Paul's Passing Thoughts

Dee Parsons of Wartburg Watch: Number of Comments Validates Your Blog

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 25, 2016

PPT Blocked 4“But on the other hand, spiritual abuse bloggers should take note of how much Dee really values what they bring to the table.”

Really, I am telling the truth, I was minding my own business yesterday doing my usual stuff and not even thinking about Dee Parsons over at Wartburg Watch. But Dee and her minions are at it again over there bashing yours truly. For me, this is far from being anything new; normally, Dee would just be another hater in a long line, but Wartburg Watch should be different.

As ones claiming to be advocates for the spiritually abused, you would think Parsons would be intolerant of her blog being a place where people can throw presumptuous accusations around about others. I think grandma used to call intolerance of such…“integrity.” Per the usual, Parsons is giving her followers unmoderated permission to attack my character full-throttle in the Wartburg community crybaby thread. One accusation suggested that I had come to her blog as “Bob J” to get around the fact that I am banned there for defending others that she has ravaged. Of course, Dee could dispel the charge by simply checking IP addresses, but her reasons for letting such accusations stand on her blog are obvious. Yet another accused me of “adoring” John MacArthur Jr. Those who really know me should find that one particularly amusing.

My grandma also taught me that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks; if that’s true, Dee lives in a glass mansion, but this post only addresses one room. Even in the midst of a power outage, and with limited battery life on her communicator, Dee couldn’t help herself when my name was posted in the crybaby thread. She reminded her faithful followers and others that I have been excommunicated from the Wartburg castle, and my new alias; that I am mentally ill; that my teachings have no validity because she doesn’t understand what I am saying (which apparently settles the issue), and the subject of this post: I have no validity because few people comment on my blog.

This is telling because it also reveals her opinion about other bloggers that are undisputed legitimate victims of spiritual abuse. In Dee’s mind, lack of comments on a blog equals… “fringe.” That’s her standard. So let’s now apply it as a way to examine how pathetic she is.

First, in regard to my article that prompted all of this posted on her blog by “Bob J” who they say is really me, the post received over 70 comments. Well, sort of, I have recently weeded out several hundred comments for reasons I will not state here, and several were on that post. Look, PPT has never been about numbers, but with that said, I am extremely happy with the response I get considering that I accuse Protestantism of being the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. What is wrong with church? Church is wrong with church. That’s our message, and I should not expect long lines to see that show, and I don’t.

This is why I have NEVER invested in increasing traffic on my blog. Not my gig. And I know how to increase commenting. We have had our share of posts with a couple of hundred comments; it isn’t rocket science, just repeat what works. I have even received emails that went something like this: The post received that many comments because of this, that, or the other, so you need to stay with that format. Nope, being enslaved to numbers as a way to be validated is just not my gig.

Nevertheless, here is my point in illustrating the shallowness of Dee’s thinking: many, many blogs that have nowhere near the comment traffic that PPT does are written by spiritual abuse victims that I respect immensely. I refute the idea that these authors are, “fringe.” Words mean things; clearly, that is the standard Dee has set forth. This reveals her mindset; this reveals what she really thinks about others in her metaphysical pecking order.

It also illustrates her vast confusion. She donates money to a research foundation that has a blog. To say the foundation’s blog is lean on comments would be an understatement. So, because PPT lacks a large comment stream, we are “fringe.” On the one hand, she donates money to a blog that has far less commenting than PPT. Confused much? But on the other hand, spiritual abuse bloggers should take note of how much Dee really values what they bring to the table.

Oh and by the way, Dee’s advice on how to deal with me is to “ignore” me which she was unable to do with what little battery power she had left.

So much more could be discussed here, including her label for anyone who doesn’t deem the Barney Fife of pastors, Wade Burleson, a great preacher of the gospel: “weird.” Yes, Queen Dee has spoken, let it be written, let it be so. PPT has documented Burleson’s embarrassing ineptness in several posts, and his connection to the founders of the Neo-Calvinist movement that Dee claims to refute. It’s all steroidal cognitive dissonance.

