211 thoughts on “Claiming Conspiracy”

    1. Have you noticed Tampa Bay only because sucessful after that took the word “Devil” out of their team name? (Fundie logic)
      Also as a good fundie you can’t cheer for the Cardinals, Padres and Brewers!

        1. I think I remember hearing somewhere that The Wizard of Oz was an allegory or something like that talking about the financial system at the time… or was that Alice in Wonderland? I find it amusing that this guy gets so much theology out of movies that didn’t seem like they were meant to be taken that seriously. But if you are going to church for entertainment, then I guess going to the movies for your theology would be the logical next step.

        2. ” But if you are going to church for entertainment, then I guess going to the movies for your theology would be the logical next step.”

          Epic, Sims. Love this.

      1. No I will not watch this. I know it would tick me off. Why they have to find something wrong with EVERYTHING is beyond me. Nothing can be just taken for entertainment value, it always has to have something wrong with it. Well phooey on that, I happen to like the wizard of Oz! And phooey on sanctimonious prigs who can’t enjoy anything! ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

        1. I think sanctimonious PIG would be the more accurate moniker for this porker. apparently the sin of gluttony is one he skips over.

    1. And are they all King James Versions? And if so, why have so many? I mean, if they all say the exact same thing, then why display the stack of them as if more Bibles means more information. If they aren’t all KJV then why would he need them? (since they are obviously inferior)

      I seem to have a lot of questions this evening. ๐Ÿ™‚

        1. I just want to say that I think the Ray Stevens song ‘Santa Clause is Watching You’ song works great right here.

          He’s EVERYWHERE!!! HE’S EVERYWHERE!!!

      1. Is this the same fat guy from a video a few weeks back? Seems like it. I said at the time the guy was so fat he seemed to slump in his chair, same for this fat guy unless it’s the same fat guy. Oops George almost had me typing fag guy. Nasty George, you’re up early this morning. Go back to bed, George. ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

        1. I really have to ask this, for all the talk of Christian love and kindness on here, why is it you guys have an obession with peoples weight? Yes, the guy could cut back on the Big Macs, but then so could many on here probably. If you don’t agree with his theology, then try to pick it apart. By calling fat you are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing.

          This is the problem with the whole sarcasam bit. You never know when your being serious or just acting like some lame stand-up comedian. Maybe it’s just me, but I was taught when you grow up, you start acting like a grown up. And always writing and speaking like a smart aleck is more like a fifth grader on the playground.

        2. @Chad: you’re right, we can be mean and petty. However, if you use the link on the right hand side and overdose on David Grice for the afternoon, you may understand why I give Macushla a pass. He calls the roll at the Church of the First Thrown Stone.

        3. The only reason people point that out here is that fundies delight in judging people for their music tastes, clothes, soul-winning habits, language, etc. but somehow NEVER talk about the sin of gluttony. It’s a huge piece of hypocrisy that bears pointing out.

          Out of all the things my fundy ex-pastor used to rant about, eating too much or unhealthily was never one of them. In fact, he condemned anyone who went to the gym (he said the gym was “all about sex”), but he never worked out, ate way too much and bragged about it, and weighed around 300 lbs.

        4. The gym is all about sex? Man, I’ve got to find a better gym. At the ones I’ve been to, people just lift weights and ride stationary bikes and swim laps and stuff like that.

        5. @Stony, here is a thought, be the bigger man and take the high road. Don’t play the game of mud slinging. Really does it make you feel better to be petty and mean-spirited. I would rather deal with fundy anger any day. It is overt and you see it coming, this so-called witty sarcasam is passive-agressive.

        6. “It IS the same guy, and Sims is right. About the slip. Well, about lots of things.”

          What’s this about a slip? That’s only proper attire for fundy women (with a dress over it of course). ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

        7. REALLY fundy women wear two. (In case one has the audacity to ride up.) At least I was told that by my rather large gym teacher.

        8. Only SOME fundy anger is overt – perhaps the anger we saw coming from the pulpit was – but most of the anger I’ve personally been the recipient of has been petty and passive-aggressive.

          And the Bible does say with what judgment you judge you will be judged. I think sometimes the reason ex-fundies “nit-pick” at fundamentalists is because they’ve spent their entire ministries as nit-pickers and mote-declarers themselves and the hypocrisy is maddening!

        9. Chad, I apologize. That was unkind. But what everyone else said was true too. I can count the number of times any preacher spoke about overeating on two fingers, and it was always some skinny dude with a great metabolism. I’m not throwing rocks at him since I’m overweight too, but I go to the gym and work out and no it’s not about sex though both the women and men there are immodestly dressed especially by fundy standards. I’m not far from fundydom myself, and when I put on sweat pants to go to the gym, they’re the first pair of pants I’ve owned in 26 years. It felt so strange to put them on! ๐Ÿ˜‰

        10. As someone who fell in love with and was practically engaged to a VERY large man (he’d have dwarfed the guy in the video), I have a much different perspective on this than I used to. My Ron was severely obese–and tragically, it took his life. He was 34 years old. Was Ron guilty of the sin of gluttony? Probably. (Though I tend to think that many factors were at work, probably genetics being the most significant in his case.)

          Because of the way we got to know each other (online and over the phone before seeing a full-length photo or meeting in person), I came to know and care about the person inside *first.* Once I did see his full size, I was shocked, but the thought of not continuing in friendship with him never even occurred to me. But here’s the thing: I know what I was like before that well enough to know: If I’d encountered his full size first, I’d have turned away…disgustedly (which breaks my heart). And if I had done that, I would have missed out on loving and being loved by the sweetest man I’ve ever known.

          As an outgrowth of this, I’ve found my personal mission: To love people “from the inside out” and motivate others to do the same. You can read more about this on my blog.

          Regarding the “praying to a dead person” thing, well (surprise surprise) I have a different perspective on that now, too. Guess what: Ron’s spirit is still alive (I am certain he went to Heaven); it’s his just *body* that is dead. (Or have you forgotten, fundies, that that’s how it works?!?) And I have talked to him many times in the years since his passing. I happen to believe that those in Heaven are aware of what we are doing (“surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,” anyone?). If it’s not quite that literal, oh well. It comforts me. And in any case God knows I am talking to Ron (and I believe He’s OK with it). What’s to say God is not, in Heaven, letting Ron in on what I’m saying? BTW if anyone thinks I’m crazy for any of this…let me just say, I betting you’d feel differently if you lost the person you love most in the world.

          Oh, I’ve been using “talk to” not “pray,” but guess what: Prayer is talking to God. Hm…. And if I can’t ask Ron’s spirit to pray for me, then I can’t ask someone still inhabiting their body here on Earth to pray for me either. (Whoops, fundies…#logicfail)

          OK, I’ve said my piece.

    1. Right. The point of asking for a saint’s intercession is that we know that that person is already in heaven. Even in the Catholic church, someone does not have to be an “official” saint for you to ask for his/her prayers, it just needs to be someone now in heaven. Of course, you can also ask for intercessory prayers from people still on earth.

  1. things that make me cringe, #46-49

    #46: imprecise/informal speech (‘mega-higher level’, ‘whole big bunch’)
    #47: conspiracy theories(‘they choose these people, could be even for political reasons’)
    #48: anecdotal evidence as completely objective truth
    #49: kjv is holy and infallible and perfect

    1. #51 leaps in (so-called) logic that don’t even make sense
      #52 leaving out pertinent information…like what the new translations use in place of the word “saint”
      #53 making the KJV a personal entity with thoughts and discernment

        1. sorry, I’ll correct that….
          other forms of Fundie exercise:-
          Running dowm other Christians
          Pushing their Luck
          Bending the Truth
          Sidestepping the real Issues
          Jummping to Conclusions
          Maybe you can add to the list?

        2. Pastor: “Doctor, I’m gaining weight!”
          Doctor: “Try getting some exercise.”
          Pastor: “What kind of exercise?”
          Doctor: “Try pushing yourself away from the table three times a day.”

  2. Grice: “The Catholic Church teaches that a saint is a special person on some mega-higher level than other Christians.”

    Sounds like the way some in IFB circles revere the fundamentalist popes.

  3. A “King James Moment” indeed.
    I wonder if he has gilded frame pictures of Saint Ruckman and Saint Marrs. I’ll bet he has an altar for Saint Riplinger where he finds his inspiration for these “Moments.”

      1. At least he could make it through this teaching of his without mentioning with glowing face “my pastor, Dr. Jack Hyles said…” Every time I heard those words I wanted to hurl. ๐Ÿ™„

        1. You would have REALLY had a hard time having Hyles for your pastor, then! Sims and I did. And I have mentioned here before, he did my wedding. Sigh. I just cannot mess up my album by cutting his face out of all the photos, but I wish he could just disappear…

        2. Or even better, that “Droopy Dog” (old cartoon) That is who he always reminded me of. Other possibilities, William Shatner, Obama, Charlie Sheen (because of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) or Napoleon (little man syndrome) or Jim Jones, David Karesch, you get the idea…

        1. Well, this pastor obviously thinks that the KJV is the correct version to use, and I don’t fault him at all for that. In fact, I agree with this opinion.

