew "years back" makes me question even more what was in her legal filing, though. Would parents be shamed into silence about a secret "affair" their adult daughter was having with a public figure? Yes, maybe. Would they be shamed into silence about habitual and continuing outright sexual abuse that was being perpetrated on their daughter? Hard to believe anyone could be so scared and/or callous as to let something like that continue to happen, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

Fixed that for you.

[Artemis]

I have never apologized for his behavior. It was sinful, disgusting and horrific, regardless of whether it was consensual or not. There is no possible way you can say that I have apologized for his adulterous behavior if you have read anything I have written in this thread.

Yawn. Reading comprehension.

'Acting as an apologist for' does not equal 'apologising for'

The definition of 'acting as an apologist for' is (being a person who) offers an argument in defence of something controversial.

Your opinion is that Lourdes Torres was somehow to blame for not speaking up sooner. Our opinion is that owing to the nature of the abuse to which she was subjected, she was not able to do so.

Your opinion is the controversial one here, and you are defending it, ergo, you are acting as an apologist for it. You are acting as an apologist for Doug Phillips, since that is the argument: 'if it was assault how come she colluded/never spoke up/consented for so long' that he is using as his defence. By using this argument against Torres, and for Doug, you are acting as his apologist. Simple, no?

You can't 'apologise for' Doug, since you didn't commit his sins - at least, one assumes that you didn't.

Have you done anything to help Doug's family, since you are concerned about them?

Does it matter to you that your Lord may well be weeping as he contemplates your defence of someone of the likes of whom he said 'Better it were for a man that a millstone should be hung around his neck and he be sunk into the depths of the sea, than that he should offend against the least of these my little ones.'?

Even if you deny that patriarchy of Doug's stamp leads to the forcible infantilisation of females who, after indoctrination can no longer be said to be acting with full agency, can you not at least recognise that whether your particular brand of patriarchy may NOT lead to this situation having the potential to occur, the patriarchy of others does?

Are you at all aware that to generalise from the particular to the general is a logically fallacious position, and that because a set of premises is true about you does not mean that it is true about others? You arraign us for condemning all home-schooling Christians such as yourself as ignorant, bigoted patriarchs, but you do nothing to show us why we are wrong to do so based on your performance here. Shining example, you ain't, dear sir.

I refer you back to my comment on page 41. If you can understand it. (I'm still waiting to know if you have repented of the salacious curiosity that led you here in the first place.)

Oh, and arguing tendentious points of scripture for amusement, rather than dealing with the real issues does not make you, either as a Christian or a scholar, look good. (I, unfortunately, only know New Testament and Classical Greek: others here are more erudite, and will be able to deal with your misunderstandings of the Hebrew when you're arguing - if they think it's worth it, I suppose.)

Frankly, you look petty, mean-spirited, and infantile arguing about points of theology when something as serious as non-consensual sex and clergy sexual abuse is at stake. Could you endeavour to raise your game a little?

Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, you are aware, aren't you, that as a Christian, you are spending part of the day on which your Lord died for you, defending, by implication, the actions of a man of whom I doubt very much your Lord would have approved?

[J'ean Skirt]

Why didn't she tell?

Because no one would stand up to Doug and protect her.

From Spiritual Sounding Board (spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/03/29/attempting-to-set-the-doug-phillips-record-straight-part-3-the-timeline/):

In 2008, Doug Phillips was confronted by a member of BCA and friend of Victim, but there was no evidence to prove his guilt. Many people at this time began to notice the relationship with Doug and Victim, but no one had real and hard evidence

In 2009, Victim’s mother caught Doug Phillips and Victim having sexual-based chat sessions in the middle of the night. Doug, his wife, Beall, and Victim’s parents met. This was the first time Doug and Beall and Victim’s parents met together. [...]

In October 2010, Beall Phillips was made aware of the adulterous nature of the relationship when Victim’s mother informed her that Doug and Victim had been kissing.

6 years ago, Doug was confronted. 5 years ago, Mrs. Torres knew about it, and met with Doug and Beall. 4 years ago Mrs. Torres caught Doug and Lourdes kissing.

But wait, other people knew.

In the summer of 2011, while in Paris, Doug was confronted by Peter Bradrick (his Vision Forum Executive Assistant) regarding the inappropriate behavior Doug was exhibiting towards Victim in public.

Why didn't she tell? There are two obvious reasons. 1) She didn't have to. People knew. 2) Telling didn't matter. No one had the power to make Doug stop harassing her.

But wait, if the elders knew, then it would be different.

Bob Sarratt, Doug and Beall Phillips, Victim, and her family all agreed to keep the sins of Doug Phillips confidential and tell no one.

People knew what was going on. People confronted Doug multiple times. None of that stopped Doug.

So will you stop asking why she didn't tell? No one had the ability to hold DPiaT accountable, even knowing what was going on.

On top of that, Doug is threatening to sue the church elders who confronted him.

www.worldmag.com/2014/03/set_adrift/page1

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

spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/03/21/breaking-doug-phillips-threatens-lawsuit-against-former-vision-forum-associates-who-had-earlier-confronted-him-about-his-sexual-sins/

[J'ean Skirt]

:lol: :lol:

Sorry, this made me laugh. A lot.

You're no different than me. You come to the discussion with a pre-determined set of beliefs. One of your purposes in engaging in this conversation is to try to convince me of the rightness of your beliefs. Don't go all "we're trying to understand you" on me, that's not remotely credible, especially when we're talking about a book that is my "Bible" and to you is nothing but a book of stories.

Can you tell me where I have stated I believe the bible is a book of stories? Where I have told you that your beliefs are wrong?

(hint: at no point have I made a statement about my beliefs in the bible. I have accepted your premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and have never said anything to the contrary.)