Don’t Believe Everything You Read…On the Internet
by RICHARD ABANES
We live in an era of too much information; an era wherein anyone/everyone can post whatever they want to post on the Internet—unchecked, unverified, unaccountable, unhindered, and unstoppable. Rumors, gossip, baseless accusations, outright lies, fear-mongering, hate rhetoric, hoaxes, slander/libel, and false information now litter the Internet.
So today’s word of advise from me to all of you is: BE CAREFUL!!!
Most tragic is how so-called “Christians” are contributing to this proliferation of misinformation and disinformation throughout cyberspace. It’s almost beyond belief that individuals supposedly indwelt by the Holy Spirit could be partakers of such activity. But the facts show that a significant number of “Christian” blogs & websites have indeed become dedicated to attacking others; more specifically, dedicated to attacking other Christians!
And such attacks are not just limited to simple assaults on other points of view, but penetrate into the realm of questioning another person’s Christianity, misrepresenting the faith of others, and deliberately seeking to destroy the reputation of various public figures (i.e., fellow believers). These persons have actually formed a new “cult” of sorts. This “cult,” which I have termed the “Cult of Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs),” has demonstrated that its real mission/ministry is the destruction of fellow Christians with whom they disagree. Ironically, they do it under the guise of defending the faith against cults and false doctrine via apologetics/discernment.
The result has been a great division within the church—unnecessary division because their attacks are based on things that have NOTHING to do with doctrinal teachings or whether or not a person is in the church. They base their attacks on:
- political views,
- methods of preaching,
- preferred styles of music/dress,
- different perspectives on various non-essentials of the faith,
- positions on eschatology,
- public friendships/associations they enjoy with certain believers/unbelievers
- certain verbiage used to communicate biblical truths
The targets of these Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) are summarily labeled heretics, false teachers, deceivers, conspiratorial players in some Antichrist scenario, apostates, fake brethren who lead fake churches, compromisers, New Age sympathizers—the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, the way these people/ministries make their charges stick is by use of:
- half-truths,
- false information,
- outright lies,
- faulty reasoning,
- unsubstantiated assumptions,
- quotes taken out of context, and
- manipulation of facts
As a public figure, I myself have been enduring this kind of persecution for years—as have several of my friends and associates in ministry. It’s been discouraging, frustrating, and painful to witness. So, for the sake of all that is good, right, true, just and biblical—don’t believe everything you read on the Internet:
- Test all things, and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21).
- Verify information before you simply believe it.
- Go to the actual sources of isolated quotes that sound damning (they’re often taken out of context).
- Contact, if you can, the person being attacke and ask them for confirmation of what you’ve heard.
And for those of you who, like me, have had unkind/untrue things said about them on the Internet, hang in there. JUDGMENT WILL ONE DAY COME.
I close these word of warning/caution with a quote taken from someone who, in my personal opinion (as a professional apologist for over 15 years), is one of the worst of the worst ODMs. This ODM has posted her attacks repeatedly against God’s people and encourages others to do likewise (very much like Jezebel encouraged false charges to be brought against God’s people, see 1 Kings 21:10). She stated the following in one of her recent posts:
“Technology affords so many opportunities now to communicate with others and the world that can be used for good. It also offers us many new snares and opportunities to sin. . . . [W]e need to be ready to examine ourselves and honestly look at our motives and behavior in light of God’s Word. If we can’t control the temptation a technology brings, we need to do rapid surgery and get rid of it so that Satan does not gain a foothold in our lives. If we can use a technology for God’s glory with a clear conscience, we need to carry on and thank God for the opportunity.”
Indeed. I couldn’t agree more with this individual. Now, let us all pray that such people will begin following their own words of counsel and in so doing, not only avoid hypocrisy, but also avert God’s judgment and God’s chastisement in their lives.
(Note: Not all websites/blogs committed to offering discernment/apologetics information is included in this category of Online Discernment Ministries. I am exclusively applying that term to a very specific kind of apologetic/discernment organization/person that is active on the Internet. These types of persons/organizations are more akin to witch-hunters than professional apologists or even lay/responsible apologists.)
For another EXCELLENT article dealing with this same issue, see the recently posted “Great Damage: The Gift of Discernment Used in the Flesh” by Pastor James McDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel!!
