Reader Interactions


  1. As a detractor I feel to add on a bit, perhaps my own bias but I am a bit irritated. I was not around much to know about Sara other than learning more what was on this site and this site only. Hypocrisy on Victor’s part, because I have seen when Victor would sneer at other “Christian sites” that would either remove an article without much mention, usually after a POT confrontation, and then his attitude on his own site would be “I told you so”, or they would not publish a rebuttal that TPOT made to make their own site more righteous and then that would make an angry Victor angrier. An example was in the Calvinism articles when Paul was criticizing some woman’s site who was struggling with a cold. They had more to say but the site wanted to just end things.

    More hypocrisy is when Victor and Paul try to argue with an atheist by going on to his site, barrage him with arguments, fail in logic, and then the atheist made a post that they ignored, and he commented more or less what you comment, their excessive judgementalism. By all means if Victor and Paul were not so inflated they could have just said “we dont know” but they can never say that.

    Sorry for the long intro, but to summarize they do stuff like rant on a calvinist site, but then hide Sara’s testimony as well as not respond to that atheist, hypocrisy.

    Then they complain about pets as a sin, one of Paul’s last articles before he was demolished. I understand that there can be problems with pet owners but I for one have had pets and never was condemned by God on this. You have said before I may be interpreting things too loosely at times, but I remain firm on this because I had a pet rabbit, and now have a pet guinea pig, and I did not buy these pets. Just life situations where the previous owners could not handle them so they were in my care and have helped me well. But according to Victor and Paul then, perhaps I am failing.

    Last point: women. I am not going to be like that idiot who was trying to say Eve has more authority than Adam, the one you debated awhile back. But Victor compared men who submit to women as puppies on a leash. So by his standards, is it more flattering for a woman to be on a leash to a man? Is this haredi Judaism? Or orthodox Islam? I mean, even Ron mcKenzie says on his prophets section a part about prophettesses. There are Bible examples too, Deborah (which everyone says was just an “exception”) Photini (John 4 the Samaritan woman who preached to the village), Mary Magdalene who was the first to see Jesus before Peter after the Resurrection, and maybe Proverbs 31 with Solomon’s mother Bathsheba trying to give her son advice regarding women, and the prophettes Huldah in Kings/Chronicles. Basically I think there were about 7 or so women prophets and maybe like 15 male prophets. Perhaps, in reference to Miriam and Aaron, a thing Victor does not consider is that Miriam is the firstborn and the oldest, which could have factored into her punishment.

    An apocrypha book I see as inspired, Judith, was how a Jewess saved Jerusalem by adorning herself with makeup and secretly assassinating an invading Roman general. Around a century before Jesus was born, in the Hasmonean priest-king dynasty, the greatest ruler was Queen Salome of Alexandria, but there was barely any proof because the coward historian Josephus tried to ignore her, and other chauvinist Roman historians I think tried to defame her reputation too. I browsed a site that also said that there is no such thing as an absolute matriarchy or patriarchy throughout history, there are 6 factors and all 6 have never been met for a gender. It went on to say how Abraham would not have had a land inheritance to give to Isaac were it not for Sarah handling the house economics etc. I can find the link and send it to you if you are interested.

    This transitions into my tiny last point, makeup. Esther put on makeup to appear nice before the king and saved the Jews, so makeup is not inherently a sin. I mean…maybe if there were ways to try to find natural alternatives but the specifics is another topic. Also, the adornments of the Jews in Exodus, the jewelry etc was smelted into the bronze priestly artifacts by God’s command to Moses as His way of showing appreciation of the women beautifying themselves before their husbands to repopulate Israel.

    But it seems makeup js wrong, a woman to speak is wrong, and pets are wrong.

    I remember I wrote a long comment before regarding Jacob and Esau that was too theological and know you don’t deal with theology, and I wasn’t trying to push your buttons but if I did in this comment, sorry.

    • Thank you for commenting here Jay, again, again! You discuss three points, the first hugely on topic.

      You provide a very valuable commentary as it shares directly from your personal experience when you were with PoT and even more valuable now since you have been out a year or two and have had a chance to work through your pain and mature as a result. You are more objective now as you will surely recognise.
      2. PETS & IDOLATRY
      I kept dogs in Samoa. While they were pets in the sense that we all had relationships with them, they performed an essential role in security. I developed relationships with my pigs – all 20+ of them – and then killed, roasted and ate them. The cats that survived the dog attacks kept the rats & mice numbers down. Are these sinful or idolatry? I doubt it!
      3. WOMEN & MAKEUP
      The theology you refer to is certainly simple enough – in the Garden of Eden, Eve didn’t dress up particularly well. Adam seemed to think that the raw flesh was sufficient for his needs, but I do appreciate a tasteful enhancement to natural beauty. In my books I don’t have to bonk a woman if she does care enough to make herself look pretty.

      Jay, the whole tenor of your post is “right vs wrong”. One thing is right/good/blessed and the other is “wrong/bad/cursed. This is valid when looking at a particular time and place and culture and the Rhema word of God but Christian wisdom requires us to have a living relationship with a living God. The Holy Spirit is alive and teaches us His will moment by moment. Lethal force, one of the ugliest events in human existence, can be the former or the latter – in Samoa (a violent culture) one needed to be ready to defend unto death, even if it was rare that this was actually necessary, yet most killing would be condemned as evil. I’ve given examples above of how the right/wrong viewpoint is not always applicable in a fallen world. This is in fact a continuum and Victor leans very heavily in the legalistic/judgment side. The apostate church is generally the opposite (as PoT rightly points out). The Word of God is absolute. The personhood, divinity & nature of the risen Christ is too. The presence and work of the Holy Spirit is the guide we must use to divine His purposes for daily decision-making. For some, the presence of a pet dog can take away true worship, thus it becomes an idol. For others it can simply be a practical fact of life. Likewise, as Victor says above, the motive to defend that causes loss of life can be pure, or OTOH the outworking of evil if the intent is to harm for selfish ends.

      The way I summarise this black and white approach to living is that rules are there for our guidance. The Jews (and PoT) took them too far and us into slavery. There is such a thing as right & wrong, but it is for Him to measure and test us based on our responses to the Holy Spirit’s individual leading.

      I believe that Victor is ‘wrong’ to pronounce a blanket wrong and is certainly ‘wrong’ to curse or judge others as much as he does, just as he is wrong to hide Sara’s testimony and a whole bunch of other hypocrisy. It doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong, but he and Paul are intellectually bankrupt, at times, failing in the basics of logic. I’ve showed this previously. You know. I know. Sara knows. Many others know now too. Thank you for sharing, Jay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *