Skip to main content

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/0...r_alabama_public_tv/

 

The scheming weasel figures in a major dispute at Alabama Public Television.

I did not hear about this until today and don't know how it has turned out.

 

But I know this; Alabama Public Television does not need and should not use this discredited, fraudulent theocratic bozo to tell the story of this nation's history.

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Contendah, my Friend,

 

As usual, your Christian spirit overfloweth!   You speak of others who do not follow your extreme legalistic theology -- in such a warm, glowing Christian manner.   Why, I  bet that is exactly the way Jesus Christ would talk to those erring folks.

 

Bless your heart!

 

Bill

 

1 Peter 2-21 - Child In Shadow Of Cross

___

I call 'em just like I see 'em, Bill. And I have developed a razor sharp taxonomy for David Barton. He is clearly in the family mustelidae..  Here are some appropriate graphics::

 

I AM TOO!

Republican activist David Barton speaks before testifying before the Texas State Board of Education in 2009.

 

Here is a thoroughgoing profile of this scheming little opportunistic lying weasel:

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of?ps=comm&ec=mostpopular3col

 

Anyone who relies on Barton for their information on religion in American history is cruisin' for delusion!

Hi Contendah,

 

Amazing!  You depend upon NPR, the Liberal secular government's most ardent bedfellow -- to prove that a Christian is not a Christian.  Wow!

 

Do you also use Richard Dawkins writings to verify Scripture?  

 

My Friend, one does not jump into bed with Satan -- just because you do not like another Christian's theology.  Personally, I think your theology stinks -- but, I don't call you names to prove my point.  I can find much more productive ways to refute it.

 

Just a thought!  Although the Believers' Judgment will be a judgment of rewards, and not of punishment -- we all will be required to account for each word, deed, and thought in this life.  I wonder what rewards you will receive for calling people with who you disagree, derogatory names?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

1 John 4-10 - 1

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 John 4-10 - 1

Bill Gray blithers thusly  (my responses in blue):

 

<<<Amazing!  You depend upon NPR, the Liberal secular government's most ardent bedfellow -- to prove that a Christian is not a Christian.  Wow!  Not at all, Bill.  I never stated any conclusions as to whether or not Barton is a Christian. I accurately described the role of Barton in the dust-up at NPR and provided a confirming link.  I accurately defined the "historical" writings of Barton as "discredited."  The most prestigious religious publishing house in the Nation, the highly-respected Thomas Nelson Publishers, withdrew Barton's latest attempt at historical writing ("The Jefferson Lies") from the market after evangelical scholars reviewed it and found it to be loaded with errors.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...respond-to-criticism

 

From the link:

<<<In typical Barton fashion, he said any of his critics only “come after me” because “they disagree with me, and my religious faith, and my view on America.” Of course, Fea and other Barton critics quoted in the story, Grove CityCollege professor Warren Throckmorton and Rev. Ray McMillian of Cincinnati’s OasisChurch, are evangelical Christians. But since Barton can’t defend his own discredited “research,” he simply plays the victim and says he is being attacked for his patriotism and Christian beliefs. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/npr-looks-into-david-bartons-bunk-history-refusal-to-respond-to-criticism#sthash.L1DPKe84.dpuf>>>

 

There is a dangerous doctrine within extremist right wing religious conservatism.  It is called Christian Dominionism and Barton is allied with this theocratic movement.  In his own words (bold emphasis added):

 

<<<Barton: There's five areas that you have to be able to influence and control if you are going to take a culture and that's media, business, government, education, and pulpit.

Now, for twenty years as it turns out - I wasn't even aware of this - way back, Bill Bright from Campus Crusade, when he was still alive, Loren Cunningham, Youth With a Mission, these guys got together back at the same time and really felt like there were seven areas that had to be taken for a culture and these are the seven that they gave: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. Now we've grouped some of those together and throw some together, but they said those are the seven areas you have to have and if you can have those seven areas, you can shape and control whatever takes place in nations, continents, and even the world.>>>

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/david-barton-advocates-seven-mountains-dominionism#sthash.GBA9GBO1.dpuf

 

And here--from a Seven Mountains Dominionist web site--is part of a description of how these power-mad theonomists see their role in government:

 

<<<The Mountain of Government, or politics, is a mountain that the Lord is beginning to position His children to invade and take. As with media, we've virtually given this mountain over to the devil. Entire denominations have been known to prohibit their people from being involved with politics because of the corruption that always seems to infect it. The reason politics are considered "of the devil, of course, is because we have abandoned this mountain to him. Because of the enemy's firm grip on this mountain, it's a very dangerous mountain to take if one is not spiritually prepared for it. Yet we must take it. The Elijah Revolution will begin to displace the forces of darkness from this mountain and establish righteous government on its top.>>>

See much more disturbing material at:

http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/apps/articles/default.asp?blogid=4336&view=postarticleid=39113&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

http://www.reclaim7mountains.c...sthash.d1fDEbaE.dpuf

 

Barton, at the very least, should be regarded as suspect on the basis of his association with these dominionists in various public forums and his own comments concerning the dominionist ideology.

 

These Seven Mountains folks have a whole tribe of so-called “Apostles” within their ranks. A word to all:  You should automatically regard with suspicion any persons or organizations that claim apostleship.  It is almost always a claim that is transparently traceable to a lust for ecclesiastical power and control.

 

Do you also use Richard Dawkins writings to verify Scripture?

 

First off, there was nothing in my post that had anything to do with verifying scripture, but I see where you are going with that puerile canard you irrelevantly offer. You are playing the old childish game of condemning information from a source that does not align with your ideological perspectives instead of focusing on the REAL issue of whether the report from that source is true or false.  Typical Bill trick, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

 

My Friend, one does not jump into bed with Satan -- just because you do not like another Christian's theology.  Personally, I think your theology stinks -- but, I don't call you names to prove my point.  I can find much more productive ways to refute it.

 

What I definitely do NOT like about Barton is his demonstrably unsound, ideologically-slanted, irrationally theocratic version of American history, the kind of thing that brought him into disgrace among reputable and authentic scholar-historians and got his error-loaded book pulled by its publisher. That has little if anything to do with his theology and everything to do with his credentials and qualifications as a historian.  As to his theology, the dominionist heresy to which Barton apparently subscribes ought to be condemned on the basis of its inconsistency with what the Bible teaches about the Christian’s relationship to civil government.  But maybe you buy into that SevenMountains nonsense, Bill.  It makes about as much sense as the end times quackery you embrace.

 

Just a thought!  Although the Believers' Judgment will be a judgment of rewards, and not of punishment -- we all will be required to account for each word, deed, and thought in this life.  I wonder what rewards you will receive for calling people with who you disagree, derogatory names?>>>>

 

 I suspect that the Lord will have even more derogatory names for those power-hungry theonomistswho twist and distort his word into such programs for worldly domination as the Seven Mountain Dominionism I have described above.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Contendah,

 

I still think Bill is one of them...

+++++++

He definitely has some of the characteristics; that comes through in many of his posts.  Anyone who doggedly defends such poseurs as David Barton in the face of all that is known about Barton's flawed scholarship and selective manipulation of historical information must resonate to some degree with the inanities of dominionism.

Hi Contendah,

 

But, do you really have any thoughts on this subject?

 

By the way, I love that you quote the secular, oftentimes atheist, NPR -- and now we have one of our devout atheist Forum Friends coming to your defense.

 

What does that say about a Christian -- when God's adversaries come to his defense?  Just a thought!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Friends_Piggy

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Contendah,

 

I still think Bill is one of them...

+++++++

He definitely has some of the characteristics; that comes through in many of his posts.  Anyone who doggedly defends such poseurs as David Barton in the face of all that is known about Barton's flawed scholarship and selective manipulation of historical information must resonate to some degree with the inanities of dominionism.

 

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Contendah,

 

But, do you really have any thoughts on this subject?

 

By the way, I love that you quote the secular, oftentimes atheist, NPR -- and now we have one of our devout atheist Forum Friends coming to your defense.

 

What does that say about a Christian -- when God's adversaries come to his defense?  Just a thought!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Friends_Piggy

___

A very cheap "out", Bill. You are truly one pitifully incompetent discussant .  If a thousand  professing but deluded Christians line up on the wrong side of a proposition  and one atheist recognizes the truth, you will find me standing with that atheist, and all the while trying hard--with facts and documentation--to persuade those in stubborn error--Christians or atheists--to see that same truth.  I have provided you with ample documentation on the deceptions of David Barton, but you reject that because of the sources I have cited.  Instead, you should do some honest verification, Bill, to "prove all things; hold to that which is good." (That is Bible stuff, Bill!)

 

What does your bullheaded and intractable resistance to the truth say about YOU?

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Contendah,

 

Having a discussion with you is about the same as trying to calm a nervous Chihuahua!  And, about as productive!  Good luck!

 

Bless your little heart!

 

Bill

***

THAT, Bill, is about the most cowardly, evasive, transparent deflection that you have ever made, and that is saying a lot.  You know that Barton is a fraud, but you just can not bring yourself to acknowledge that your confidence in him was misplaced.

 

Pitiful.

Attention:

 

Do not expect Bill Gray back on this topic.   Instead of even trying to defend the indefensible and disgraced David Barton, Bill has followed his standard modus operandi of posting a new (but not really new) and voluminous (no surprise there) topic reiterating for the umpteenth boring time his standard Darbyite-Scofieldian end times premillennialist pap, containing nothing whatsoever new beyond many (all too many) similar space-wasting eructions.

 

Save your time; read the Sunday comics or watch paint dry.

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

And you know dam well that's not the most cowardly, evasive, transparent

deflection that he have ever made.

___

I am not keeping a box score or using a ratings system on Bill's transparent evasive tactics, since such an effort would demand many hours of work and  I have much better things to do with my time than that.

Hi all,

 

In all my years on this beautiful earth given to us by God -- one thing has become vividly clear to me.  When a person is challenged or rebuked for something he/she said, or did -- and that person does not have the knowledge, wisdom, nor ability to respond with an intelligent answer; that person will most often resort to name calling, cursing, denigration, belittling, and defaming those who call him/her into question.

 

If anyone needs good examples of this -- just read most of Vic's and Contendah's posts. 

 

Bless their angry little hearts!

 

Bill

Mad-Mule

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Mad-Mule
Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
THAT, Bill, is about the most cowardly, evasive, transparent deflection that you have ever made, and that is saying a lot.

Pitiful.

________

But....but...I thought you wanted people to lighten up on Billy Bob? 

Where's your lighten up?

___

I posted the above before I got my inspiration about lightening up.  It's all in the timing.

 

I reserve the right to resume loading up on Bill, in part dependent on just what kind of nonsense he puts up in future blitherings.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi all,

 

In all my years on this beautiful earth given to us by God -- one thing has become vividly clear to me.  When a person is challenged or rebuked for something he/she said, or did -- and that person does not have the knowledge, wisdom, nor ability to respond with an intelligent answer; that person will most often resort to name calling, cursing, denigration, belittling, and defaming those who call him/her into question.

 

If anyone needs good examples of this -- just read most of Vic's and Contendah's posts. 

 

Bless their angry little hearts!

 

Bill

Mad-Mule

___

This coming from a person whose most recent detailed, analytical, and substantive response (TONS of sarcasm intended) was as follows:

 

<<<Having a discussion with you is about the same as trying to calm a nervous Chihuahua!  And, about as productive!  Good luck!

 

Bless your little heart!>>>

 

That terse dismissal is an element of Bill's strategy for avoiding admission of error.  The discussion he seems not to recognize was one in which I posted indubitable evidence showing  his favorite theonomic pseudo-historian, David Barton, to be a professionally-disgraced little poseur.

Blessing my little heart does nothing to refute the detailed information I posted.  Bill just won't deal with THAT.  It is too solid. 

 

I second Bill's recommendation to review my prior discussions with Bill for alleged substantiation of his claim.  I have nothing to worry about should anyone follow that course.

 

I once had a chihuahua that probably could have whupped Bill's ass!  And I am not referring to the long-eared critter in his asinine cartoon.

 

 

Last edited by Contendah

Originally Posted by Contendah:

It's all in the timing.

I reserve the right to resume loading up on Bill, in part dependent on just what kind of nonsense he puts up in future blitherings.

_______

<<<Having a discussion with you is about the same as trying to calm a nervous Chihuahua!  And, about as productive!  Good luck!

Bless your little heart!>>>

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 That terse dismissal is an element of Bill's strategy for avoiding admission of error. 

Blessing my little heart does nothing to refute the detailed information I posted.  Bill just won't deal with THAT.  It is too solid.

_______

When has Bill ever been anything but a blithering idiot?

Show us where Bill has never avoided an admission of error. You sound as all this is new to you.

 

 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

Originally Posted by Contendah:

It's all in the timing.

I reserve the right to resume loading up on Bill, in part dependent on just what kind of nonsense he puts up in future blitherings.

_______

<<<Having a discussion with you is about the same as trying to calm a nervous Chihuahua!  And, about as productive!  Good luck!

Bless your little heart!>>>

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 That terse dismissal is an element of Bill's strategy for avoiding admission of error. 

Blessing my little heart does nothing to refute the detailed information I posted.  Bill just won't deal with THAT.  It is too solid.

_______

When has Bill ever been anything but a blithering idiot?

Show us where Bill has never avoided an admission of error. You sound as all this is new to you.

_____

 

Not sure where you are going with this, but be assured that I am aware of the predictably evasiveness of Bill Gray and of his strong tendency for blithering.  To have overlooked these would have been as likely as to have overlooked an 800-pound gorilla in my kitchen pantry.

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Not sure where you are going with this, but be assured that I am aware of the predictably evasiveness of Bill Gray and of his strong tendency for blithering.  To have overlooked these would have been as likely as to have overlooked an 800-pound gorilla in my kitchen pantry.

_______

I'm not going anywhere with it, just confused by where you're going. One minute you're defending the ole fool, the next you're all over him for his stupidity as though you've never seen it before.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Not sure where you are going with this, but be assured that I am aware of the predictably evasiveness of Bill Gray and of his strong tendency for blithering.  To have overlooked these would have been as likely as to have overlooked an 800-pound gorilla in my kitchen pantry.

_______

I'm not going anywhere with it, just confused by where you're going. One minute you're defending the ole fool, the next you're all over him for his stupidity as though you've never seen it before.

++++++++

My "defense" was entirely tongue-in-cheek, semi. That should allay your confusion.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×