Hulk smash bullies!

Hulk smash sissy girly boys!

Hulk not listen to others! Others listen to HULK!

Or Hulk smash!

Hulk forgot signature line in last post.

In Him,
T.I.Hulk

You hijack my comments thread and I'm gonna punch you right in the face!

Oh wait, sorry - I was just feeling a little WAH hateration. I'm back!

I'm going to HAVE to read Wild At Heart now, even if for no other reason than it will give me something else to argue with y'all about. ;-)

Seriously, it's been highly acclaimed by men (including elders) in my church, so I'm kind of surprised to read the criticism here.

Robert - in lieu of reading the book, why don't you pass the review that I posted in this post (the update I put out there today) on to one of your elders and see what they think. The reviewer does a thorough point by point Biblical critique of WAH. I'd be interested to see a refutation.

(Runs away screaming)

Quaid

I am very hungry to get some positions on this book from other people - even people who disagree with me. If you want I'd be glad to loan you my copy (if you don't mind the fact that it looks like an oragami instruction manual from all the dog-earing I did on it). That way this becomes a risk-free situation for you - you don't have to lay out any bones for your own copy.

Sometime you'll need to tell me who it among our pastors who really likes it.

Zzzz . . . Did someone mentioned the KJV?

Years ago I caught glimpses of a strange woolly beast lurking around our neighborhood. By setting out leftover BBQ and Kool-Aid, I befriended this creature - the one known as "Blo." Eventually Blo and I taught a "Bible" study focusing on WAH.

Loved the book on my first quick read. Then we worked on a Bible study with WAH as the centerpiece. The book is NOT a Bible study. Blo and I had to work hard to link the central themes of WAH to scripture. For most of the themes, it could be done, even if Eldredge chose not to do so in his book.

The problem is: since a few of the themes (every man is wounded by his father, you should teach your kids to beat up other kids, etc.) have zero scriptural backup, does this mar the entire work? I don't think so. Other than the Bible, I don't have to agree with everything an author writes to get something positive from him/her.

So nice to (here)some negative comments that support what me and a friend thought in the beginning of reading this book. My husband got totally caught up in this book, did studies and is set to do another. He bought many copies for his friends, of which I have extras is anyone wants a copy! I would rather send one of my copies than to see John Eldredge make untold more millions just because of the controversy over his book. I don't think that the bad in the book can be overlooked, as I have seen the annoyingly bad effects in my life and my kids lives. But I also have seen some good things in my husband, so go figure.

Has anyone noticed that Eldredge quotes Albert Schweitzer? In case you don't know who is, He is responsible for the "quest for the historical Jesus" movement which basically says that the Jesus of faith is totally different from the Jesus of History in a most heretical way. Just do a google search on Albert Schweitzer and heresy. This gives further insight into what some of his personal views may be, or maybe he just got the quote from a book of quotes.

Owen, you are right about Schweitzer. And I haven't read WAH and I haven't read the Schweitzer quote you are referring to. BUT... just quoting someone favorably is not the same as endorsing their views. I've used quotes from all sorts of pagans and heretics if the quote is a true statement. All truth is God's truth. Even Paul used some pagan quotes! If it is true, it is true regardless of the source. So quoting someone heretical, is not the same as endorsing their views on every other issue.

That said, I don't know if the Schweitzer quote Eldredge uses is good or bad, true or false, but the fact he quotes Schweitzer is not a reason to indict him, in my opinion.

Bill, you are too kind.
I laughed HARD at that comment.
And even if you are going to "read" the logo that way -- which is silly in itself -- he has it completely wrong. The "spokes" as he calls them, are through-lines. So Theology/Philosophy is not "balanced" by Humor/Wit but by Sociology/Culture which is on the same line as T/P on the other side.

Which is all besides the point anyway!
All we did is a send a list of categories to our graphic artist (my brother) with a general description of what we'd like the logo to look like. We didn't prioritize the list or anything. It's just supposed to show the topics covered.

Speaking of the logo, I've been meaning to speak to you about "Humor & Wit". The Bible says:

Ephesians 5:4 "there mst be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks." (emphasis added)
1 Peter 1:13 "keep sober in spirit"
1 Peter 4:7 "be of ... sober spirit for the purpose of prayer"
1 Peter 5:8 "Be of sober spirit"

Might I suggest that you change that line to "Thanksgiving and Prayer"?

Saw this story about a definitely Wild at Heart priest over on Lilac Rose.

I get conflicted by stories like this - because I think the priest could have been just as much a man standing up for what's right without pulling out the "I'll kick your wass" card. On the other hand - this is a really funny story and the guy got what he deserved.

On the third hand (yes, I have three) I think the "turn the other cheek" passage in the bible is among the most rationalized ever.

I get conflicted by stories like this - because I think the priest could have been just as much a man standing up for what's right without pulling out the "I'll kick your wass" card.

I was thinking the exact same thing!
That dude acted like he only had two options -- just take the guy's crude remark or threaten the guy with bodily harm. How about just responding calmly yet firmly? You can defend yourself without offering to "take it outside."
Lame.

I also agree that the "turn the other cheek" thing is often misinterpreted. Also, "don't judge lest ye be judged.";"0

I thought you'd think so!
Hey, don't you have a list of activities to be forbidding at your site right now?
Perhaps you could blog on which card games are too much like gambling and which ones are okay.

Yes, and so is working with women.

Really what I had in mind was the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" passage.
I take it as a warning against assuming God's place as Judge (ie. condemnation). It's also a prime example of Jesus asserting His authority. He was really the only one there without sin.
I think people misinterpret it by citing it every time someone merely points out the sin of another. The people's sin was not saying the woman was an adulteress. That was true enough. They erred in their thinking that, by their alleged holiness, they deserved to "send her to hell" as God could.

----
Speaking of Campbellite heresy:
Thinkling Asbell is a member of a "progressive"-type Church of Christ congregation. They are considered heretics by hardline Campbellites, and I've even found some web sites by these folks slamming Asbell's pastor (or, I guess they call him Teaching Elder or something like that). It's brutal.

I am impressed with the writer of this review on Wild at Heart. The heart of this review is a genuine desire to hold true to the teachings of God. On the other hand, I am disappointed that so much of the focus is on Open Theism. I would hope that objective thinkers, such as yourselves, would be able to overlook your objection to Open Theism and recieve the POINT of the book which is not Open Theism but rather the state of a man's heart. As a devote Christian wife, I encourage others to read this book and have seen friends greatly blessed by it. It saddens me that so many men reject the truth that could set them free found in this book due to an inability to overlook the very differences in Christian thought that the weak divide over.

Hi guys.
I had a lengthy email interaction with a couple of you earlier

I've read the criticisms of Wild at Heart, and I do agree that John Eldredge played around with the subject of Proverbs 20:5. However, one could reach the logical conclusion that the counsel in the heart of man cannot be any deeper than the heart itself... ie: the contents of the heart cannot be deeper than the heart itself, and indeed the heart itself must be deeper than its contents.
The reviewer also seems to forget that scripture has a few intentional word switches... not to compare John Eldredge to Matthew, but Matthew contains several instances of redirected quotation, and by the reviewers method, Matthew is heretical.
This is claerly a literary device, and look at it closely and critically... what possible evil can come from teaching that the heart is deep?

Let's move on to Luke 8:26-33. The chronology of the event described is clear. In verse 29 Jesus has commanded the evil spirit to come out of the man, and by verse 30, it still has not left and Jesus asks for the demons name.
In verse 31, the demons are trying a desperate negotiation before being cast into a herd of swine.
OK. So as an illustration of how difficult the spiritual battle can be, John Eldredge points out that even Jesus faced resistance. This in no way diminishes the power of God. No more than a rebellion in heaven by the angels of Lucifer did. These angels turned demons defied God, in heaven... yet God remains all powerful. (Obviously there is some mystery involved as to the "rules of engagement" between God and demons.)
We, as humans, face a very difficult fight to resist evil and that difficulty can never be overempasized.

On the issue of standing up to a bully, I'm assuming you all are against the war in Iraq?
Surely you worship the Warrior (Exodus 15:3) that is God? The God who surely smote the bully Egypt, the God who led the attack on Israel's enemies throughout the promised land. Or the Jesus who returns for us with a sword (Rev. 1:16) and who gives the enemies of His people blood to drink
(Rev. 16:6), so we are aware that sometimes violence is necessary and as Ecc. 3:1-8 says, there is a time for it.
Now would I counsel my child to punch a bully? I might.

When the reviewer looks at the heart, it seems he has an agenda. We have been given a new heart, and it goes without saying that it is good... after all it is where Christ dwells (Eph. 3:17) right? Christ cannot abide evil, and will not live in a wicked place, so something about the heart has to be good.

I could go on with this, but I believe I am dealing with staunch defenders of doctrine who won't be swayed. That is OK. We need you. But before being too harsh, too quick to judge... remember, it was the self appointed keepers of the law that Jesus reserved His harshest judgements for... so be vigilant not to drift over that line in your passion.

Ask this.... is the fruit of this good?
I stand on the fruits of what God has done in my life since I read the book. Your mileage may vary.

Steve

It wasn't an accusation, but interpretation is everything... as we've seen.
It might be an indirect admonition to be careful to avoid one of the pitfalls in the Christian life. I face my own pitfalls, and people like yourselves remind me that I need to not let the Truth get muddied up.
Thanks

All bully's start somewhere... they progress to murder rape and pillage sometimes. Maybe stopping a bully before they get to that point might be helpful to prospective victims.
I do not agree that I can oversimplify that.
Anyway, I'd doubt that you are saying that a bully has to be of a global scale before confrontation is righteous.
I'm going to stand on Ecc. 3:1-8, and the fact that God does not hesitate to wage war on those who persecute the poor and defenseless. We need to carefully seek God's counsel, but if I believe God is saying it's time to stand... I will.

On the issue of misquotation, or better, of interpretation/use of scripture that falls outside of excepted norms of the day, I point to Matthew. Intellectual gymnastics aside, Matthew has no qualms about reconstructing Old Testament quotes... he even seems to pull one "quote" out of thin air and changes "despised" to "Nazerene". Now I'm not Matthew, and neither is John Eldredge, but the precedent is scriptural. There is danger there, but it is a "risk" I'll live with.

With regard to respect, I guess it all depends on how man defines respect. I'm pretty sure God doesn't need me to run around demanding people respect Him as I see fit.
I think a honest search to understand God's desire for us; an honest effort to live from the place in our new heart where Christ dwells rather than living from the heart of our flesh, is entirely respectful regardless of minor doctrinal errors made bravely, honestly along the way.
I'd rather seek a life with God approaching sin from the freedom Jesus offered from it. I'd rather approach sin from a life lived from the dwelling place of Christ in my heart, with the Deep Counsel of the Holy Spirit. I'll stand on the new man that I am in Him... the battle to live from there will be fierce and sins will be made. But those sins do not define me in God's eyes. I reject condemnation, offer repentance and seek to change. I no longer fear sin and its wage, I'm free. Or that is what the Gospel says... I choose to believe that and live in faith from there.

I'm not offended. I just do not want people who might benefit from Eldredge's message to be deterred from it by accusation and condemnation. By words like "heresy".
In my case Wild at Heart caused me to look at my spiritual life from a new angle.
Folks are asking me for the reason for the hope that lies within me... like scripture says they will... people tell me that the change they have seen in my life is astounding and encourages them to continue to seek God.
That fruit is good. Sure, there is always more, and that is good. A great adventure lies ahead of us all and I pray that everyone here lets go of their human safety nets and grasps onto God, the God who shakes off human shackles like string and who does exactly what pleases Him. That we'd be trusting He will give us everything we need to fulfill His desire for us. That He'd thunder into our lives, ripping open the fabric of time and space with a power that defies description and changes our lives.


Steve

Wild Hare: I thought the other day that Jesus was the Lily of the Valley. Heh, heh. That's pretty wild, isn't it? Pretty manly.

Quaid, good job in comment 46.

This Gate's for you: .

Hey, Steve. I liked WAH and defended it vigorously against people like Bill :-) in the comments of another post around here.

Especially early in the book, Eldredge mishandles scripture very badly. He does seem to improve drastically towards the end of the book. But mishandling Scripture is a really big deal. It is not a risk to take. We are to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).

I don't know what the "doctrine Nazi" comments in his book and in your comments above are all about. Eldredge is speaking out of both sides of his mouth - on the one hand, he sneers about people who are concerned about doctrine and makes the same allusion to Pharisees that you do. That doesn't bother me; I'm used to being called a Pharisee, but only by licentious antinomians. ;-) But then later in the book, he writes that we cannot depend on how we feel and must stand on propositional truth when it comes to God's acceptance of us through Christ. Now, is propositional truth - including doctrine - important or not? I guess I am a legalistic neo-Pharisaical doctrine Nazi. (I think I'll start using that as a description of my blog - whaddya' think?)

it was the self appointed keepers of the law that Jesus reserved His harshest judgements for

Jesus never criticized the Pharisees for keeping the law and caring about it. He criticized them for only keeping part of the law, and being hypocritical and self righteous. In fact, He sort of praised them for their attention to things like tithing, but it was kind of a backhanded compliment in the middle of criticizing them for ignoring the weightier matters of justice and mercy.

Regarding the bully thing, I don't think retaliation is ever justified. However, hitting a bully in self defense is entirely different. I do believe Christians are permitted to defend ourselves. But this was really a very minor point that has little to do with most of the book.

I do not think John Eldredge is a tremendously skillful writer. It took a lot of effort on my part to read WAH and see the good things in it. I wanted to just chunk it. Eldredge doesn't even make his real point until the last few chapters of the books, where he spiritualizes the adventure and battle to battling against Satan and sin, and living an adventure of serving Christ daily. Christian manhood is not defined by watching Bravheart, The Patriot, and Legends of the Fall; or by rock climbing, shooting, or whitewater rafting. It's defined by following Christ and living a life devoted to Him.

I believe it's necessary that the men who have not yet repented and realized their restoration in the areas of their emotional and psychological life get those areas "straightened out" by God. Christ redeemed the whole man; salvation is bigger than justification. God does not call us to timidity, but to power, discipline, and self control. If we stop at simply replacing timidity with power, it's insufficient. Our power is not power to make sure the guy at Auto Zone doesn't take advantage of you. It's power to boldly stand for Christ despite opposition and persecution, and disicpline and self-control to live your life not for yourself, but for the transcendent cause of advancing the kingdom of God.

I can see how misinterpretations get started.
I never called anyone a "doctrine nazi", nor did I accuse anyone here of being a Pharisee. Please go back and read carefully.
I do want to point out that mistakes can be made on both sides of the doctrinal aisle, and also, God seems to abhor a "better safe than sorry" approach to knowing Him. (See the parable of the talents and Matthew 23).

I'm going to be provocative here, so fair warning has been given...
I think a huge number of men that are seen as examples of Christian masculinty are fakes.
They wrap fear and cowardice in the cloak of piety... and are upheld as humble and meek. Godly men.
Or the others who really just don't trust God to bless the outcome of a confrontation, or for God to protect them and their loved ones, so they take the "safe" route. They back down and slap the veneer of religion onto it.
Oh sure, they are good with words... they have all the scriptures perfect, doctrines dialed in. But it is a lie.
A pernicious lie, because it teaches others, at least in their subconscious, how to drape weakness, fear, cowardice, distrust in religious sounding tones. Somehow if it sounds "godly" and "religious", with correct intonation and inflection, built on accepted doctrine... it must be of God.
What a bunch of crap we have bought into.
I grew up in a Christian home, my dad worked at a Christian college. I've seen frauds and hypocrites my entire cognizant life, I've been a fraud and a hypocrite at various times in my own life as well.
I've also seen bold men of faith. Men willing to put their careers, their security, their reputations in God's hands and speak truth as God revealed. Hard truth. Truth that rocked the status quo and challenged men to stand or run.
I've seen Christians be absolutely vicious to each other over an interpretation of Matthew's Gospel that dared wonder aloud about Matthew's mixed quotation's, and changes of context. As if these questions of interpretation even challenged the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration.
I've seen men hold their eyes on God and refuse to back down.
I've seen men move their families into the worst ghettos in New Orleans, put their white kids into all black public schools and start ministries that complement beleagured local pastors... risking it all.
Some men are called to that sort of boldness and daring. But somehow Christian's want to select out the traits...

So, I've seen men fold, buckle, run, and betray... yet they are upheld as paragons of Christian virtue because they knew how to put the religious lace over the truth.
In my opinion, a good number of people who are not Christian don't want any part of the life of fear Christians lead. It isn't the sinfulness they want to hold onto, they just don't want any part of the lying life we lead. There are Christian men who don't trust God enough to let their kids go to public school. They take the salt and light out of the system, and then complain about the resulting chaos. Even I can smell the fear.... you can be sure satan makes sure the nonbeliever senses it as an overwhelming stench. But it is wrapped up in "religion" so Christians buy into it.
I refuse to.

Next time a guy is telling you about a situation where he had "victory" by turning the other cheek, ask him "what was there to be afraid of..." and watch his eyes....

Steve

I am a little confused regarding the repeated mention of Matthew, the apostle, being a revisionist or being careless with scripture. Quite frequently when OT content is quoted, or repeated, in the NT it is not in the exact form as it appeared in the OT.

There is a difference between those authors writing under divine inspiration and those of us whose writings may be interesting but are definately not "theopneustos". Am I missing something or is this a big controversy of which I am not aware?

Bryan

Hi Steve,

Those are the comments to which I was referring. I just wanted to be certain I wasn't missing the "latest thing" (e.g. license to imitate biblical authors)...

Have a great Lord's Day!

Ah! Sorry...I knew that. Steve was on my mind when I wrote that...

Steve, if you're lurking please send me an email.

Bryan

Matt

Eldredge denies being an open theist, although he doesn't provide much of an argument against the charge. I dunno - I didn't get too worked up over that.

But this chest-beating has got to go: The book describes people like him who are wounded and afraid. He is afraid to see the things that the book is saying and he wants to destroy it. I get weary of this line of argument because it's not argument at all, it's just taunting and threats. You don't have any clue as to whether Wingerd's "wounded and afraid", but you disagree with him so you're questioning his manhood? Seems like respectfully agreeing to disagree would be better.

I like this website to play bingo at as it has none of those annoying pop ups that always get in the way when I am doing things like playing bingo. They have a generous signup bonus and very friendly people who like to chat about bingo and life in general. There is a building jackpot that is growing and growing all the time. It is a very relaxing atmosphere. I find it easy to make new friends here at Play Cash Bingo Online.

What I have discovered is that people who allow their emotions to lead their lives love this book

Interesting. I don't know if I've ever thought about it in that way . . .

I have to say I am grateful you fellows have already played out the conversation that has been racing through my brain for the last two weeks. I began reading WAH in an effort to connect with the Mens fellowship at my new church. I was initially somewhat drawn to Eldridge's unorthodox approach of proclaiming "truths" about me from popular culture and the "totally groovy" version of the Bible in an effort to compel me to pursue my God. Frankly I have needed a kick in the pants lateley to get me off the curb and back down the narrow road. THere have been more personal challenges to my faith in the last year than I care to mention but through it all, God has been faithful to provide what I need when I need it. The division of Logic and Emotion however, was never clearer than when I arrived at chapter four. It was then I first began to question how well thought out this author was on his subject. I can't say that I am an expert at Church History, Greek or Hebrew. I don't hear God talking to me from the back of the Cocoa Krispies Box either. Still, I felt a check in my spirit when I read chapter four. My father did his level best to convey to me the truths he had learned from years of careful study of the Bible and "walking" with God. Whoever Bly is, he competely missed my experience. It may have been his blatant generalization of a "father wound" that spurred me to find out a bit more about Bly and Eldridge and Tozer etc. Typically, when I see people painting with a broad brush I think they are trying to cover more wall than there is paint for. There is a danger when we try to oversimplify something as complex and serious as our relationship with God. There is a greater danger when we decide to "follow our heart" and expect that will bring us closer to Him. Far from it. Steve, you sound like a very reasonable man, but I have a real concern anytime a teacher bends scripture. Even a little. If a verse doesn't exactly support the point trying to be made then I would suggest the point needs re-thinking. I am going to continue with this mens fellowship as it seems the people are more important than the quality of the book, however, I also know I am going to have to share my concerns with them. Please pray that God directs my words. If Eldridge intended me to find what makes me "come alive" I think it might be apologetics.

Just discovered this web site tonight. I have read WAH about 3 or 4 times through, loved it initially, even tried to lead a men's group through the book and field manual twice. I asked a new friend if he would join my group. He researched WAH and presented me with 2 reviews (Rut Etheridge and Randy Stinson) that cover many areas already discussed above. I read half of this material, realized what an error I had made falling so quickly and heavily into the Eldridge fan club without researching enough and using the Scriptures as the standard. I made an emotional decision. I then discarded all of his books I had. I do agree he has valid points, but I can't justify biblically being an Eldridge follower at this point. Now I am just trying to read all reviews/information I can find to form a more theologically sound opinion/belief. I don't know who you guys are, but it is good to read other "regular guys'" takes on Eldridge's work. Thanks.

Dave, I almost forgot, we have a whole CATEGORY for WAH. Go to left of site, and under "view posts by category", scroll down and select "Wild At Heart". We've got tons of stuff on it. What a resource the Thinklings are. So glad you found us.

Just bringing back the old point of "when to punch a bully"...

I think the author didn't feel a need to go into too much depth, this book is definitely NOT theology! To be honest I like that, I think the importance some people put to theology is theologically incorrect. Theology is usually taught by non-christians at uni, CS Lewis in defending theology against someone who says "Why not just walk the path" says "yeah you can walk the path but don't you get so much more out of the jounrey with a tour guide"...

The book is there to awaken something emotional within some guys... I've read some reviews complaining that the book has to much "pycobabble"... John Eldrige is a counsellor! You read a full-time counsellor's book and except no "pycobabble"... Its for a purpose...

Having said all this I do agree we should be constantly making sure our theology is in check... not because theology gets us into heaven or anything... but because messed up theology can totally mess people up (universalism has totally ruined a couple of my friend's faith, turning them into angry judgemental people)...

I think I'm partially agreeing with steve then. The review is good, I kind of picked this up whilst reading the book... we should be taking his theological statements with a pinch of salt... its not there for theology so we shouldn't treat it like that...

having said that it would be a shame for your review to make people not read the book! Lots of guys will totally be blessed by it...


Now the bullying thing... I think both of you (steve and bill) are right about this. I think the point that eldridge was making about "hitting the bully" was not, the bully deserved it... but his son came to him in tears, his son felt low, like he wasn't a man. He was telling him to go out there next time and prove himself a man...

However the other comment was "Jesus could retaliate. Beleive me." I'd say the next progression on that is actually the even more manly thing is to KNOW you could beat up the bully, to KNOW that you are a man, and then to turn the other cheek. With Jesus as the perfect example of manliness, on the cross suffering at the hands of those he created, knowing that at any moment he could wipe them all out and pull himself off the cross but submitting...

I don't think the bible is encouraging weakness... but instead encouraging weakness made strong through God... and encouraging meekness...

Also where do we draw the line? It says "honour your father and mother". Biblically I feel that the parents have been given god given authority over a child. Its the parents who can say, Hit back or son you are getting out of control, try letting the bully push you next time. Thats why we must honour our father and mother. Cause they are the only earthly people that can have any authority over us on those issues.

I found that since I realised all this for myself. When I first fought someone physically... I found that I needed to do this less and less, first I just needed to attack verbally back, then not at all. Now I can do street evangelism, be insulted by many people my age (I'm 17)... even had my trousers pulled down in the middle of the street. But now I can turn the other cheek, show compassion. But instead of walking all over me (Like I've seen them do to other christians). The guys friends (and eventually the guy himself) ended up respecting me, even hugging me and it opened up a lot more conversation...

I think eventually whatever happens you'll find the bible is right. True strength IS by turning the other cheek... by being so confident in yourself and your relationship with God that actually no one can really hurt you...

However I feel you get to that stage by growing closer to God... NOT by forcing your urges down... not by forcing yourself to back down in fear from every bully you see

I recently read through the Wingerd critique of WAH and was very challenged to say the least. I have probably given away 24-26 copies of this book. What bothers me is that this smaks of let others better equipped and more theologically correct do the thinking for you. The fact is Eldredge is a counselor not a theologian. I have many ideas on faith and what it means to live as a Christian Man and I am very sure that I would rather not share them if I knew Daryl et al were ever ready to pounce upon whatever brainchild I have and chew it to pieces for what it is not instead of at least trying to get the idea I was trying to express.
Eldredge has written books that are helpful to me but in no way replace my study of scripture or praylife. I read the Davinci Code as well as Devils and Angels by Dan Brown and while they make entertaining reading it is only foolish or weak minded people who have done little reading of their own who see his work as a judgement upon the state of faith today. Wow! You mean to tell me there are these other Gospels.
My point is that a thinking Christian can read anything including the Book of Mormon or the Qaran and if that Thinking Christian is a devout and faithful person who prays and reads the Bible as the source of life then he has nothing to fear. God help us from those who are so fearful of others being able to think for themselves.

Very good site, greate content !!

It is healthy, I shall come on your site more often, thank.