But I will close with an example of Dee’s gospel prowess as one saved by watching an episode of Star Trek. I am still dying to know which episode it was so I can behold its gospel profoundness. Since my criticism of this caveat that she formally bragged about, it is my understanding that it has been scrubbed from her bio. Certainly that’s not the case I would assume. One of her followers defended her in this by testifying that he was saved by watching an episode of F Troop, and I had no right to criticize their experiences…

…and so it goes over at Wartburg, but if you will excuse me, I have things to do and will have to stop thinking about Dee until the next time she points her phaser at me. Unless she remembers to set it on, “ignore.”

paul

Advertisements

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on February 25, 2016 at 9:25 AM

    You know the saying- misery loves company. There are two types of people: the ones who want to sit around a whine about their troubles, and the others who want solutions. For those who have been deeply hurt in one way or another, there is a necessary time for grief. It’s part of the healing process. But if you keep picking off the scab, the wound will never heal. At some point you need to get on with your life, otherwise the thoughts constantly dwelling on evil will have profound negative effects on the psyche. Your series on “Depression” has done a terrific job of pointing that out. TWW fulfills the need of those who want to wallow around in pig sty of misery with others looking for the same self-affirmation of despair. Those who are sincerely interested in solutions and getting on with the living of life, they know where to go. And we’ll be here waiting for them!

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on February 25, 2016 at 2:07 PM

      Thanks Andy. In regard to another criticism of me over there, my assertion that the discernment blogs could stop spiritual abuse dead in its tracks was mocked as ridiculous. But if one ponders the influence they have, especially as a combined network, consider the following: what if they called for people to leave the institutional church and start home fellowships en masse? You know, like in the book of Acts. You watch how fast the institutional church would start serving up justice for the victims–their financial survival would depend on it. As long as spiritual abuse bloggers see the church as God’s authority on earth–nothing will change and their efforts are futile. Nothing new here; humanity has always been willing to sacrifice children in exchange for eternal salvation.

      Like

      • Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on February 25, 2016 at 8:18 PM

        Those were my thoughts as well. What’s the fastest way that spiritual abuse would stop? Leave the institutional church! If there is no one there, there’s no one to abuse.

        Like

  2. KB said, on March 15, 2016 at 9:56 AM

    It strikes me if the number of comments on a blog is what now matters, Parsons has become the mirror image of what she decries in the evangelical celebrity culture exemplified by C J Mahaney, namely a Celebrity Blogger™!!

    Like

    • Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on March 15, 2016 at 10:09 AM

      BINGO!

      Like

      • KB / Ken said, on March 16, 2016 at 5:30 AM

        On a slightly more serious note, I took a look at the thread at TWW that occasioned this piece out of curiosity. Would I be right in thinking being ‘put into permanent moderation’ at TWW is in effect being banned? This is what happened to me recently after a couple of years of posting there; from which I might add I learnt quite a lot!

        It was Alex Guggenheim’s articles on TWW that started the process of disillusionment, and on the second of his articles about TWW fostering a comparison of Mahaney to Dahmer I’ve commented at length about this process. I thought I was being a voice of moderate conservative evangelicalism, but didn’t realise the extent that to ‘belong’ you have to join in the ‘Douglas Wilson is evil’ way of thinking, even if you are not (yet) convinced of this yourself after having attempted impartial observation of him, or compared his to the output of one of his ‘victims’, so-called. Gullibility is not one of the gifts of the Spirit!

        You don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the blindness of many of the commenters at TWW to the extent they mirror those whom they criticize. I might add it is easy to get drawn into this yourself if you are not careful.

        Alex was right though that too much time in this environment can do you damage, not least because of the unbelief in a God who really can change people, including those who have genuinely been abused. The site seems to me now to foster hopelessness. Talking about what went wrong in a church with a sympathetic group may initially be helpful, but you can’t go on repeating this over and over again for the rest of your life, can you?

        Having recently trawled through many related survivor/watchblog sites, I was overcome with just how much bitterness there is around, and how the banning of this word at TWW does no good if the thing itself is present and isn’t being dealt with.

        I’ll probably lurk occasionally at TWW, but in general the whole watchblog/survivor scene is not healthy place to spend too much time, and the few who have addressed this theme critically all seem to agree on this. I hope you and/or Alex will continue to shine a critical spotlight if and when needed; I’m grateful to him for getting me off a treadmill.

        KB

        Like

      • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on March 16, 2016 at 6:12 AM

        KB,

        Discernment blogs are an attempt to save the institutional church. But, God’s body was NEVER meant to be an institution, but rather an organized body. The key difference is horizontal authority. Claiming for yourself special revelation or superior wisdom is backdoor authority. Curiously, I have NEVER gone to TWW on my own whim, but only as others requested that I review something over there, and still got banned! Humorous is Dee’s mentality that I would care, but trust me, she takes herself waaaayyyyyyyy toooooooo seriously.

        Like

  3. Martin said, on August 10, 2016 at 3:33 PM

    Hi Paul,

    I had stumbled upon TWW about 2 years ago and was drawn to it for the main reason that they would point out some of the absurd reasoning by the likes of John Piper. I even left a comment complementing them on their blog. However, I was quite appalled to have found out about how they enabled what surmounts to an abusive treatment of you. After I had extensively read parts of your blog that had highlighted the serious issues with TWW, I then proceeded to revisit their blog and began to see it in a very different light.

    While I’m not in the habit of handing out compliments I do want to emphasize just how valuable your blog has become to me. Your detailed analysis of the Neo-Calvinistic movement is staggering in what I now perceive to be a whole slew of spiritual atrocities.

    It’s been a few years since I had left the institutional church that sucked me in as a member. Last year I had bumped into one of the pastors of that church, at the local library. We had a very short conversation where I wasn’t able to convince him that there are so many things wrong with the institutional church. He just kept blinking at me and saying that we are surrounded by many worthy institutions, including the church.

    We’ve exchanged email addresses. It took me 2 weeks to outline in a long email all the specific ways in which that church had conformed to the pattern of this world. Twice he reassured me that he was going to reply and even noted that I had done quite a bit of research… but guess what? Many months later nothing.

    Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a big chunk of my email deals with financial matters that expose the church’s worldly ways of bouncing money around to other affiliated churches. Despite my severe reservations about TWW’s these days, I still give them credit for emphasizing “always follow the money”. I did and was stunned to find out just how much the senior pastor makes (the misleading “double honor” clause) and how prosperous these churches are, based on their perpetual guilt doctrine.

    Thank you Paul for devoting your time and energy on significantly shedding light on so many important issues.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on August 10, 2016 at 5:12 PM

      You are more than welcome Martin. Church is institutionalized because it is believed that God’s kingdom is on earth and He has mandated that the church take over the world for His glory (for His glory; wink, wink). Since God told man to be fruitful and have dominion over the earth, the church supposedly needs to be a well-oiled institution with financial savvy. But God’s kingdom is not yet on earth. And God never told man to dominate each other…only the earth. After the deception, and because sin is driven by a desire to control and enslave, institutional conquest and murder soon followed. But God’s truly called-out ones are a family and function as a family, not an institution. Secondly, our mandate is to make disciples as ambassadors and sojourners in a foreign land; our kingdom is yet in heaven. It is time for God’s children to search the Scriptures for themselves and follow Christ according to wisdom not the traditions of men.

      Like

  4. Martin said, on January 27, 2017 at 9:56 AM

    “But I will close with an example of Dee’s gospel prowess as one saved by watching an episode of Star Trek. I am still dying to know which episode it was so I can behold its gospel profoundness.”

    Paul, it still appears that the Wartburg crowd continues to kling-on to “I’m a sinner saved by grace” theology. However, I’m more and more aware that Truth can be perceived through all conceivable means, including an idea that resides in an unassuming episode of Star Trek.

    Here is a short article titled “Star Trek and the Great Commission: 12 Parallels”

    https://escapetoreality.org/2011/09/08/star-trek-and-the-great-commission/

    I’d love to get your thoughts on that, Paul, when you get a chance.

    Like

    • Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on January 27, 2017 at 10:17 AM

      Well, I just briefly skimmed the first part of that article, and I am not sure about Paul, but I am not going to take the time to evaluate all 12 of that author’s points.

      Here is all we need to know about such a comparison:

      Gene Roddenberry (the creator of Star Trek) was a utopian socialist. Now for most of our readers I could stop right there and there would be no need for me to say any more. But let me elaborate. His desire for “Star Trek” was to create a universe that was his vision of perfection. As a utopian socialist, Roddenberry’s metaphysical premise would be the same as Plato or any other philosopher who came down the pike: man being epistemologically disqualified from being able to discern truth which necessarily leads to the destruction of man for the good of the collective, and ultimately the need for dictated good in the form of some “authority.” So I would have a very hard time taking any seriously any of the comparisons in that article simply because the metaphysical premise is incongruent with the Bible’s metaphysical premise; the value of man and the individual as such.

      Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on January 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM

      Martin, I will address your my thoughts on this on today’s radio show. https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2017/01/27/protestantism-and-works-salvation/

      Like

  5. Martin said, on January 28, 2017 at 10:22 PM

    Dear Andy and Paul,

    Both of you take great care to use words that you speak and write in order to shed tremendous Light on the confusion that is being propagated by the institutional religion.

    And it is because of my own profound respect for words that I no longer want to rely on any arbitrary labels, such as “utopian socialist” or “christian”, when attempting to understand an idea that someone presents. Such labels almost always pigeon hole a person into a category that overshadows a myriad of other categories that could well be used to abstract a frozen still image of who I think that person is.

    Gene Roddenberry could well have been confused on a number of issues and had even misunderstood the fullness of the revelation of Jesus Christ. Yet if there is to be found even one person in the history of this world who had experienced a profound revelation of God the Father through God the Son, by reading the inferior rendition of Jehovah’s Witnesses NWT (including the gross mistranslation of John 1:1 ‘a god’) then I am open to the idea that at least one of the many episodes of Star Trek contains an idea that awakens one from slumber. I have witnessed the lost to be Found and the dead come back to Life through the most seemingly insignificant means. “With God all things are possible”.

    much indebted to both of you and most sincerely,
    Martin

    Like

  6. Martin said, on January 30, 2017 at 10:30 PM

    Andy,

    I am indeed seeking validation of my own position, it is the most unique position that I know. Just to be clear Andy, you are not saying that you would not watch and benefit, as far as Truth revealed is concerned, from at least one of the many episodes of Star Trek just because you believe that its creator was a “utopian socialist”?

    Paul,

    Well written article, I have the main points committed to my memory. I will need a few more days to address it. Yes, I think I found a weakness.

    with the Spirit of Gentle Validation,
    Martin

    Like

    • Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on January 31, 2017 at 7:48 AM

      All people have a philosophy that defines and directs their thinking and actions and thus their lives, labels notwithstanding. The fact that certain elements of one person’s philosophy may indeed line up with my own does not change the fact that a certain philosophy as a whole may contain egregious rational contradictions that always inevitably result in the same outcomes. Hitler may have been a Lutheran and he may have quoted the Bible often, but him quoting the Bible does not change the fact that his philosophy and his metaphysical assumptions about man resulted in the murder of over 6 million Jews. One would be hard pressed to say that one can find any good in what Hitler produced.

      Now understanding that that is an extreme example, the principle is still the same. Therefore I find it difficult to accept the idea that one can find Biblical truth in a philosophy that is antithetical to God’s own philosophical statement. The two are simply incongruous. While on the surface it may seem right and logical, that doesn’t change the fact that a particular “truth” inevitably results in the same outcome. This is why I reject the 12 comparisons article, because each and every one begins with a faulty assumption, and any parallel that one thinks they find will lead to faulty conclusions and ultimately wrong actions.

      Like

  7. Martin said, on January 31, 2017 at 2:55 PM

    Andy, you argue very persuasively. I understand that both you and Paul are attempting to safeguard against one being exposed to an erroneous philosophy, even when it does contain particular truths. However, I still hesitate to invalidate a person’s claim of having been born again, even when its source is a particular truth that is used to string up a whole erroneous philosophy. That’s akin to rejecting a single letter just because it is part of an offensive word. We reject the offensive word, but keep the letter to be used for Good words. We are called upon to discern the spirits.

    How many believers can claim to have had their philosophy perfectly aligned with the Scriptures at the time of their born again experience? Let’s remember that the apostle Paul rejoiced over the Good News being proclaimed even by those with selfish motives, whose philosophy was erroneous. Also apostle Peter’s philosophy was not yet aligned until his vision of the giant table cloth. Since that day both bacon and Gentiles became much more agreeable to him. I maintain that the Light of the Good News shines all around us, even in the most unexpected places.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on February 3, 2017 at 6:44 PM

      The point is that you don’t sit under the teachings of a Jim Jones because whatever is in the content that is factual is being used to lead where the false teacher is trying to take you. You cannot separate character from the message. We know this intuitively; that’s why we don’t apply your logic to the writings of Adolf Hitler.

      Like

  8. Martin said, on February 4, 2017 at 10:01 AM

    Application of the joke is:
    Both of you keen thinkers, Paul and Andy, are dancing around the specific issue. Through your logical assumption you have allowed yourselves to be “ham-bushed” by rejecting the sound advice of “I wouldn’t go there”. I wouldn’t go the distance to invalidate a person’s claim of having been born again, no matter what the source is of that particular truth that resonated in that person’s heart and mind.

