I have no problems with thereporter's comments.
It could just as easily be said of you: "It would be helpful if you controlled your verborrhea and put forward a succinct argument."
You still have not answered your personal attack on me. You have no credibilty with me to "call" thereporter, when? Thereporter has every right to express himself and his anger at Thieme, on this anti-Thieme's cult forum.
If you want specific debate then present it, otherwise you are opining for Thieme's evil cause.
Berachah has created a lot of unnecessary evil and has damaged people's lives. For whatever minor truths Thieme did manage to mix with his extreme error? Thieme's evilspeak was still very damaging to people's lives.
You are way off about "good works" and "emotions". You are an apologist for Thieme. Thieme vitriolically attacked "good works" and "emotions" time after time and day after day. Thiemites consciences were/are destroyed and dysfunctional, about emotions and good works.
It is not just an "academic" matter of disagreeing with Thieme's evil. You don't just "academically" disagree with a Sodini-like evil event. This is were you are out of touch with reality. You should be horrified at Thieme's evil(Rev. Walters and many others are). Yet? You passively "academically" disagree? That's lala land. That's like academically disagreeing with 911.
Since when have I been banned and why? I have said nothing offensive, have offered information, have been accused, vilified etc and now you say I am banned. First I know of it.
To zeebrook: hold on before your claiming all this being abused and victimized. First take a look at what you have done. Answer the "less than honest" statement you said to me. I have asked you this once before.
Also for everyone who would claim I get special allowances from the moderator then note the moderator said nothing about you calling me a liar, even though you had no way of knowing the truth one way or another. You joined forces with sister in your combined lying attack on me.
I am with you Sistersoap on Truthtesty's less that honest responses...Well done Sistersoap, and keep it up.
To Zeebrook: Would you explain your personal attack to me? And about me? You stated my responses were "less than honest"
You said "I am with you Sistersoap on Truthtesty's less that honest responses.
" It seems that saying someone being "less than honest
" is the same as calling them a liar.
Are you calling me a liar or are you trying to suggest that I am a liar and no one should give me creedance?
Are you here to try to discredit me?
But you are unable to discredit me because I am telling the truth.
Again you have no right to make personal comments on Dr. Wall and myself of which? You do not have all the details. Dr. Wall was not my "mentor". You should keep your mouth shut about someone else's personal life of which you are not qualified, nor authorized to talk about.
You'd have everyone believe that Thieme was a "Christian brother", while Reverend Walters and others have called Thieme "heretical" AND? That was with good reason. Thieme was deceitful about the Word of G-d, which I and others, have in detail explained on this forum.
I am not convinced that Thieme was a "Christian brother". Thieme could have been just as nazI doktor Gerhard Kittle was for Adolph Hitler - a propagandist of the Bible for political gain. Well who could have possibly have been paying Thieme? HL Hunt(and other Texas oil men(Neocons which Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "they are stupid" in a letter to his brother) could have been paying Thieme for their neocon dixiecrat takeover of the Republican party. It is apparent and I have proven that Thieme's intentions were dishonest for Neocon political gain. For whatever reason Thieme falsified the Word. And? That is not a "Christian brother".
No one is pulling up "strawman arguments" here. This is the typical Thieme line in response to calling Thieme to the carpet. You claim you are not an apologist for Thieme, but you are being an apologist for Thieme. Instead of accurately giving both sides (the facts) of the argument Thieme would just claim the accuser(s) were creating strawman arguments. They were not. They were presenting facts (Dr. Waite among them). It was Thieme's false teachings and Thieme's fictional attack on them that was false. And thiemites would just once again copycat whatever Thieme evils that were spoken, including believing (without the facts) that Thieme's accusers were creating strawman arguments.
Thieme thought he could get away with it because he never thought anyone would ever be able to review in detail what he taught. But? Thieme was wrong again. As neocon verbally challenged Bush would say "the internets" - Thieme never saw "the internet" coming and it completly blindsided his agenda. For example, Dr. Wall's dissertation can be read worldwide and dowloaded in minutes if not seconds. Thieme would have Houston police escort out anyone who spoke up about his false teachings. Thieme expected "to get away with it", but he didn't.
You say you are here to present "Thieme's position correctly". Well? Go ahead. Start. Present Thieme's exact words and I will show you what is wrong. Until then? You are an opining apologist for Thieme. You are whining. This forum is not for people to interrupt or judge others who are "working out" their Thieme issues. If you don't like people's outbursts of anger about Thieme? You can leave. You say you are here to present "Thieme's position correctly". So why don't you apologize for calling me a liar then present Thieme's exact "devil is in the details" words and I will show you what is wrong.