Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Thomas Kinkade--UGH! Puleeze spare us the indignity!

Folks, Thomas Kinkade is a schlock artist. Read the first attachment below for some interesting and correct perspectives on this commercially successful--at least before bankruptcy-but artistically depauperate huckster.

http://juanitajean.com/2010/05...oke-the-camels-back/

Kinkade has had his struggles with John Barleycorn in times past.

More biography on this wretched fellow, from

http://www.thesatelliteoflove.com/

"The people who 'invest' in Kinkade paintings are the kind of people who never take the plastic off their furniture and have Dale Earnhart over their fireplace. He goes around holding prayer circles in Orange County and Bakersfield acting holier than thou yet he is constantly being arrested for something unholy, let's not forget the sexual assault on the woman in the bar in Nevada (which he has publicly admitted to and apologized for) and the unsubstantiated yet multiple and consistent accusations of him urinating in public at Disneyland. This S** of a B**** pissed on Mickey Mouse. So, if anyone wants to know if we're going to prosecute him, the answer is "YES!"

More yet:

In sworn testimony and interviews, they recount incidents in which an allegedly drunken Kinkade heckled illusionists Siegfried & Roy in Las Vegas, cursed a former employee's wife who came to his aid when he fell off a barstool, and palmed a startled woman's breasts at a signing party in South Bend, Ind.

And then there is Kinkade's proclivity for "ritual territory marking," as he called it, which allegedly manifested itself in the late 1990s outside the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim.

"This one's for you, Walt," the artist quipped late one night as he urinated on a Winnie the Pooh figure, said Terry Sheppard, a former vice president for Kinkade's company, in an interview.

http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...ar05,1,4840766.story
Sorry, Kinkade admirers, but the man is not an "artist" in the same league with truly great artists. I know gallery owners and others in the arts, all of whom cringe when some patron make some statement about how "great" Kinkade is. Her has a popular following, but that does not give him authentic status in the world of those who know and appreciate legitimate art. Not all "pretty pictures" are art. That is just the way it is. Enjoy Kinkade all you wish if his paintings give you a warm, homey feeling. Nothing wrong with that, but the man is not an artist of any lasting stature. Go to an upscale gallery that offers great art and ask the owner or staff about Kinkade and watch them get a bit flustered as they try not to be deservedly condescending to you.


Kinkade is talented, but he is not a talented artist. He is a very talented self-promoter and marketer. The stuff produced by his enterprises is mass-produced by a small army of knaves and serfs cranking out Kinkade products:

From USA Today--an article entitled "Profit of Light"

"Nearly 500 paintings emerge daily from this immaculate place, a cross between a ****-and-span hospital and an orderly exotic-car factory where each product carefully shuttles from station to station for twitching and tweaking. But look closely: Each image is a mere high-tech clone of an oil-on-canvas original. And yet some cost in excess of $10,000."

Link to the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2...02-03-12-kinkade.htm

More critical analysis of Kinkade, from http://www.susanorlean.com/art..._for_everybody.html:

"By and large, art critics consider Thomas Kinkade a commercial hack whose work is mawkish and suspiciously fluorescent, and whose genius is not for art but for marketing -- for creating an "editions pyramid" of his prints, each level up a little more expensive, which whips up collectors' appetites the way retiring Beanie Babies did. This view annoys Kinkade no end, and he will talk your ear off -- even talk through the company's strictly enforced one-hour interview limit -- about the ugliness and nihilism of modern art and its irrelevance compared to the life-affirming populism of his work. He will point out that he has built the largest art-based company in the history of the world, and that ten million people have purchased a Kinkade product, at one of three hundred and fifty Thomas Kinkade Signature Galleries that carry his limited-edition prints, or through his Web site, or at one of the five thousand retail outlets that sell Kinkade-licensed products, including cards, puzzles, mugs, blankets, books, La-Z-Boys, accessory pieces, calendars, and night-lights. Last year, Media Arts Group had a hundred and thirty-two million dollars in revenues. It has been traded -- first on the Nasdaq, then on the New York Stock Exchange -- since 1994, making Kinkade the only artist to be a small-cap equity issue. He owns thirty-seven per cent of the company, which makes him, by his calculations, one of the wealthiest artists in the world."

And on the personal side, Kinkade is well-documented to have been the perpetrator of several embarrassing incidents of personal drunken and miscreant behavior, though he has in recent years hopped aboard the gospel train and marketed himself as a painter of things religious. His latest DUI arrest seems to suggest that he has yet to cultivate the sobriety that should typify good Christian behavior.
(CBS) Who is the artist who has sold more canvases than any other painter in history? More than Picasso, Rembrandt, Gaughin, Monet, Manet, Renoir and Van Gogh combined?

If you didn't say Thomas Kinkade, then you've been shopping in the wrong places. He is the most collected living artist in the U.S. and worldwide.

He produces paintings by the container load. And he is to art what Henry Ford was to automobiles.


You can read the rest for youself. Wink

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...tes/main318790.shtml
Meh. he's ok. i classified him with all the other generic brush jockies.
Art? maybe. i don't think so.
the question is, in another 200 years will he be listed along with the other people mentioned in the other post.

my answer is, i doubt it.
he's a paint-by-numbers guru. in another hundred years he'll be hanging over the beds of motel 6's everywhere, and monet, manet, Seurat, van gogh etc etc will still be in the louvre and other museams across the globe.

as far as being a christian?
i don't much see what this has to do with that.
everyone makes mistakes, regardless of their beliefs.

the difference is how they handle those mistakes.
will he say " oops, sorry" or will it blow it off like nothign happened.
like the kenedies have for the last 40 years?
quote:
Originally posted by HadEnough:
(CBS) Who is the artist who has sold more canvases than any other painter in history? More than Picasso, Rembrandt, Gaughin, Monet, Manet, Renoir and Van Gogh combined?

If you didn't say Thomas Kinkade, then you've been shopping in the wrong places. He is the most collected living artist in the U.S. and worldwide.

He produces paintings by the container load. And he is to art what Henry Ford was to automobiles.


You can read the rest for youself. Wink

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...tes/main318790.shtml


Yes, he is indeed to art(or whatever it is that he produces) what Henry Ford was to automobiles, a mass-producer of an assembly-line product. But art should never be a mass-produced assembly-line product!
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
BeternU

There must be a story behind your suddenly becoming ,shall we say, one of the informed.

A clod-hopper one day ; art critic the next. Roll Eyes


Well, Vincent, I did not form my opinion of Kinkade "suddenly." My disdain for schlock art extends back at least 50 years. As to my alleged clod-hopping, you are entitled to believe what you will, but when you use that term without specificity, you are simply name-calling, which gets you no credit for critical acuity, but instead places you squarely in the mainstream of the clod-hopper community
Hi all,

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I recall the first time I saw a Kinkade painting, about fifteen years ago. My wife and I had just had dinner in a restaurant and were walking around the open air mall. As we approached an art store, the security guard was fascinated with a Kinkade painting and called our attention to it. We all really enjoyed the way he handles the light in his paintings. We did not know him; had no idea if he was a Christian or whatever -- we just enjoyed his paintings.

Does anyone remember the artist who painted the art below? In the 1960s, the world was introduced to Charles Keane, the artist, and most of the world fell in love with his work. I really did -- and immediately bought several of his reproductions -- which is all I would ever be able to afford. But, boy, did I enjoy those paintings, or, at least, the reproductions of the paintings.

Well, as it turned out; Charles was not the artist -- his wife, Margaret, was the artist. He was just a good marketer who could sell her works. So, they put his name on her paintings.

Did the fact that there was deception involved -- or that they mass produced her paintings make them any less enjoyable? No. Not in the least. Of course, it affected the collector value of her paintings. But, to we little people, who just enjoyed the paintings; it made no difference.

In Laguna Beach, California, there is an amazing artist named Ruth Mayer. My wife and I love her work and love to visit her gallery in Laguna Beach. We cannot afford her original works -- but, whether it is a reproduction or an original, we enjoy Ruth Mayer's paintings. Just as I have always enjoyed Margaret Keane's paintings or reproductions.

So, Beter, I guess I am saying -- why be a snob about Kinkade's painting just because he has commercialized them. Just enjoy the beauty of them. In the mid-1950, when I was in high school, Mario Lanza was very popular. I recall getting a kick out of a bunch of us guys, all athletes, piling into a friends Hudson Hornet and going to a drive-in movie to watch a Mario Lanza musical. Can you see a bunch of high school jocks doing that today? Yet, we enjoyed his musicals.

However, many "nose in the air" music critics of the day said that Lanza had prostituted his talent by making movies. In their thinking, he should only have performed in opera houses before snooty audiences -- instead of in the movies where all we common folks could enjoy his talents. Beter, how would you have judged Mario Lanza?

I guess my point is -- God made beauty; God gave certain people talent -- let's just enjoy what God has given us through these people.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Keane_-_Watching-1
Anyone who admires the Keane paintings and collects them is truly a throwback and a clod when it comes to art appreciation. They are, indeed, among the kinds of "art" that are most often mentioned when bad taste in art is discussed. They are in the same category as those paintings we used to see in barber shops of dogs all dressed up and sitting around playing poker.

From one expert source:

"Now, let me give you my sense of Keane's work in the art world. Her work is far too nostalgic and romantic for it to have any impact on the mainstream art world in our time. Her work will not be in the history books."

Link: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Con...2/margaret-keane.htm

Whether he-Keane or she-Keane painted that stuff makes no difference; the product is JUNK! And it is decidedly not true that most of the world fell in love with his work. Only those suffering from severely retarded esthetic sensibilities thought highly of Keane's work. Of course there are many in this nation who suffer from that defect, which is why such mass-producers of schlock art as Kinikade and Keane have the monetary success they enjoy.

Ruth Mayer is a very competent draftsman; some of her work is almost photographic in its adherence to detail. She knows how to wield a paint brush. In the long term, however, she will not be regarded as a great American artist, but as simply one more painter of "pretty pictures."
Last edited by beternU
Hi Beter,

It must be nice to be so refined and cultured. How can you stand being on the same Forum with such common people as we? It must truly be a sacrifice for you to expose yourself to such low class people.

Yes, my Friend, you are truly one to be admired. If anyone doubts this -- just ask Beter.

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Lowly, common Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bear-on-Branch_LINK
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

It must be nice to be so refined and cultured. How can you stand being on the same Forum with such common people as we? It must truly be a sacrifice for you to expose yourself to such low class people.

Yes, my Friend, you are truly one to be admired. If anyone doubts this -- just ask Beter.

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Lowly, common Bill


If you paid attention to this link, you would know that I am no lone ranger when it comes to negatively critiquing such "art" as that of Thomas Kinkade, mass producer of schlock art and drunken urinator on Mickey Mouse.

One need not to be extraordinarily cultured and refined to recognize junk art, but one does have to be extraordinarily blind to reality to embrace such products as though they were limned by brush strokes of the immortals!
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

It must be nice to be so refined and cultured. How can you stand being on the same Forum with such common people as we? It must truly be a sacrifice for you to expose yourself to such low class people.

Yes, my Friend, you are truly one to be admired. If anyone doubts this -- just ask Beter.

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Lowly, common Bill

If you paid attention to this link, you would know that I am no lone ranger when it comes to negatively critiquing such "art" as that of Thomas Kinkade, mass producer of schlock art and drunken urinator on Mickey Mouse.

One need not to be extraordinarily cultured and refined to recognize junk art, but one does have to be extraordinarily blind to reality to embrace such products as though they were limned by brush strokes of the immortals!

Hi Beter,

We have seen you attack folks because you believe they cannot write as well as you. I have seen you attack folks because you obviously feel superior to them. As a matter of fact, most of your posts are attacking others for being less cultured, less refined, less educated, etc., than you.

Personally, this gives me the feeling that you are a snob. And, quite honestly, I have always like writings of people like Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck who do not try to impress folks with five syllable words. I have always found that down to earth writings, those using simple words and phrases, such as Hemingway and Steinbeck -- to be much more appealing.

And, personally, I like the paintings of Kinkade and Keane. If that makes me less cultured -- so be it. Who cares?

But, what I fail to understand is your devout dedication to defaming Kinkade. Does this make you feel superior? It shouldn't.

Just my thoughts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
Like I said; there is a story behind this. In a circle somewhere beternU overheard someone express a dislike for Kinkade. In the conversation betternU was ask for his opinion. Suddenly, as if poked in the ribs, he blurted out involuntarily ,looking side-to-side in surprise his opinion was for a millisecond important ;some ejaculation of absurdity , that for eternity would bind him as an critic of the artist.

Trust me I’ve see these things before.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

It must be nice to be so refined and cultured. How can you stand being on the same Forum with such common people as we? It must truly be a sacrifice for you to expose yourself to such low class people.

Yes, my Friend, you are truly one to be admired. If anyone doubts this -- just ask Beter.

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Lowly, common Bill

If you paid attention to this link, you would know that I am no lone ranger when it comes to negatively critiquing such "art" as that of Thomas Kinkade, mass producer of schlock art and drunken urinator on Mickey Mouse.

One need not to be extraordinarily cultured and refined to recognize junk art, but one does have to be extraordinarily blind to reality to embrace such products as though they were limned by brush strokes of the immortals!

Hi Beter,

We have seen you attack folks because you believe they cannot write as well as you. I have seen you attack folks because you obviously feel superior to them. As a matter of fact, most of your posts are attacking others for being less cultured, less refined, less educated, etc., than you.

Personally, this gives me the feeling that you are a snob. And, quite honestly, I have always like writings of people like Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck who do not try to impress folks with five syllable words. I have always found that down to earth writings, those using simple words and phrases, such as Hemingway and Steinbeck -- to be much more appealing.

And, personally, I like the paintings of Kinkade and Keane. If that makes me less cultured -- so be it. Who cares?

But, what I fail to understand is your devout dedication to defaming Kinkade. Does this make you feel superior? It shouldn't.

Just my thoughts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


You say,

"As a matter of fact, most of your posts are attacking others for being less cultured, less refined, less educated, etc., than you."

That you would post something as flagrantly incorrect as this demonstrates that you either are an unregenerate, unprincipled liar or that you have not been paying attention to what I post or that you are mentally defective to the extent that you can not examine information and analyze it like a normal person can. Anyone on this forum can call up my posts and review them and see that your accusation egregiously misrepresents the facts concerning the content of my posts.

Shame on you, Bill!

You also wrote, "But, what I fail to understand is your devout dedication to defaming Kinkade. Does this make you feel superior? It shouldn't."

You fail to understand many things, Bill, so it should not come as any surprise that you fail to understand my views on Kinkade. I am not defaming anyone. Kinkade's drunken misadventures are the source of his own defamation.

And, Bill, in case you have somehow forgotten, this is a public forum for the expression of viewpoints. It is a marketplace of ideas. When I or anyone on here posts a critical opinion concerning some public figure, does that mean that the person posting is doing so in order to feel superior? If so, Bill, you must get a lot of superior feelings from all the critical drivel you post about the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of its armed forces, the Honorable, American-born Barack Hussein Obama!

And, BTW, the fact that I am not addressing the other misreprentations in your post does not mean that I agree with them. There is only so much time in a day to deal with all the distortions, lies and inanities you post on this forum.
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
Like I said; there is a story behind this. In a circle somewhere beternU overheard someone express a dislike for Kinkade. In the conversation betternU was ask for his opinion. Suddenly, as if poked in the ribs, he blurted out involuntarily ,looking side-to-side in surprise his opinion was for a millisecond important ;some ejaculation of absurdity , that for eternity would bind him as an critic of the artist.

Trust me I’ve see these things before.


The only "story" about this is that it is widely held across the community of those who know and appreciate art, that Kinkade, with his large brush-wielding staff of mass-production assistants, is a producer of marketable little pretty pictures that have no enduring value as true art. End of story. Your silly little scenario simply reveals your own bumpkinesque ignorance in this matter.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
And, Bill, in case you have somehow forgotten, this is a public forum for the expression of viewpoints. It is a marketplace of ideas.

Hi Beter,

Correct me if I am wrong -- but, I do recall you writing that you come on the Forum because you like to argue.

Arguing is not exchanging ideas; arguing is a form of fighting. Discussion is exchanging ideas -- and does not entail berating another just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards.

Again, I may be wrong, but, from your writings I get the feeling that you consider yourself to be above we mere peons on the Forum.

Self applause is analogous to "one handed applause."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Sylvester-Cat-2_TEXT
quote:
just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards.


WOw, Bill Gray, how quickly you have changed your tune.
Not too long ago, I recall you blasting someone for poor grammar. You said, if one cannot take the time to write properly, why would someone take time to hear what she/he has to say.
Hmmm....i bet someone else remembers that too. I wonder if we could dig up that post! Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Rramlimnn, with the picture you have chosen for your avatar, I would think you had better taste in art. It's true that there is no accounting for taste, but it blows my mind that someone who can appreciate Van Gogh would also like Kincaid.


would it make you feel any better if i said i didn't like either one?

i figure if he likes both, but i don't like either, it balences out Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards.


WOw, Bill Gray, how quickly you have changed your tune.
Not too long ago, I recall you blasting someone for poor grammar. You said, if one cannot take the time to write properly, why would someone take time to hear what she/he has to say.
Hmmm....i bet someone else remembers that too. I wonder if we could dig up that post! Smiler


/bows to VPLEE123
Cool
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
And, Bill, in case you have somehow forgotten, this is a public forum for the expression of viewpoints. It is a marketplace of ideas.

Hi Beter,

Correct me if I am wrong -- but, I do recall you writing that you come on the Forum because you like to argue.

Arguing is not exchanging ideas; arguing is a form of fighting. Discussion is exchanging ideas -- and does not entail berating another just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards.

Again, I may be wrong, but, from your writings I get the feeling that you consider yourself to be above we mere peons on the Forum.

Self applause is analogous to "one handed applause."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Whether I said that or not I do not remember. However, Bill, there is nothing that is necessarily wrong or inappropriate about arguing--at least insofar as that term is defined by folks who know more about defining things than you do. Here is the whole load from Merriam-Webster, with one small bold highlight from Merriam-beternU:

intransitive verb
1 : to give reasons for or against something : reason <argue for a new policy>
2 : to contend or disagree in words : dispute <argue about money>
transitive verb
1 : to give evidence of : indicate <the facts argue his innocence>
2 : to consider the pros and cons of : discuss <argue an issue>
3 : to prove or try to prove by giving reasons : maintain <asking for a chance to argue his case>
4 : to persuade by giving reasons :

There is no shame or down side in any of that insofar as I can see. It is what you do all the time, you hypocrite; you ARGUE in favor of your viewa, opinions, and sectarian beliefs day in and day out on these forums.

So quit ragging me or anyone else about "arguing," Bill. In view of your own performance on these forums, for you to argue against arguing makes you look ever more the silly prattling poseur that you are!
Hi Beter,

Regardless of how you dress it -- arguing is still arguing, i.e., being contentious. The Bible tells us about being contentious:

Proverbs 21:9, "It is better to live in a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman."

Proverbs 21:19, "It is better to live in a desert land Than with a contentious and vexing woman."

Proverbs 25:24, "It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman."

Proverbs 26:21, "Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife."

Proverbs 27:15, "A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike."

And, the apostle Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians 11:16-17, "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse."

That, my Friend, is what God and the Bible tell us about being contentious, about arguing. But, hey, if that is your thing -- knock yourself out. Just, please, leave us out of it.

A good discussion, even when we disagree, is worthwhile and most often informative. However, arguing is just that -- arguing. And, it has no redeeming benefits.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Correct me if I am wrong -- but, I do recall you writing that you come on the Forum because you like to argue. Arguing is not exchanging ideas; arguing is a form of fighting. Discussion is exchanging ideas -- and does not entail berating another just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards.

WOw, Bill Gray, how quickly you have changed your tune. Not too long ago, I recall you blasting someone for poor grammar. You said, if one cannot take the time to write properly, why would someone take time to hear what she/he has to say. Hmmm....i bet someone else remembers that too. I wonder if we could dig up that post!

Hi VP and Nagel,

If I recall, you are speaking of when I chastised you for being a "lazy" writer. That is one who cannot, or will not, take the time to use the Shift key on your keyboard. This is not a matter of grammar or punctuation -- only a matter of being too "lazy" to do what you know will make for better communication.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Friend last night. When I called, he was in the middle of sending a text message to his fiancé in the Philippines. She had sent him her new address -- and typed the whole message without capital letters and without punctuation. As he asked me, "How do you figure out a foreign address when there are no caps or punctuation?" In other words, her being lazy made her message virtually impossible for him to understand.

And, my Friend, when you type in the same "lazy" style -- your messages often become just as jumbled.

If you will take another look, you will see that I told Beter, "Discussion is exchanging ideas -- and does not entail berating another just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards."

Beter is berating others because he/she feels that he/she is superior in intelligence to the other person. And, an attitude like that indicates less intelligence, not more. At least, that is my opinion.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
oh, ok, you have forgotten. well its so easy...

kaykayla tried to talk, and you responded with :

"However, I do have one question for you. If you are cleaning house, or your yard -- and decide you want to go shopping -- do you put on make-up and comb your hair before leaving home?

Why?

Can it be that you want to present your best image to the folks you run into as you are shopping?

Should you not be just as concerned about your image to your Forum Friends? So, I would imagine that spelling and grammatical errors should be of interest to you.

You comb your hair before going shopping -- why not comb your spelling and grammar before coming before your Forum Friends?"

and then you hit her with this:
"Hi Kay,

I was only teasing about the hair. No offense meant; just a wee bit of fun.

But, we can talk about writing. The reason a person writes anything is to share a thought or idea with others. Whether it is on a forum, in a book, in a column, or just to say hi to a friend -- our goal is to have our Friends read, understand, and gain from reading what we write.

Based upon that assumption -- the better our writing, the more likely others will read it. So, things such as spelling, grammar, and sentence/paragraph structure do matter. In other words, to encourage them, we have to make it both interesting and easy for our Friends to read what we write. Otherwise we are just talking into the wind.

If you do not care whether others read what you write -- why bother writing it? So, proper spelling, grammar, and short concise paragraphs, each sharing a complete thought can make others want to read what you have written -- even when they do not agree with you.

So, it is always best to comb your hair, polish your spelling, shine your grammar, and make sure your paragraphs are polished. With that image, folks most likely will then respond, "Linus, it seems that Kay has something interesting to say -- let's read what she is telling us.""

I can also dig up the posts you blasted thenagel about his writing styles. Yes, you called him a lazy writer. But my main example was your rudeness and "superiority" to KayKayla.
It's really easy- just search Bill Gray- grammar. Smiler

So now please reconcile this with your latest position, which is:

"Discussion is exchanging ideas -- and does not entail berating another just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards."


You change your stance to suit your current argument. This is a minor issue, but it speaks volumes on your consistency and credibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

Regardless of how you dress it -- arguing is still arguing, i.e., being contentious. The Bible tells us about being contentious:

Proverbs 21:9, "It is better to live in a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman."

Proverbs 21:19, "It is better to live in a desert land Than with a contentious and vexing woman."

Proverbs 25:24, "It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman."

Proverbs 26:21, "Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife."

Proverbs 27:15, "A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike."

And, the apostle Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians 11:16-17, "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse."

That, my Friend, is what God and the Bible tell us about being contentious, about arguing. But, hey, if that is your thing -- knock yourself out. Just, please, leave us out of it.

A good discussion, even when we disagree, is worthwhile and most often informative. However, arguing is just that -- arguing. And, it has no redeeming benefits.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill



Eagerly chasing through your concordance, Bill, you have found the word "contentious" here and there and now you try to use what you have found to inject your findings into this discussion so as to imply that by "arguing", I am being "contentious" and thus un-Biblical.

Such a silly stretch, Bill and such a flagrant violation of the canons of hermeneutics. Such a shameless contrivance on your part, demonstrating yet again what a weasel you can make of yourself!

I will deal first with the first 5 scripture references you have posed. Kindly note that they refer to contentious WOMEN. I am not a woman; thus I do not consider them pertaining to me. And besides, what the writer of Proverbs was addressing was the difficulty of living continuously with the kind of woman who is by disposition continually a contentious person.

I am not a woman and I am not by disposition a continually contentious person. I rise strongly in opposition to asinine and irrational posts by you or others on this forum, but this is a tiny corner of my life.

The passage from 1 Cor. 1 is referring to a very specific issue that was proving divisive in the Corinthian church, namely the kind of hair style or head covering women should adopt. Paul writes, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no custom, neither the churches of God." It is not the matter of being contentious, per se, against which which Paul counsels; it is a matter of the Corinthian brethren being contentious and divisive over something that is not a spritual essential, something that neither side of that issue should be divisive or dogmatic about. It is far from being an admonition about never contending for anything pro or con. Jude 3 says, "...ye should contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Am I contentious, Bill, because I contend for the truth and oppose error, such as the asinine and never-ceasing error of the irremediably dense "birthers" who refuse to face the FACTS and who themselves continue to be contentious about the nativity of our President when there is no reasonable doubt about the matter?

You don't like what you call my "contentiousness," Bill, because you have so much trouble dealing with the facts and evidence I send your way in hopes of lifting you from the quagmire of ignorance and prejudice in which you so smugly and ignorantly wallow.

Add Reply

Post

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