          Ruckman & Riplinger claim that God failed to preserve His words, and that God re-gave His word to the translators (and/or similar wackiness) I don’t believe this; I don’t know if this pastor believes it or not. I don’t know if he is as narcissistic as Hyles or not; I’ve never met the man and know nothing about him.

          I don’t know why the NIV (etc) refused to use the word “saint” or “saints”; I’m NOT going to guess at the reasons why they did so. I

  4. “The King James knows it and doesn’t try to hide it”

    The King James has now become self-aware. I see a future in which The King James and Sky-net are locked in a battle for control of the earth. Both sides have scary robots so either way you slice it we are gonna need Arnold for this one.

      1. Not so much grieving as keeping score and storing up wrath, guilt and judgment against you for your backslidden, pagan ways. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

        A sentient 1611 King James Bible that is expert in IFB is a frightening prospect indeed.

        1. Apathetic or Whatever,

          THAT would be a fundy pastor’s dream come true! Well, that and members strapping video cams to their foreheads so he can have the staff monitor their activities! LOL!

      1. To most IFBers, Anglicans are as bad as Catholics. I’ve been sent links that “prove” that C. S. Lewis wasn’t a Christian. My parents asked me not to read his writings because “he’s Anglican.” It always bugged me that they trusted the translators of the KJV implicitly and considered them especially holy men but dismissed Lewis out of hand.

      2. King Jimmy was baptized as a child as Catholic. I believe he was also a Protestant for a time. Which to me would be funny since IFBers make such a big deal out of NOT being Protestant, or even a denomination, but then they use a Bible that was authorized and written by the very people they attempt to distance themselves from.

        (Whew, sorry for the run-on sentence)

        1. He was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots who was a big Catholic and actually executed for trying to assassinate Queen Elizabeth (a Protestant) because the Catholics wanted to be back in power in England after there own Queen Mary died leaving Elizabeth as queen.

    1. King James I wasn’t Catholic (wasn’t fond of Presbyterians either, having had to deal with them in Scotland), but the Catholic James you’re thinking of is James II. He ended up losing his throne because of it, replaced by his brother in law, William (who was married to his Protestant sister, Mary) in the “Glorious Revolution.” Just heard that in lecture a few weeks ago.

      Yeah, occasionally one learns a bit of history in divinity school, go figure. :mrgreen:

  5. This could be added to yesterday’s lists. If the Catholics do it or believe it, it’s wrong. Automatically. Don’t even question it. And if you try to understand it, just look to this guy — he’ll explain it all to you.

    1. Lots of them on YouTube. They would make good penance for your sins if you’re Cathlick. Say two Hail Mary’s, three Our Father’s and watch five King James Moment’s.

  6. I didn’t realize that the new versions had entirely removed saints. I can see both sides to this decision; so many people think of “saint” in the Catholic way, so it may be better to change the word. It doesn’t seem to be uniformly translated in the NIV, at least. The word for “saint/saints” is translated in the KJV as saint/saints just over 25% of the time; the rest of the time, it is “holy [thing or person]”

    The NIV doesn’t seem to translate it in any consistent manner – it could have been a policy adopted to not offend Catholics, but I don’t know. Regardless, I the best word to represent God’s word should be used.

    Personally, I like “saint” and am sorry to see it gone.

    1. ‘Saints’ is not removed from ‘the new versions’, but some have chosen not to use it. ‘The New Versions’ is a straw man erected by the KJV-Only movement; sometimes it means ‘the margin of some version’, or ‘a really obscure Bible translation I found in a store somewhere’.

      The ESV retains ‘saint’, as does the NKJV (which they hate anyhow, despite it retaining several KJV readings that are quite indefensible) and the NASB. A better explanation is that the versions that do not use the term ‘saint’ feel that the term has too much baggage from the Roman Catholic usage.

      Finally, and ironically, the KJV uses ‘saint’ in the restricted sense in its titles and chapter summaries. All of the KJV translators were Anglicans, and many would have used ‘saint’ in that sense in common speech.

      But then Fundamentalists have no sense of history.

      1. Sorry; I did not mean to imply that “saint” was not used in any modern translation; I pulled up the NIV and did a search and there were zero matches. So, I assume that this pastor is correct for the versions he listed.

        I suspect that the NIV (and the others he listed) deliberately avoided it, probably because of the “baggage” (as you say), but unless there are notes of the translators saying so, it’s just a guess.

        That could bring up an interesting discussion about translation/use of words… if a word has “baggage”, but is a good or right word, do we use it, or avoid it?

        1. A lot of what IFBs do is try to not do what other religions do to avoid the appearance of evil or to show how different they are and that begets a lot of the stupid rules and regs they impose on themselves and it gets ridiculous. I heard an IFB pastoral candidate joke that, “remember when we didn’t wear blue shirts because that’s what the neo-evangelicals did?” The congregation thought it was funny, I thought, “absolutely pathetic”. ๐Ÿ™„ Hey didn’t get “called” thank goodness…

        2. Perhaps they didn’t use the word ‘saint’ because it just isn’t the right word. Greek is not easy to translate, IMHO.

        3. Regarding the NIV confusion – the older NIV (1984) uses saint; the new NIV does not.

          As to the reason, it makes sense to me that the translators were trying to avoid baggage from the common usage of the word, and translated it as “God’s people” (at least in Rev. 5:8โ€”I didn’t look up any other passages), which is what the word means in this usage. “Saints” may be a more accurate translation, thoughโ€”it does mean God’s people, but it also gets across the idea that he has made them holy, which from a quick look is what the original word conveyed. On the other hand, if someone reads the word saint and thinks, “dead people who have been canonized,” then it hasn’t really been translated for them. Maybe “God’s holy people” would be a better translation.

        4. I just went to (I think) Bible gateway web site, chose “NIV” and selected “saint” (assuming that it would hit on both “saint” and “saints”; it returned 0 matches.

          From the few passages I looked at, the NIV uses a variety of terms “holy people” (which seems to be a pretty good fit from the Greek word), “Lord’s people”, “the believers”, “God’s people” (these from about six verses I looked at).

        5. The version that is marked “NIV” in Bible Gateway is the newest NIV. The one that is marked “NIV (1984)” is the older NIV that does contain the word “saints.”

  7. Speaking of King James Moments:

    Darrell, do you happen to have a record of one Revd. Joel Mullenix’s “reconciliation” of the “reign of Omri?” It was a shining example of “Logical Leaping Larrys” on a topic which seems to have its share of said “Leaping Larrys” (if Biblical semantic reindeer games interest you, then Google this one for a veritable feast).

    I’d love to see Mega-Higher Level Pastor Grice take a crack at that one.

        1. Eric, I never let sports differences separate me from my friends. I say, read whatever version of the Bible you want, dress the way you want, have tattoos, have a drink. All of this is in keeping with your liberty in Christ. On the subject of sports teams, you are sadly misinformed, but I believe there is grace to cover that. You are my SFL friend, your posts are great reading, and if you are misled on a few things, well, I have learned to take the bad with the good, since coming out of fundy-dum many years ago. (Anyway, truth is, I am very conflicted about Vick. Being a dog-lover myself!) PHILLIES RULE!!!

        2. @ Seen Enough I will drink to most of what you wrote. We will have to differ on our sports teams and I will not clutter of Darrell’s blog with inane banter about sports. You may cheer for your Phillies (because my Brewers are going to have a hard time beating them if both teams get that far) and I’ll cheer for my Packers (who are 3-0 compared to the Eagles 1-2.) Cheers!!! (as I look for my Guinness) ๐Ÿ˜€

        3. Agreed with you on not cluttering up this blog, which is why I worked in some inane chatter about your tattoo-ability. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Don’t punish me, Darrell! ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

        4. FWIW, my entire office is decorated in Phillies memorabilia, and today, I am wearing my Phillies earrings and bracelet! I would have one of my tee shirts on, but that is frowned upon. ๐Ÿ™

        5. “FWIW, my entire office is decorated in Phillies memorabilia, and today, I am wearing my Phillies earrings and bracelet!”

          Given the reputation of Philly sports fans, doesn’t that constitute creating a ‘hostile work environment’?

          ๐Ÿ˜›

        6. (wide-eyed innocent stare) When have I ever denied being EXACTLY how Phillies fans are portrayed in the media? AND PROUD OF IT! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8. I love your spelling of “Cathlicks.”

    I was a senior in HS when John Kennedy addressed a group of Baptist ministers in Houston about their concerns that during his presidency, the pope would be consulted in every decision. As far as I recollect, that group was not restricted to IFB, but instead included all Baptists. Is the IFB stuck permanently in a 1960 time warp? If the next election pitted Barrack Obama (a protestant) against Rudy Guliana (a cathlick) would the IFB hold their noses and vote for Rudy?

  9. Forget the Catholic-or-Prostestant debate — remind them that King James was gay. As in, actively practicing and flamboyantly gay, to the point where the motto of the day was (and I kid you not, feel free to look it up):

    “Elizabeth was our king; now James is our queen.”

    furthermore, King James used biblical references to support his gay lifestyle. Primarily: the story of David and Jonathan, and how Jesus himself had a “beloved disciple.”

        1. James I must have been what we now call bisexual, because he had a wife and children, in addition to his, um, “extremely close” male favorites–of which there was a rather long list.

        2. Having a wife and children doesn’t prove much one way or the other.
          I can give you a lot of examples of married, but openly homosexual, people in history.

          In James’ case, marriage and children were part of his job as king. Monarchs married for political power (not for love), and they were expected to produce offspring to secure the future of the family business of ruling countries.

      1. I don’t have a position on the issue, but there’s enough evidence suggesting King James was gay or bisexual (although neither of those words was used in his time) that you don’t need to be on crack, or otherwise have impaired mental function, to believe it.

        I find it seriously unimportant whether he was or he wasn’t.

        1. I tend to doubt that King James was a homosexual – maybe this would be a good post for the forum.

          The first charge of homosexuality was brought by a man who had been kicked out of office for political reasons and swore revenge; historians don’t put much credit in that man’s charges.

          The other error commonly made is taking today’s way of looking at things and applying it to the past.

          Men had close friendships with other men, but it was an unsexual love.

        2. I think the issue is the hypocrisy of revering a bible version bearing the name of a very ungodly famous person. They certainly would take issue with a bible named… “The (insert the name of any famous person who lives a life of debauchery) Version”

  10. Grice seems to be unable to get his mind around the fact that a word can have more than one meaning. In this case “saints” is used both to refer to the members of the Church Militant and to refer to those who have graduated to the Church Triumphant.

    Is that really so hard to figure out?

  11. You broke me, Darrell. This video pushed so many of my buttons I can never be quite as irritated again.

    “It was kind of a pathetic attempt by a Catholic blogger; he said ‘We don’t pray to dead saints, we ask them to pray to God for us.'”

    What’s so pathetic about a Catholic clarifying exactly what Catholics believe? Oh, it’s pathetic because the truth doesn’t line up with Fundy dogma about Catlick evil.

    “Yer still prayin’ to a dead person–that seems pagan. That–but if yer talkin’ to a dead person, if that’s not prayer, what is it exactly?”

    No, believing that death dissolves the connection between members of the body of Christ seems pagan. And if you don’t use the word prayer, you could always use conversation. Just because a person no longer exists in the temporal world doesn’t mean they no longer exist. A “dead” Christian has more life than anyone on this earth.

    Anyway, I doubt this guy has any qualms about asking living people to pray for him, so is he going through unholy mediators?

    Okay, I’m shaking the dust from my sandals and going to go listen to some Pink Floyd to calm down.

    1. Chuck Swindoll shared a story in one of his podcasts about a little girl who asked if she prayed to Jesus, and asked Him to tell her grandfather something, would Jesus do it? Swindoll said there was nothing in the Bible that said Jesus wouldn’t (or, I guess, that He would) so Swindoll didn’t think there was anything wrong with that.

      Now, I realize that what you’re talking about and what I’m talking about are a little different, but I think the point is the same. While I’d need to do more research to completely agree with you Jordan, I cannot look at you and tell you that Catholics are pathetic for believing in this.

      And like what Darrell posted yesterday – it’s not whether their convictions are right, it’s that their convictions could *never* be wrong. Grice (that’s his name, right?) is definitely proving what Darrell said.

      You make great points Jordan – and I especially like that you said, “Anyway, I doubt this guy has any qualms about asking living people to pray for him, so is he going through unholy mediators?” Very true, and very relatable.

      1. While Iโ€™d need to do more research to completely agree with you Jordan, I cannot look at you and tell you that Catholics are pathetic for believing in this.

        Some good explanations of prayers to saints can be found in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating (a book well worth reading for all its other topics, too) and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, by David B. Currie. Like I said at the end of my post, the whole idea is that of intercessory prayer, like asking a friend to pray for you–just that, by historical and biological accident, the person you’re asking happens to be dead. Physically dead, but “alive in Christ,” standing outside time and creation with God.

        And I realize now that my “Oh, it’s pathetic because…” might not be interpreted correctly–I was being sarcastic. The real pathetic one here is Grice who, as you point out, can’t be wrong about Catholics, so the Catholic blogger must be wrong about himself. Logic fail.

        Still amazed at this find. Keep ’em coming, Darrell.

    2. “Whatโ€™s so pathetic about a Catholic clarifying exactly what Catholics believe? Oh, itโ€™s pathetic because the truth doesnโ€™t line up with Fundy dogma about Catlick evil.”

      Yes, I so agree w/ this. This video really irked me as well. He takes no time to actually learn about what other Christians actually do believe.

      “No, believing that death dissolves the connection between members of the body of Christ seems pagan. And if you donโ€™t use the word prayer, you could always use conversation. Just because a person no longer exists in the temporal world doesnโ€™t mean they no longer exist. A โ€œdeadโ€ Christian has more life than anyone on this earth.”

      Yes to this as well! I often like to think my dead family members and loved ones can see me down here on earth and hear me–is that straight out of the Bible? No, but *a lot* of stuff Baptists believe are not straight from the Bible either!

      1. More important than me learning what other “christians” believe is that I understand what the Bible actually says and what applications I can use to become more like Jesus, my Savior and my HERO! I am born-again and when I am gone from this earth I don’t want any of my brother’s and sisters in Christ trying to pray to me for help, I want them to seek God and HIS help directly. I don’t see that the Bible teaches that once we die as christians we can intercede in things down here, yes we will still be alive but we will be in heaven and I don’t remember ever reading that we should pray for believers who have left this earth to intercede for us. For the ones down here still, yes.

  12. Whenver I misplace things, I can’t even remember the name of the saint my “Cathlick” friends tell me to pray to. Not sure who to pray for to find that…

  13. Trouble is that he has no idea what he’s talking about. The Catholic Church teaches that all believers who have died and gone to heaven are saints, but recognizes some formally as examples of holy living for the rest of us.

    I hate listening to Fundies “explain” Catholic theology. ๐Ÿ™

  14. I just watched the clip and haven’t read the comments yet. Other than ascribing “motive” to the new translations leaving out the word saint to further the catholic canonizing of people as saints, he was right on in everything else he said, and he wasn’t acting pompous this time nor screaming, I kept waiting for the really awful part to come and like I said, other than ascribing motive and worshipping a translation, he was speaking the truth.

    1. If you think what he’s saying about Catholicism is truth, you’ve swallowed more Kool-Aid than you think. Don’t be like Grice–read the other comments, do some outside research before it’s too late (“outside research” as in outside the positive-feedback loop of Fundamentalism).

      1. I know what the catholic church teaches and that is why I will never be one. Okay, maybe the part about the projectile was kinda silly. Sometimes people that post here sound like because they are out of fundyland anything goes. I don’t. I have no need to convince anyone or apologize or study anything but the Word. When I was a new christian at some point I wanted to learn what do satanists believe and what do JWs believe, etc so I could better “discuss” with them or whatever, then I heard someone say just know the truth and you can spot the counterfit anytime and I threw out all those books and stuck to the Bible.

  15. I think I said this last time a KJV moment was posted. This guy is a pompous ass. Have you heard his sermon on gays? He dismisses his own sin of gluttony by saying, “well God never destroyed a city for being gluttonous.” Oh really? Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Only Ezekiel gives an explanation:
    “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had PRIDE, EXCESS OF FOOD, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
    He deliberately changes God’s words so that he can continue in his own sin without judgement.

    1. Wow, how did I miss this post yesterday? I am so glad you posted this verse, because it always stops me in my tracks when I see it. We have been so lied to, by fundies, on so many Bible events! I first noted this years ago, and did my best to study it. Much of the blame can be ascribed to those who first used the word “Sodomite” to mean “homosexual.” ๐Ÿ˜•

    2. I absolutely love that a pastor just said “pompous ass.” ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

      But I must say, though: it would seem to me that it wasn’t just that they had the excess food (and had and prosperous ease) but that they had those things AND did NOTHING to help the poor with them. Just saying.

  16. If Grice had taken 30 seconds to do some research, he’d have known that the very reason the new edition of the NIV doesn’t use the word “saint” (preferring, instead, “people of God” or something similar) is because they wanted to avoid confusion with the Catholic sense of the word.

    You just can’t win for losing with these KJV-only jackasses.

    Also, the Church of England (who, after all, sponsored the translation of the KJV back in 1604-11) uses the word “saint” in the Catholic sense: you can see examples of “St. Matthew,” “St. Luke,” etc. in the titles of the books, as well as frequent references in the preface to the arguments of “St. Jerome,” “St. Augustine,” and so forth.

  17. Just out of curiosity, what version of the Bible do the Catholics use? I had always heard of “The Catholic Bible” when I was in fundy-land as if it were a different Bible altogether.

    1. As a Catholic I read the “New American Bible” – St. Joseph edition. We have 46 books in the OT which are 7 more than the KJV. They are Tobit, Judah, I & II Maccabees (which directly reference communion with “dead saints”), The Book of Wisdom, Book of Sirah and Baruch. These are primarily referred to as the Apocrapha which are considered by some sects (namely Protestant) to be not directly inspired by God.

      The NT is the same but would almost be different if Luther has his way and eliminated the Book of James (to much “works” reference for his liking since he rebelled over the whole absolution thing).

    2. I’ve seen a lot of catholic RSV and NRSV versions, so I’d guess both of those are also used and contain the Apocrypha, though supposedly the NSRV can’t be used for liturgy?

  18. Did anyone else notice the picture of him and some other great fundyland leader in the background…1,000 bonus points for whoever can name the other fat guy in the suit
    :mrgreen:

  19. The King James Moment. You never know when the moment for King James will be right, so you don’t want to have to be waiting for a streaming download. That’s why you need Gricagraยฎ. Griceagraยฎ is available when the King James Moment moves you.
    There is no need to wait for lengthy downloads or listen to long drawnout sermons. With the Griceagraยฎ you can have a King James Moment when it’s right for you.

    **If you have a King James moment that lasts for more than 4 hours turn off your computer and seek immediate medical attention. Side effects may include nausea, paranoia, pangs of guilt and feelings of persecution. Parents with children should not use Griceagraยฎ at anytime for any reason.

  20. I’m fine if people want to read/study only the KJV. There are a few logical arguments for the original text………BUT these arguments are neither logical or educated. PLEASE have some decent arguments in your pocket I’d you are going to state your position. How are these good arguments? Don’t read the new versions because plasic saints can become projectiles in your car???? What the heck?

    1. Point of interest, plastic saints aren’t the only things that become projectiles in a car crash – everything in the car does, including seats and people. Depending how pointy the plastic saint is, I think I might prefer to be hit with it than with the great big huge KJV I’m sure he takes everywhere with him ๐Ÿ™„

      1. Even Bibles become projectiles.

        There’s something of a fad where I live of driving around with ye olde worn-beyond-all-use black bonded leather Bible, most likely KJV, in the rear window. Typically with the pages visibly falling out.

        And it’s usually directly behind the driver’s head. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

        Yeah, in the event of a crash that Bible probably WILL be bringing someone to Jesus, just not in the way the printers and translators intended… ๐Ÿ™

        1. So according to his leap of “logic”, we shouldn’t read the Bible because it, too, can become a projectile in the car… ๐Ÿ™„

          Seriously, KJVer’s!! If you don’t want to take the time to verify facts and do honest research, please DON’T SAY ANYTHING! You nullify your position when you spout off in ignorance.

        2. All true, but there has to be great irony if a Catholic had a St Christopher statue in his car that became a projectile and killed him.

  21. I find it interesting that word is left out, will have to check that, I would think that would be to “hide” what a saint really is. Not the hyper-world successful, famous, celebrities Rome puts forth but a true believer in Jesus Christ. They wouldn’t want Catholics to know that. I know it, I was one for 20 years of my life.

    I have studied Roman Catholicism to the point that at Mass, I have found out they edit out lines of scripture in the middle of chapters for their readings at Mass, in their missals. The lines about God showing no partiality or salvation via faith, snip, snip, snip. Was looking these up circa 2006, doubt things have changed much. There are things even in a bad Catholic translation they chop out, and its one or two sentences IN THE MIDDLE of a chapter “paragraph”.

    As for the Catholic ‘intercession with the “saints” stuff, talking to the dead is implicitly forbidden in the Bible.

    I think he is definitely on to something if the word “saint” is left out of all of those editions.

    He is right when he states “The Vatican Makes Celebrities”.

    Think about that. I was a Catholic child by the way, educated by nuns up to 8th grade. We celebrated the Catholic saints all the time. Well read here..

    http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/10/roman-catholic-saints-were-no-saints.html

    Why do ex-fundamentalists always defend the Catholic church? Why on earth would the blog author think the RCC is Conspiracy-FREE somehow given what was revealed to the world about the sex scandals? You think religious deception wouldn’t be part of the picture. Seriously, study what some of those saints said and did, like St Thomas More who supported the killing of heretics. They are not all warm fuzzy people. Even Mother Teresa took in multi-millions of dollars in donations while denying dying children and beggars, modern medical care that could have been afforded. At least be consistent in your denouncements of fundamentalism and apply what you do to those churches to Roman Catholicism. I’m glad acouple here know the truth about Catholicism.

    1. Defend the Catholic Church? Not at all. I defend a correct understanding of their thinking.

      We jump on fundamentalists because we know them so well. They love to make crap up. Study and research and being well-read are not values to them (unlike the RCC).

      As to the sex scandal I think every country should break off diplomatic relations with the Vatican until the pope and the bishops all accept that civil law trumps canon law.

      I think that in the US the RCC should be indicted under RICO statutes as a corrupt criminal organization that is at this moment engaged in the cover up of the sexual abuse.

      1. Hey I was told to say the HAIL MARY’S. That is calling on a human being who “died”, well though they try to get around that one, that is what the Assumption of Mary stuff is about. Of course they have official lines, but when I see Catholics and was told myself, to do so, kneeling before a statue of Mary and praying to her to “help” them that definitely is a version of “worship” even if they want to use words like “hyper-dulia” to wiggle their way around that fact.

        I agree there is made up stuff in the fundamentalist world, “America as a Christian nation” TM seems to be one of the biggest. There are others. It happens in the fundamentalist world as well. Remember who is heading the culture wars, that got the Dominionists and rest all lining up it is Rome.

        I think every country should break off diplomatic relationships with the Vatican too. There are a bunch of bishops who should be sitting in orange jumpsuits for obstructing justice. I believe they should be indicted under RICO too, as a corrupt criminal organization, we definitely agree about that. The sad thing is though, they never will be, and ask yourself why that is, and why 6 of the justices on our Supreme Court are Catholic with two said to be tied in with Opus Dei?

        .

    2. “Why do ex-fundamentalists always defend the Catholic church? Why on earth would the blog author think the RCC is Conspiracy-FREE somehow given what was revealed to the world about the sex scandals? You think religious deception wouldnโ€™t be part of the picture…”

      Many posters here have completely gone off the deep end and in their haste to run away and separate from all things related to an IFB brand of fundamentalism, they run to the other end of the spectrum and become zealots for all things liberal: in theology, in politics, etc. It’s a complete lack of balance. Just because IFBs do many strange, wacky things that are extra or non-biblical, that doesn’t mean everything they do or believe is incorrect. It’s akin to MADD. Obviously no one believes that drunk driving is a good or positive thing. But in their haste to legitimately expose a bad thing (drunk driving), groups like MADD have become delusional, illogical, over-reactionary zealots who carry a good idea to the extreme and lose their original goal and purpose.

    1. I think some of them may be moderately pretty when they start out. But the fundy lifestyle isn’t one that puts a lot of interest in beauty. (For as much emphasis as they put on the outward appearance that is.) The women are taught that they have no value so they either ignore their appearance altogether or they go to this completely false place with the overprocessed hair, weight-concealing clothing, high heels, etc. No effort to keep in shape because that might cause men to stumble.

  22. Actually on this subject, there appear to be two kinds of fundy women. The first one has several kids and gave up trying to lose the baby weight after the second one. Her husband never tells her she is pretty and there is never money to spend on her and if there was she would feel guilty spending money just to make herself look and feel better. Then the other kind is the kind that almost OBSESSES on her looks (Image image image) and dyes her hair too many times till it is practically cotton candy, wears “professional” style clothing no matter what she is doing, (High heels, nylons, etc) and so much makeup you wouldn’t recognize her without it. (I had a teacher in college who said she got up an hour before her husband so he never had to see her with out her makeup on.) According to her, if he ever saw her without makeup he might lust after the women he worked with. (I am glad I have more faith in my husband than that…) Anyway, fundy women are screwed up. I can say this with authority.

  23. I cry foul on this “saint” business. Here’s what my research shows:

    “saint” used in KJV – 5 times
    “saints” used in KJV – 96 times

    “saint” used in NIV – 0 times
    BUT
    “saints” used in NIV – 69 times

    The KJV doesn’t use “saint” very often itself. This is a great big strawman.

    Oh, and Anglicans are Protestants. Just to make that clear.

  24. Pastor Grice, Praise God for your boldness brother, keep giving us your great videos. Praise the Lord your not one of these watered down for profit preachers. No truth seekers can use the NIV after these great videos. Fundamental Christian and proud!

    1. *you’re
      *watered-down
      *Fundamentalist (see dictionary for difference between “fundamental” and “fundamentalist”)

      I’ve heard many KJVO people say that the KJV is inerrant in even punctuation and spelling. Too bad the majority of these idolators who worship the book rather than the Author don’t seem to be able to tell the difference.

  25. I really liked “just claim that that Cathlicks are the ones behind whatever-it-is-youโ€™re-against” but you forgot to add “and then misrepresent whatever it is that Cathlicks actually believe by painting them as believing the opposite of what you believe”.

    Keep up this valuable service!

  26. What’s a “mega-higher level”? I think it’s funny how when he talks out of his ass, he has little verbal farts like this.

    Hey, Ralph Kramden; do a study on the Catholic Church doctrine concerning the “Communion of the Saints”, and you might be surprised to discover how much you agree with it.

    By the way, I apologize for my sarcasm and crude verbiage. It’s just that you have yelled at me so often in your “preaching”, I wanted you to see how it feels to be in the audience.

  27. Oh no! Projectile saints! As if whether or not something would become a projectile in a car crash defines whether it’s right or wrong. Because in that case the 1611 KJV Bible would definitely be wrong. Can you imagine getting hit in the face with one of those things at 65mph?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.