SCRIPTURES ON WHICH TO MEDITATE
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:15
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”
Exodus 23:1
“A perverse man stirs up dissension and a gossip separates close friends.”
Proverbs 16:28
“An angry man stirs up dissension.”
Proverbs 29:22
“A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.”
Proverbs 12:17
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish.”
Proverbs 19:9
“Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.”
Proverbs 25:18
“Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence …”
Psalms 101:5
“He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.”
Proverbs 10:18
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.”
Ephesians 4:31
“Remind the people to … slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”
Titus 3: 1-2
“The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire and is itself set on fire by hell.”
James 3:6
“Therefore rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy and slander of every kind.”
1 Peter 2:1
UPDATE: “CULT” EXPLANATION
A number of person’s have asked me to further explain why I would use the word “cult” in reference to these ODMs. Please consider my following explanation.
In the above article, I list a number of cult-like tactics/techniques used by the ODMs that would suggest they have fallen into the realm of cult activity. It is common knowledge that to mislead/deceive their followers, cults often use half-truths, false information, outright lies, faulty reasoning, unsubstantiated assumptions, quotes taken out of context, and manipulation of facts. And these are some of the very same tactics used by the new ODM community causing division throughout the Body of Christ (I note these tactics above).
So, here we have some of the same “red flags” indicative of cult activity that are existing in the ODM community—i.e., certain characteristics that you would see in any religious group of persons appropriately viewed as a “cult” from a psychological perspective.
At this point it seems I should explain: What is a cult?
“Cult” is a misunderstood word. It does NOT always mean kooks or socially dangerous people! That has sort of become the sensational, Jonestown-inspired, narrow, seriously negative connotation attached to the word. Actually, the word itself simply means a group of people. Slightly expanded into its religious meaning, it basically refers to three different kinds of groups that can be classed as a religious “cult” from three different perspectives:
1. Sociological – what you normally think of when you think of a cult: Jonestown, David Koresh, Heaven’s Gate suicide cult, that stuff.
2. Psychological – any religious group that uses, for lack of a better expression, mind games: i.e. they conceal information, are not upfront about their beliefs, use intimidation to keep members in line, side-step/hide information that places the group in a negative light, etc. Mormonism, for example, would fall into this category — and that has been documented. Other tactics used by such groups would include use of half-truths, false information, outright lies, faulty reasoning, unsubstantiated assumptions, quotes taken out of context, and manipulation of facts.”
3. Theological – any group that claims to be doctrinally compatible with a certain world religion, when in reality, it is NOT compatible. Most world religions have these kind of cults. Mormonism is a cult of Christianity. Hare Krishna is a cult of Hinduism. Nation of Islam is a cult of Islam. And so on and so on.
The activity of these ODMs would immediately fall into the the cult category from at least a psychological perspective.
Moreover, also with regard to the psychological status of a cult, such groups of people (i.e., “cults”) often have a very rigid “us vs. them” mentality that usually paints them as the “remnant,” so to speak, amid a chaotic/apostate world. Everyone else who does not share their beliefs down the line, or meet their approval on just about everything, are summarily dismissed as being of the Antichrist, apostate, heretical, satanic, deceivers/deceived, liars, demonic, blinded, unsaved, or worldly. This characteristic, too, has been demonstrated repeatedly by the ODMs and their followers (and it is beginning to be shown more intensely and more commonly as time passes).
Now, from a theological perspective, the ODMs and their followers are getting DANGEROUSLY close to being cult from that angle as well. Why? Because these people are increasingly becoming more vocal about kicking out of the church anyone/everyone who DOES NOT meet their conditions of TRUE salvation, TRUE Christian faith, and TRUE biblical ways of running a church (including the appropriate ways of preaching).
Doctrinal assessments, which are biblical, have gone out the window. And just about anything is now used by them to point the accusatory finger and label someone a false preacher, deceiver, heretic, New Ager, anti-Christ pawn, or member of a fake church. This is seriously approaching a place of adding non-biblical conditions to the pure Gospel of grace based on simple faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, who died for our sins on the cross, and by whose shed blood we are cleansed from all sin and unrighteousness.
Remember, we are saved by grace through faith. And the gospel is the not linked to how we preach, what we wear, who we vote for, who we associate with, why we like certain music, or how we try in our own subjective/flawed ways to share our faith the best we can with those whom God places in our path. The Gospel is simple and unchanging:
“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…”
(1 Cor. 15:1-4).
(For two following up articles dealing more extensively with this same ODM issue, please see ODM Update: Another Apologist Speaks Out and ODMs: A Cult Is Born?)
Don’t Believe Everything You Read, or see « Posted at wordpress.com said
[...] http://huntingheresyhunters.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dont-believe-everything-you-readon-the-internet… Do see also People need to stop lying, to others, themselves thenonconformer wrote : Admittedly it is sad, but still the truth that Most people are Ostriches, they have glamorous … more → [...]
Chris Rosebrough said
The problem with this article is that it casts the targets of ODM’s as innocent victims of drive-by “discernment” shootings. However, that is not the case.
There are plenty of valid criticisms against Christian pastors who twist God’s word (such as Rick Warren in the Purpose-Driven Life). Scripture twisting is NEVER adiaphora and is NEVER a valid, god honoring method of ministry and Christian communication.
Not only that, the Reveal Now survey results have proven that methods do matter and are not a mere matter of Christian freedom. The Purpose-Driven / Seeker-Sensitive methods pioneered by Bill Hybels and Rick Warren fill auditoriums but they do a crappy job of producing mature Christian disciples.
kathisharpe said
Chris, thanks for your thoughts on this.
Guilty or innocent, no one deserves a witch hunt. What ODM’s do is no drive-by – it’s assassination.
Still haven’t seen a single piece of evidence that Warren twisted Scripture in PDL or anywhere else. Oversimplified? Perhaps. But twisted? Nope.
Last I checked, Hybels and his church were the ones admitting that seeker-sensitive in the way they applied it did not work. So what’s your point? That we’re never to listen to a minister or ministry who made a mistake or who tried something that didn’t work?
Kirk said
This is so true. For example, Richard Abanes lied about Tom Schlueter, Ingrid’s husband, and claimed he had “threatened” him. Abanes looked pretty much the liar he is when the actual letter Tom wrote to him was published and was filled with direct but grace-filled speech. You’re right. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, especially when the name Abanes is attached to it.
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/uncategorized/richard-abanes-a-truth-problem/
Ken Silva said
Abanes, whose implied threat to my former ISP ended up the cause for my original Apprising Ministries website being deleted, pontificates: This “cult,” which I have termed the “Cult of Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs),” has demonstrated that its real mission/ministry is the destruction of fellow Christians with whom they disagree. Ironically, they do it under the guise of defending the faith against cults and false doctrine via apologetics/discernment.
Hmm, well I would say instead that this “cult,” which I have termed the “Cult of Anti-Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs),” has demonstrated that its real mission/ministry is the destruction of fellow Christians with whom they disagree.
And ironically, they do it under the guise of defending the faith against cults and false doctrine via apologetics/discernment. So, there you go.
richardabanes said
CR: The problem with this article is that it casts the targets of ODM’s as innocent victims of drive-by “discernment” shootings.
RA: Actually, that’s not what this article implies — not by any stretch of the imagination. Where did I mention anything about “drive-by ‘discernment’ shootings”?
If you want to be accurate, what I illustrated is how the ODMs are actively involved in an extended, concentrated, focused barrage of unrelenting mortar bombardment. That is hardly a drive-by shooting, which is usually defined by bloggers as quick hit and runs at various blogs/websites that add nothing to the discussion.
So, once again, we see facts and information misrepresented as a means of creating an argument that has no basis in reality. The ODMs have become very adept at that tactic.
_______________
CR: There are plenty of valid criticisms against Christian pastors who twist God’s word (such as Rick Warren in the Purpose-Driven Life).
RA: I never said there were not SOME valid criticisms of people such as Rick Warren. I myself have voiced my own disagreements with some of his views, activities, and teaching methods.
That does mean I am going to brand him a heretic, false teacher, or apostate. And that does not mean that I am going to accuse him falsely of teaching works + grace (i.e., “the law”) as a means of salvation, which is essentially what you stated on June 04, 2008: “I now believe that Warren primarily preaches the law and only on the rarest of rare occasions does he preach the gospel.”
For those wishing to see how Mr. Rosebrough reacted to me pointing out the error of his accusation against Warren, take a look at my article LAWSUIT RESPONSE: ABANES TO CHRIS ROSEBROUGH, which explains how Rosebrough blatantly, and with utter disregard for scripture, public announced, with great fanfare, his intentions of bringing a lawsuit against me for what he seemed to think was my gross mischaracterization of his position on Warren. And for his unbiblical threat, he was applauded by his fellow ODMs.
Interestingly, as already noted, what prompted Rosebrough’s threat was me simply repeating/correcting his erroneous accusation about Warren preaching salvation by works of “the law.” Rosebrough threatened his lawsuit unless I apologized publicly. So, in the spirit of Christian unity, I apologized, acknowledging that if I had indeed misquoted/misunderstood him, then I was certainly wrong. Case closed — or so I thought.
However, barely two months later, Rosebrough proceeded to again repeat on his website the very same accusation that I had pointed out in the first place! On September 23, 2008, he posted an article/radio broadcast titled: “Rick Warren’s Law Based “Gospel.”
This is the kind of behavior now infecting the Body of Christ and influencing readers of various blogs/websites. Such conduct, IMHO, is both unbiblical and ungodly.
LET ME BE CLEAR: Rick Warren (my pastor), as well as Saddleback Church (Lake Forest, CA), DOES NOT teach any “Law Based Gospel.” For anyone to make such a charge stick, they would have to:
1. pervert the statements of Warren,
2. ignore a plethora of primary documentation from Saddleback that shows otherwise,
3. spin Warren’s teachings using a variety of logic leaps and faulty reasoning,
4. dismiss statements from Saddleback members (such as myself) who believe that salvation is totally a free gift of God apart from the law, and understand that teaching to be exactly what is taught at Saddleback by Warren and other church pastors.
These are the very things being done by a wide assortment of ODMs.
______________
CR: The Purpose-Driven / Seeker-Sensitive methods pioneered by Bill Hybels and Rick Warren fill auditoriums but they do a crappy job of producing mature Christian disciples.
RA: This is another issue entirely, completely separate from the subject of ODMs. In other words, even if this statement were completely true, that would not justify/excuse where ODMs have failed miserably in the area of of biblical, godly, thoughtful, careful, accurate research in their misguided/sinful attempts to fulfill the godly exhortation to use discernment and defend the faith.
(Note: Chris Rosebrough, interestingly, on the Phoenix Preacher web blog, sought to pass himself off as a “professional” apologist, which is something he is not. Moreover, Ken Silva, his ODM associate, who has also posted in this thread, has sought to pass himself off as someone mentored by the late Walter Martin. That claim is as untrue as Rosebrough’s claim to be a professional apologist).
Richard Abanes
P.S. What needs to be said has been said here, IMHO. I will not enter into some protracted war of words. It is unproductive and only adds to arguing and the division in the Body of Christ.
Ken Silva said
“I will not enter into some protracted war of words.”
Good idea; that way you can lie, e.g. about me concerning my simple statement that I consider Walter Martin as a mentor, and the less discerning won’t see through it.
richardabanes said
KIRK: Richard Abanes lied about Tom Schlueter, Ingrid’s husband, and claimed he had “threatened” him.
RA: Mr. Schlueter was using language that in my opinion was threatening. Was I wrong? Apparently, Mr. Schlueter and Ingrid thought I was.
____________
Kirk: Abanes looked pretty much the liar he is when the actual letter Tom wrote to him was published and was filled with direct but grace-filled speech. You’re right. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, especially when the name Abanes is attached to it.
RA: What I find most fascinating here is how you failed to mention some key facts.
1. You didn’t mention that Ingrid contacted me and informed me that I was mistaken in my interpretation of her husband’s words. Why did you not mention that?
2. You didn’t mention that in response to Ingrid’s explanation, I IMMEDIATELY removed my blog post that discussed my opinion about her husband threatening me.
Why did you not mention that?
3. You didn’t mention that despite my show of good faith by removing that material from my blog, since it seemed the situation had been resolved, Ingrid decided for some reason to keep up the article you linked. Don’t you think that’s odd? I mean, is Ingrid after unity/reconciliation, or is she after nothing more than getting into fights and leaving old material up on her website to keep fueling the flames of division? I think I know the answer to that one.
R. Abanes
richardabanes said
KEN SILVA: Abanes, whose implied threat to my former ISP ended up the cause for my original Apprising Ministries website being deleted, pontificates . . .
RA: And that, too, is false. Do you even know what truth is anymore, Ken? I’ve posted the truth ad nauseum about that issue, and those who want the truth have now seen through your charade regarding that whole ISP thing. Repent before it’s too late.
_____________
KEN SILVA: [words......] So, there you go.
RA: LoL. Not much of a defense — and very sad, indeed.
_____________
KEN SILVA: that way you can lie, e.g. about me concerning my simple statement that I consider Walter Martin as a mentor, and the less discerning won’t see through it.
RA: The facts speak for themselves. You were not mentored by Walter Martin — however you want to slice and dice it. And to say otherwise is simply false.
You have neither credentials, nor a reputation, in the apologetic world. Therefore, it seems you felt as if you had to pad your standings in the apologetic community by bringing in the name of Walter Martin and riding on his deceased coattails. You proudly declared: “As one of my mentors, Dr. Walter Martin, used to put it: We can agree to disagree agreeably.”
You not only claim to have been “mentored by” Martin, but you went so far as to say you “studied at the feet of” the late Dr. Walter Martin.
These are apparent lies — and it has been called such by others. They are either lies, seemingly, or else you don’t even know what the word “mentor” means, which would seriously cast doubt on your ability to make sound doctrinal judgments on anyone, speak on apologetics, or even pastor a church.
The fact is that you were not mentored by Dr. Walter Martin. You have only listened to old tapes of Martin teaching. That does not a mentor make. A mentor is defined as follows:
MENTOR – “A wise and trusted counselor or teacher.” “An individual who provides independent support and advice to enable the candidate to realize their full potential and help establish their career.” “The critical role and responsibility assumed by an experienced and wise educator who agrees to help, build a relationship with, and facilitate the professional growth of one or more proteges. Mentors are to be models of effective teaching and of a very visible desire to continue to grow professionally, every day, and throughout the career.” “A trusted counselor or guide.” “Person who acts as an adviser to a learner, especially used in work-place learning environments. The activity is called mentoring.”
Again, I say, repent before it’s too late.
Richard Abanes
Ken Silva said
RA: I’ve posted the truth ad nauseum about that issue, and those who want the truth have now seen through your charade regarding that whole ISP thing.
KS: As have I, and your implied threat to the ISP of legal action caused their knee-jerk reaction to order me to edit my website of content you didn’t like or they would terminate it. It’s you who struggle with the truth.
RA: You not only claim to have been “mentored by” Martin, but you went so far as to say you “studied at the feet of” the late Dr. Walter Martin.
KS: Anyone who can read know I just said I simply consider him a mentor and I was very clear to state I never met him, etc. so that people – without an axe to grind – would know I mean this figuratively. As far as that quote re.his feet; that doesn’t sound like something I would say at all.
RA: You have only listened to old tapes of Martin teaching.
KS: How do you know that’s all the exposure to Martin’s teaching I’ve had? Answer: You don’t. And it’snot a true statement either.
RA: Again, I say, repent before it’s too late.
KS: Nothing here to repent of Richard;best that you heed your own advice.
Wes Wetherell said
RA: “I will not enter into some protracted war of words.”
Me: Huh?
richardabanes said
KS: “….your implied threat to the ISP of legal action caused their knee-jerk reaction to order me to edit my website of content you didn’t like or they would terminate it. It’s you who struggle with the truth……………………………………………….”
RA: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
_________
KS: I just said I simply consider him a mentor and I was very clear to state I never met him, etc. so that people – without an axe to grind – would know I mean this figuratively.
RA: This is one of your comments about being mentired by Walter Martin: “As one of my mentors, Dr. Walter Martin, used to put it: We can agree to disagree agreeably.”
There is nothing figurative here. You cite Martin as one of your mentors. Let’s read the definitions of mentors again — which indicate you didn’t have to state EXPLICITLY that you met him. That implication is resident within the word “mentor.”
MENTOR
“A wise and trusted counselor or teacher.”
“An individual who provides independent support and advice to enable the candidate to realize their full potential and help establish their career.”
“The critical role and responsibility assumed by an experienced and wise educator who agrees to help, build a relationship with, and facilitate the professional growth of one or more proteges. Mentors are to be models of effective teaching and of a very visible desire to continue to grow professionally, every day, and throughout the career.”
“A trusted counselor or guide.”
“Person who acts as an adviser to a learner, especially used in work-place learning environments. The activity is called mentoring.”
The general understanding of a “mentor” involves a one-on-one relationship of close association and teaching. That’s common knowledge. Ken, please. Just stop it.
I wish you all the best,
R. Abanes
Ken Silva said
RA: “This is one of your comments”…
KS: Uh,huh…right, that’s but one; of which I’ve made many others, such as what I’ve said here. Richard, this isn’t Junior High debate class; time to grow up bro, k.
Everyone who is actually familiar with my comments concerning Walter Martin knows that I am simply using a figure of speech. I also noticed that you didn’t elaborate on the alleged comment that I studied at his feet, which I do not recall ever saying.
Man, I even write for Martin’s daughter Jill so Richard, please, you’re twisting what I’ve said out of its context. Just stop it.
I wish you all the best,
K. Silva
richardabanes said
K: Richard, this isn’t Junior High debate class; time to grow up bro, k.
RA: You’re making no sense. I raised a statement you made. It’s false. And I explained why. You’ve stated that Martin mentored you. You said it. I didn’t. And that term is understood to mean a one on one, personal, teacher-student relationship that trains up the one being mentored. That I am even having to argue this wih you is unbelievable. Own it. Repent. And move on.
___________
K: I am simply using a figure of speech.
RA: Sigh. There is no such thing. Either you were mentored by him, or not. And you were not mentored by him. Now, everyone knows it.
__________
K: I also noticed that you didn’t elaborate on the alleged comment that I studied at his feet, which I do not recall ever saying.
R: Yes, I think, but not sure that this might have been something on a radio show. But I’m not sure. And TBH, I haven’t the time, energy, or interest to hunt for it. But it’s really not needed to prove my point, so fine, I retract that. Whatever. Apologies all around. And now, we’re left with you still claiming (falsely) that you were mentored by Martin. Buzzzzz — not.
___________
K: Man, I even write for Martin’s daughter Jill so Richard, please, you’re twisting what I’ve said out of its context.
RA: ….and that means….nothing with regard to your claim that martin mentored you. So, at this point, cool. Whatever. I feel sorry for you.
And before you waste any time, let me go ahead and make your next post for you so you don’t have to bother: “So, at this point, cool. Whatever. I feel sorry for you.”
You really need to find your own voice.
peace-out,
R. Abanes
Wes Wetherell said
Richard,
You’re an idiot. You consistently demonstrate it online. Do us all a favor and shut up.
Ken Silva said
RA: Whatever. I feel sorry for you.
KS: It’s dialogues like this that originally caused me to not bother trying to speak with you. I had hoped this time it would be different.
Forgive me for trying. But, in closing, here at least we agree: I feel sorry for you.
richardabanes said
You feel sorry for me because I hold you accountable for falsely claiming that you were mentored by Walter Martin, and won’t allow you to falsely accuse the brethren.
Interesting.
At the same time, you say nothing to guy (who’s a “Christian”) who just posted the terrifically Christ-like comment: “You’re an idiot. You consistently demonstrate it online. Do us all a favor and shut up.”
Very interesting, indeed.
And yes, it seems our dialog is over. And what i need to forgive you of is NOt “trying.” I’ve need to forgive you for other things — and I have. But you still need to repent (see 1 John 1:9).
R. Abanes
Wes Wetherell said
Richard,
I’m sorry my comment is a little strident, but you need to be called out. I believe my comment is both appropriate and prudent. Do us all a favor and please read your own messages, and take the log out of your own eye.
richardabanes said
“appropriate” = “you’re an idiot”
“prudent” = “shut up”
Interesting concepts for a Christian.
I think this thread has gone on long enough. It has already digressed into name-calling. I can only assume that any further interaction will most certainly, and unfortunately, spiral downward into even more ungodly conduct/speech.
Comments Closed.
RA