    I’m not advocating that you sit under the teachings of Gene Roddenberry. If exposed to a particular episode, discern.

    Not applying my logic (of discerning particular truths from erroneous philosophies) to the writings of Adolf Hitler sounds like the final word. But let’s indeed apply my logic and hear one particular truth, the way the man himself expressed it:

    Chapter 2 – Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna

    “On the other hand, a man who possesses the art of correct reading will, in studying any book, magazine, or pamphlet, instinctively and immediately perceive everything which in his opinion is worth permanently remembering, either because it is suited to his purpose or generally worth knowing. Once the knowledge he has achieved in this fashion is correctly coordinated within the somehow existing picture of this or that subject created by the imaginations it will function either as a corrective or a complement, thus enhancing either the correctness or the clarity of the picture. Then, if life suddenly sets some question before us for examination or answer, the memory, if this method of reading is observed, will immediately take the existing picture as a norm, and from it will derive all the individual items regarding these questions, assembled in the course of decades, submit them to the mind for examination and reconsideration, until the question is clarified or answered.”

    If I had quoted the above excerpt without telling you it was penned by Hitler, would you have rejected its premise?

    On a lighter note, if you guys haven’t yet seen it, here is a satirical gem that only those who see through John Piper’s erroneous philosophy can appreciate:

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on February 4, 2017 at 8:38 PM

      We don’t pass judgement on anybody’s salvation, nor do we owe it to anybody to affirm their salvation…not the point.

      Like

  9. Martin said, on February 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM

    Paul,

    It would be dishonest for me to obtain a stamp of disapproval such as “PROUDLY BLOCKED BY PPT”. I love to read and will continue to do so the many profound revelations alive on this blog.

    Censorship, as it is applied on many blogs, has the appearance of a “civil discussion”. It overlooks an essential aspect that we see throughout Scriptures; HUMAN PASSION, that often results in people feeling offended. All the prophets were notorious for offending the sensibilities of their contemporaries. Apostle Paul, in no uncertain terms, offended those Judaizers to whom he proposed the “full” circumcision. Finally Christ did not hold back from hurling offensive reptilian designations towards the Pharisees.

    But what is most interesting is that Christ did not take to offences easily. Instead, he would beat the shit out of the lies that were being presented to him with the words of Truth. One exception was when they had attributed his healing of the sick to Satan’s power.

    By blocking my, or anyone else’s, comments on this blog you are in effect dehumanizing it, not unlike a photoshopped pimple from a person’s face on a cover of a magazine. The best argument for that is that had we had a chance to speak face to face I would display the exact same PASSION for my argument about our need to discern particular truths. I would do so, especially when faced with you and Andy beating around the “ham bush” and refusing to answer this simple question:

    Do you allow for the possibility of a person being born again through watching an episode of Star Trek? YES or NO?

    Finally, you must know how disappointed I was when I initially found out that there was not a trace of the many exchanges that you mention that happened on TWW. It would have shed so much light on the tactics that were being used to discredit you (“cognitive dissonance”) and most importantly it would have quickened my own realization that Dee and Deb are still in error on critical issues, such as “progressive justification”. So much for censorship.

    yours truly,
    Martin

    Like

    • Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on February 7, 2017 at 4:49 PM

      Martin,

      Here is the issue as I see it.
      You think that Paul and I are saying that Dee isn’t saved and that we are evading answering that question directly.
      You think you have “h”ambushed us, as you say, by tricking us into unwittingly conceding a point we didn’t intend to, that being that Paul and I are making a dogmatic claim that we have a right to decide whether or not someone is genuinely saved.

      Your logical progression follows like this:

      You first asked us if we think that Biblical truth can be found in Star Trek, which both Paul and I have made abundantly clear that it cannot and why not so.

      So, because Paul and I are saying that Star Trek cannot contain Biblical truth, and Dee claims she was saved watching Star Trek, then that means you think we are saying Dee isn’t saved.

      But here is the flaw in that logic. Neither of us made the claim that Dee isn’t saved. All we simply pointed out was that it wasn’t likely she got saved watching Star Trek. If indeed she is saved, it didn’t happen watching Star Trek.

      So in either case, neither one of us has unwittingly made the claim that Dee is unsaved.

      Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: