Toby at Classical Presbyterian has come up with a new name for me. I was quite flattered. It has somewhat of a Yahweh-esque feel about it:
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
Toby continues with the great fun of quoting scripture that is all about me! The scriptures are clear according to Toby. The Bible predicted me. Next time you think I am just a two-bit country preacher from Appalachia, remember I am the one the Bible and your momma warned you about!
I got a chuckle out of that.
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't mind my fawning all over your evil blog while I am not busy making anti-semitic and other weird veiled threats against recovering Presbyterians.
It seems I've been banned into outer darkness with no hope of salvation.
(I tried typing all that with the quotes in the right places but my eyes rebelled)
The Scriptures are clear: stone an adulterer today!
ReplyDeleteHow dare you Rev. Shuck, spurring on people to love their neighbor, love God and beef up their biblical knowledge rather than find out how to get TULIP to make sense of everything to the degree of nonsense. ;-)
But hey, if love and the bible means you are going to hell, I guess I will see you there and we can share a good laugh with Jesus, Peter, and Paul.
LOL
ReplyDeleteI doubt my post will appear, maybe...maybe not.
I used no strong language, believe it or not.
;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeh,
ReplyDeleteToby is officially exposed:
"Toby Brown said...
Drew T,
What? Me cut off discussion? Then why so many comments....?"
4:38pm
My comments were posted around 3:10pm and suggested that Toby might be "driving people away" from Christianity with his "narrow fundamentalist" views.
Still not posted.
Toby is a liar and deceiver. I have shown proof. Such is the way of Satan.
Oh my dear Lord, and by Lord I obviously mean you, John.
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I have reserved a nice little condo in hell, maybe we'll be neighbors. Although a pastor friend of mine assures me that there is a special place for clergy.
Thanks for the morning giggle, oh great He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
Toby's definition of open discussion is anything that is openly supportive of his point of view. He doesn't deal so well with people who disagree with him and heaven forbid you prove him wrong. Every time I have, he slams the door shut in my face and deletes my comments.
ReplyDeleteOften cussing at me in the process.
I think I may be the reason he invented his little rule.
It's been an interesting study into the mind of a Fundamentalist. Through his blog I found a number of other Fundamentalists that I tried to converse with. I've learned allot. I did it to find a common ground, to see if I could find a basis for dialog. To see if I could find a way to explain to them how they are chasing more people away from Christ than drawing to Him.
I failed.
The only people they want to see in the Kingdom of God are people who adopt their cosmology and who deal with the cognitive dissonance of their cosmology through denial.
And if you press the issue they start to vilify you. The one who called me antisemitic is really a Nazarene who resents the fact that Presbyterians don't think like Nazarenes. Another went around saying I was demon possessed. Anything to avoid dealing with the issues I put on their table.
What M Scott Peck called "The People of the Lie"
Fundamentalism is basically a closed universe, I guess. One way mirrors for windows, and no doors. You can see in but you can't see out. A tightly sealed box.
But even that insight is old. The illustration on the cover of my 1956 edition of J B Phillips' book "Your God is too small" is a little box.
Jimmy Carter says you can't disagree with a Fundamentalist because they think that to disagree with them is to disagree with God. He is right. I think that is why late in life he finally lost patience with them.
I think I have as well.
Sigh. I really did think that if I kept poking at the box I'd find some way to pry it open. Ha.
Jodie,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you've failed unless I've missed some posts in the past.
Toby is just asking that people do not post on his blog without sharing their full name. That's why he's not accepting your posts, as far as I'm able to see.
Do you feel afraid to do that, or have a need to protect your privacy? I share on his blog sometimes, and can't see a problem, although of course I don't always agree with everyone there.
The only people they want to see in the Kingdom of God are people who adopt their cosmology and who deal with the cognitive dissonance of their cosmology through denial.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good description of fundamentalism. Its cornerstone is its doctrine of eternal damnation. This is why Toby is so concerned that "my teachings" will send people to hell.
Once a person has the courage to say that doctrine is false, then the rest of the structure disintegrates. Fundamentalism then has no purpose.
John, I"m sure Toby wants to see everyone found in Christ, and part of the kingdom of God. "Whosoever will may come."
ReplyDeleteThis statement seems pretty unjust to me.
I don't even know that I would consider Toby, and the folks that share on his blog for the most part, to even be fundamentalists.
They seem to be pretty much bog-standard orthodox Christian to me, albeit with a very reformed, Calvinistic kind of emphasis.
Grace,
ReplyDeleteHe wrote it. Go read for yourself:
There are souls in risk of eternal damnation because of what you teach.
That is what fundamentalism is fundamentally about. Fundamentalists want people "found in Christ" so they are not lost in hell.
Grace,
ReplyDeleteToby and Will Spotts and one other member of his "consistory" have written long posts describing themselves as Fundamentalists.
The others all express total agreement. Sort of a mutual admiration society.
I've told Toby much about myself, but for reasons that have nothing to do with him or the subject of these blogs I must remain anonymous. I can't even explain why, it's just a fact.
Everybody else on his blog knows each other anyway.
It really shouldn't matter, because the validity of what I say is not a function of who I am. There are precedents. The authors of the Federalist papers were anonymous because they said what mattered was what they said, not who they were. So were almost all the authors of the New Testament.
Either way, it is what it is.
John,
ReplyDeleteYou write,
"That is what fundamentalism is fundamentally about. Fundamentalists want people "found in Christ" so they are not lost in hell."
if that is what Fundamentalism is then count me one too!Perhaps if I get anytime I will blog about that.
Viola,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to it.
grace wrote, "Toby is just asking that people do not post on his blog without sharing their full name. That's why he's not accepting your posts, as far as I'm able to see."
ReplyDeleteWrong, grace. He told me a long time ago that he would simply delete my comments, even though I'm more than willing to share my full name and I have never ever used any "strong language." He simply deletes those comments with which he disagrees.
Once again, I find his total rejection of the doctrines of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace to be hilarious in light of his insistence that he is somehow "classically" Presbyterian. He clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word. And to insist that Calvin would somehow agree with him? Heh. Calvin wasn't a fan of such heresy, just ask Servetus ;) By his own words, Toby is, at the very least, an Arminian in his theology, and at most a Pelagian.
(But then, I've been no fan of Rev. Brown ever since he decided it was OK to file charges against complete strangers, in clear violation of Matthew 18? 15-16, and then I completely lost any respect when didn't even have the cojones to face those he charged in court.)
I do like the HWMNBN appellation though. I wonder how I can get one of my own. LOL Are we 10 years old now, or what? Seriously how old are these people?
BTW, I loved that post. It was so McLaughlin Group.
ReplyDelete"I've often heard it said that we--who live in free societies--often get the leaders that we deserve. Do you agree or disagree and why? Any Biblical references to shed light on the question?"
Well, I ....
WRONG!
Next issue!
(Sorry, if you've never seen the show, it might not be as funny. If you've seen Dana Carvey do it years ago on SNL it will be even funnier. LOL)
In teacher circles we call those sorts of questions, "Guess what's in my head."
Viola,
ReplyDeleteI should say one more thing. Metaphor, poetry, symbol is one thing. I can even understand hell in that way.
That is not what I am talking about, and I think you know that.
Eternal damnation or hell is understood by fundamentalists and perhaps some evangelicals as a reality that people (who are not "saved" in some definition of that word) will experience after they are dead.
Just so you know we are talking about the same thing. That is what I meant by hell when I wrote that.
To give you some red meat for your post, I will give my view as "plainly and openly" as Toby does.
There is no hell. There is no eternal damnation. I say that with the same confidence that I say there are no leprechauns. I also do not believe that we will be turned into lizards after we are dead and shipped to Venus.
Have fun.
I loved the McLaughlin Group for the very thing you said.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteYou shared before that you agree that in life, and death we are the Lord's, and that reality is a huge part of the hope of the resurrection.
Are you an universalist, simply feeling that no one is eternally lost?
Or, do you feel that after death, our existence is ended, and there is really nothing?
Jodie, maybe Toby really doesn't understand, though, that to share your full name would be dangerous for you.
The dark side, it seems, is seducing Toby. He is now screening the posts that are submitted to his blog before they are posted. I’ve thought for a while that he would eventually start doing that, so I’ve taken to saving my posts in case the host (in this case Toby) decided to obliterate them. That way I might be able to use them later (like here for instance).
ReplyDeleteHere’s one I sent to Toby’s blog 3:27 PM 11/08/08 in the thread concerning “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”. Toby chose not to post this one.
-----------------------------------------
Toby,
So, correct me if I've taken you the wrong way, I guess you believe that John's encouragement of his flock to read and study the Holy Scriptures (which includes the teachings of Paul and the warnings of Jude, etc., to which very, very few, if any, had access in Paul's day) will somehow lead them away from salvation. Am I reading you correctly?
John sees to it that his flock has available to them the Word of God written, and as far as I know, he faithfully administers the Sacraments (if not, I’m certain the rather conservative Holston Presbytery would have disciplined him by now). The rest, at the very least, is up to God.
The cultures you pointed out in your previous replies, bare little resemblance to the culture of today, both in literacy, and availability of God’s Word, so I think you still have a little work to do to adequately make your point.
You're giving John credit for way too much power.
-----------------------------------------
John,
You do faithfully administer the Sacraments don’t you?
Alan,
“I find his total rejection of the doctrines of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace to be hilarious in light of his insistence that he is somehow "classically" Presbyterian.”
Yep. I agree.
Jodie,
You’ve taken the first steps toward starting your own blog. What’ll it take to get you to commit (even on a limited basis)?
I hope this doesn't mean I'm "fawning" all over John now too! I feel so dirty now. :-)
Hey, Alan, I had to rush off to church, and didn't get a chance to respond to your comment. I was leading the children's community, and had to get there early. :) It was fun!!
ReplyDeleteSorry that Toby deleted your comments. But, are you sure it was just about disagreement? I've already posted there, and shared differences. He didn't delete my comments, and said, "Welcome."
Don't know what to think.
Hey, Katie, what does it mean for Presbyterian clergy to "rightly administer the sacraments?"
Also, although, I"m not a hard core Calvinist, I can't see how the acceptance of TULIP, means Christian people should have absolutely no concern in the church for sound doctrine, the preaching of the gospel, or the affirmation of heretical views from the pulpit.
Does it matter to Presbys if their clergy/leaders are actually able to profess personal faith in Christ as Savior, and Lord.
Should people show compassion, and care for their clergy, and have concern if he/she doesn't seem to be a Christian believer or is struggling spiritually?
God have mercy!
John,
ReplyDeleteYou do faithfully administer the Sacraments don’t you?
Yup.
Kattie, thanks for visiting the blog of evil!
This is all pretty funny. I didn't mean to get into it with him. I was amused by his new name for me and just wanted to rib him about it.
He gets all serious with the "eternal damnation" silliness. That got me thinking that fundamentalism is really all about hell. It is a fearful religion based on a angry, vengeful God.
Not only that, but it doesn't trust people to think for themselves, including reading the Bible and coming to their own conclusions.
"Sorry that Toby deleted your comments. But, are you sure it was just about disagreement? I've already posted there, and shared differences. He didn't delete my comments, and said, "Welcome." "
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, I don't actually care what anyone's particular comment policies are. Their blogs, their rules, and that's fine. I just don't think it's honest to for someone to try to claim that they're stalwart bastions of free expression when that isn't the case.
I also have no interest in trying to read someone's mind about why they delete comments. Just going by the evidence however, it is obvious that the only comments that Toby limits, moderates, or deletes are from people who regularly disagree with him. If you can find a similar group of fundamentalists who also comment there, who also have their comments deleted and/or moderated, then my interpretation would be proven wrong. I don't know of any evidence of that.
"Also, although, I"m not a hard core Calvinist, I can't see how the acceptance of TULIP, means Christian people should have absolutely no concern in the church for sound doctrine, the preaching of the gospel, or the affirmation of heretical views from the pulpit. "
Katie can give her own answer here, but my concern, grace, is that no one can lead someone to Christ. Salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. We don't choose to accept Christ, it is grace working in us that allows us to accept Christ. No minister can give someone faith, nor take it away. That's a clear and obvious rejection of Presbyterian doctrine on election. Also, to lift up ministers as somehow more important than anyone else is also a rejection of Presbyterian doctrine, and sounds much more like Romish clericism, a tendency becoming more and more common among our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. (I'm not trying to insult these Catholic views of the Priesthood, though obviously I disagree with them, I'm simply saying they're not Presbyterian, and for someone to hold those views out as being "classically Presbyterian" is demonstrably false. Just ask Martin Luther.)
Alright, Alan, let's hash this around together. Don't think I'm being snarky. I"m not. But, I seriously want to talk with you.
ReplyDeleteI know it may not seem this way on the surface, but I actually think that theologically we are pretty much at the same place. You are actually an orthodox, evangelical Christian, not at all radically progressive.
But, sometimes, I get confused by your reponses, and can't get a handle in where you're coming from spiritually.
Maybe it has to do with this Calvinist thing. Are you feeling that since "salvation," is all of God's grace, that it's ok for heretical views to be affirmed from the pulpit, or that we shouldn't actually care about where our clergy are at spiritually?
Martin Luther wouldn't agree with this. Although, he would say that the personal faith of a minster certainly can't effect the validity of the sacrament.
In TEC, we actually have a priest who is a "high church atheist." I don't think this is ok.
Probably, where I would differ with folks over at Classical Presby is that my heart is not to drive heretical teachers from the church or the pulpit.
I worry that in the long run this might actually do more harm spiritually. Think the parable of the "wheat and the tares." I also think that folks are more likely to come to faith if we can hold on to them in the church, then if they are out the door forever.
But, at the sametime, I very much care, and I think all of us should be reminded of our baptismal covenant, and clergy held accountable to their ordination vows.
I mean these are solemn affirmations, and promises made to God, and to the church. They matter. Our relationship with God in Christ matters.
I would truly be very concerned about clergy administering the sacrament, while secretly , or not so secretly, mocking, and utterly unable to discern the body, and blood of the Lord.
Alan, we should love each other enough to speak out honestly. We should care!
It's a deeper issue than whether folks are heading to Heaven or Hell. Although, that's certainly not a light matter, either. Is it??
Alan,
ReplyDelete"Katie can give her own answer here, but my concern, grace, is that no one can lead someone to Christ. Salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. We don't choose to accept Christ, it is grace working in us that allows us to accept Christ. No minister can give someone faith, nor take it away."
That answer pretty much says it for me too.
Grace,
"Hey, Katie, what does it mean for Presbyterian clergy to "rightly administer the sacraments?" "
You might not like this answer, but this is the best you’ll get out of me given the context in which I first brought it up. A different context might yield a different answer.
For one thing, our clergy are expected to follow the directives of the Bible and our Book of Order (including the Directory of Worship).
I did say "faithfully" and not "rightly" though, although it's really a distinction without a whole lot of difference.
I would not try imposing my particular notion of "rightly administering" on John, his Congregation, or the Presbytery to which he belongs. To first order, it's really up to them to decide that.
"Maybe it has to do with this Calvinist thing. Are you feeling that since "salvation," is all of God's grace, that it's ok for heretical views to be affirmed from the pulpit..."
ReplyDeleteWho?
Who are we talking about, grace? Or rather, who are you talking about, specifically? Because it's crystal clear who Toby is talking about: "Oh, and let's not forget how you fawn all over He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named all over his blog of evil."
So are you in agreement with Toby, even as you post here on this "blog of evil"? Watch it, grace, or you'll be led astray as well! Seriously, who is the heretic to whom you're referring, grace? If you believe one of us is defending a heretic here, name him or her. Even more specifically, since you asked me the question directly, do you believe I am defending a person who is "secretly , or not so secretly, mocking, and utterly unable to discern the body, and blood of the Lord"? Fine, then call me out by name, and name the "mocker" as well.
Do you think that's me? Then defend your accusation if you think you can. Do you think the heretic is John? Then defend that accusation as well.
You write, "Alan, we should love each other enough to speak out honestly."
Um... To whom exactly do you think you are speaking, grace? LOL I'm sorry to laugh at that statement of yours, but I find it hard to believe, even in our limited interaction here on this blog that you (or anyone) would believe that I have ever had problems speaking out honestly. :) I think I can say, without fear of successful contradiction, that timidity is not really one of my problems, eh? ;) So again I ask, to whom do you think you're talking to?
So, grace, say what you mean plainly and stop pussyfooting around. Perhaps once again you'll feel that I'm too ... well ... direct. But by this time it shouldn't surprise you that I simply say what I mean, that frankly I don't enjoy games, and that this fish don't rise to cheap bait.
I was speaking in general, Alan.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes John teaches, and affirms heretical views. There's no doubt about that from any quarter, is there? I'm sure he thinks so too, and is perfectly happy about it, as far as I can tell anyway.
But, I don't think him especially "evil," anymore than any of us are fallen, can become confused, and need the grace of God.
We are supposed to be loving, and caring for each other, heretical or not. That's not "fawning."
And, John is a pretty lovable rascal. As I've said, I love him, and like him most of the time. But, I think he's just as "lost as a goose in a hail storm," and needs the Lord.
(Sorry John that I'm here speaking about you in the third person. And, you're more than tolerant, and a good sport to allow it.) But, I'm trying to honestly respond to Alan. Now that he's asked.
I wonder how it is that you never really question, or confront anything that John says here, Alan? You express no concern at all whether he's preaching the gospel, or not.(At least, I haven't seen it.)
Yet, you are more than ready to attack, and get extremely offended at me, or any orthdox Christian who posts here expressing any difference, or concern. I'm not able to understand it.
Color me confused, brother. Do you feel I'm being out of line??
But, yes John teaches, and affirms heretical views. There's no doubt about that from any quarter, is there? I'm sure he thinks so too, and is perfectly happy about it, as far as I can tell anyway.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me?
This is the most Reformed blog on the web, I assert most humbly.
No, I do not teach and affirm heretical views. If I cared about heresy, you would be the heretic, my dear.
Wha..at is this??? And, here I thought you were vying with that old sinner, MP to have the most controversial, maverick, and heretical blog in cyberspace.
ReplyDeleteBTW, prayers for Maddie requested. See his recent posts for details.
Also, praise, sort of. My wild pup has returned from the woods, safe from the coyotes, covered with swamp mud, bearing gifts, a wild grouse.
What was I thinkin, getting this crazy dog. Although, I love him to pieces.
And, here's some awesome, beautiful Scripture shared by my friend, Viola. (She writes beautifully.)
..Your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life appears, then you will also appear with Him in glory. Col. 3:3-4.
Goodnight John, author of the most "reformed," blog on the web.
P.S . Are you there, Alan??
Crickets:
Grace,
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who badgers me (and others about me) regarding my supposed heresies and how I need the Lord and on and on.
If you think you are going to get Alan and I in some snit, sorry.
You don't understand the role of clergy.
You also don't understand our Reformed/Presbyterian tradition. This is understandable since you are not one. Since you do not understand, your claims that I am not a proper clergy person are way out of line. Bad form, really.
But that is to be expected from you.
Glad you found your puppy.
Alan said, "Just going by the evidence however, it is obvious that the only comments that Toby limits, moderates, or deletes are from people who regularly disagree with him. If you can find a similar group of fundamentalists who also comment there, who also have their comments deleted and/or moderated, then my interpretation would be proven wrong. I don't know of any evidence of that."
ReplyDeleteFirst he moderates ALL comments. Second, He's cut me off when I've gotten less than graceful. And I'm probably a bit right of him being a Presby who hangs with Vineyard, Charismatic Episcopalians and Southern Baptists.
IMHO he/I/we have every RIGHT as a Pastor ordained in a "connectional, confessional" denomination to expect orthodox theology from those who have been ordained by another Presbytery. that's because you and I were ordained on behalf of the entire denomination. Thus, it is well within the book of discipline to file charges against those who are wrong.
Alan, the fundy, evangelical, orthodox and soon to be EPC one,
"I wonder how it is that you never really question, or confront anything that John says here, Alan? You express no concern at all whether he's preaching the gospel, or not.(At least, I haven't seen it.)"
ReplyDeleteThen you haven't seen it. Last Easter we had a lively and interesting conversation about the resurrection, and we have disagreed elsewhere. You're probably forgetting our disagreements because I don't simply shout "Burn the heretic!" every time I disagree with someone.
"Yet, you are more than ready to attack, and get extremely offended at me, or any orthdox Christian who posts here expressing any difference, or concern. I'm not able to understand it."
First of all, I have never been extremely offended at you, though this has to be the 8 billionth time you have claimed that I am. This is your typical tactic. You make outlandish claims you have no interest in defending, and then, when you can't actually answer the questions put to you, when someone asks you to actually stand behind the things you say, you instead try to manipulate the conversation into a discussion about just how "angry" everyone is. Perhaps such tactics work with others, but not with me, particularly when I'm not angry. For someone who has never met me, you presume far too much.
Second of all, I simply get tired of people for whom the idea of heresy is as close to the real thing as Epcot's idea of France is to the real thing.
You see, grace, your notion of so-called heresy is unsustainable. If one defines heresy as any disagreement with what one believes is orthodox theology, then you're a heretic too. Welcome to the club.
(It seems to me that, as with many other words in the English language, the term "heretic" has lost its meaning due to our love of hyperbole. Everyone you see in the news or on TV these days is a "Genius!", every Democrat is a "Marxist!", and every Republican is a "Fascist!" Feh. Words have meanings, grace.
There are heretics in the world, both Christian and otherwise. They preach a gospel that is completely opposite of what Christ taught. They teach a gospel of hate instead of a gospel of love. They teach a gospel of power instead of a gospel of humility. They teach a gospel of wealth instead of a gospel of giving. They teach a gospel of fear instead of a gospel of joy. They teach a gospel of domination instead of a gospel of servanthood.
Unlike you and many others, grace, I reserve the term heresy for those that really deserve it, not simply as a label for those with whom I disagree.
For all of his errors, John Shuck is not a heretic. And for all of his errors, neither is Toby Brown, and neither, for all of your errors (and they are legion) are you, grace. And neither am I.
red cleric wrote, "Thus, it is well within the book of discipline to file charges against those who are wrong."
Never said it wasn't. I just happen to think that Scripture trumps the Book of Order, but apparently, not everyone agrees with that.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for that definition of heresy. I tend to want to throw the word out because of the abusive use of it and because it is thrown about so lightly.
But perhaps there is a place for it in the sense you describe.
"Thank you for that definition of heresy. I tend to want to throw the word out because of the abusive use of it and because it is thrown about so lightly. "
ReplyDeleteWell, I do the same thing, when I'm trying to be ironic, pointing out the Pelagian "heresies" of some of our "orthodox" brothers and sisters. But it isn't like I'm actually lighting a torch and grabbing a pitchfork.
If someone really is a heretic, you don't calmly wander about "fawning" over him at his blog or spend time thinking up amusing Harry Potter-esque names. That sort of Disneyfication of heresy is almost as much a danger as heresy itself.
If someone really is a heretic, you don't calmly wander about "fawning" over him at his blog or spend time thinking up amusing Harry Potter-esque names.
ReplyDeleteHarry Potter! Dang, of course. I thought he was making a reference from the Bible. Gave him too much credit.
John,
ReplyDeleteI'm not deliberately trying to get anyone here in a snit, or be badgering. But, if that's how you're feeling, then I need to search my own heart, and back off.
I'm really sorry.
Alan, we could really, really, really get into a debate about this together. But, surely it would be pretty fruitless for both of us. It's not about just winning an argument for me, and my words can't convinve anyone of anything. I know that.
I misread this whole thing. We obviously don't agree concerning the content of the gospel, or the importance of essentials of the Christian faith, and I'm not the one able to change your thinking.
But, sure I hang out with heretics all the time. God loves the heretics, and all the rest of us sinners.
You can have the last word then.
God's peace to you.
"We obviously don't agree concerning the content of the gospel, or the importance of essentials of the Christian faith, and I'm not the one able to change your thinking."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Want to know what I believe? Read the Apostle's Creed, for starters. Then move on to some of our catechisms. They're nice summaries of much of what I believe. Now apparently you don't believe in the things laid out there, and that's your business, I'm clearly not going to change your mind.
But, regardless of your many errors (many of which have historically been called "heresies"), neither am I interested in wasting time calling you a heretic, as you do to others. I think discussions of faith should be more serious than passive-aggressive school-yard name-calling contests.