Guillaume Smit – The Christian Bully vs The False Teacher

 

Act 1, Scene 2

Guillaume Smit’s response to my article after I responded to his article:  What does he do?  He whips out the LAW – Hate Speech is what we are doing he implies.

But genuine Christians knew the day was coming when speaking the Gospel of Jesus Christ would be considered hate speech.  We knew the day was coming when preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ would be banned because it would be reduced to hate speech.   You may quote the happy verses of the bible, but you dare not quote the verses in the bible that cause someone to break out into a sweat with regards to where they will spend eternity because of sin.

Guilluame lists below in his article what he considers hate speech towards him (after he wrote hate speech towards us).  But it gets better,  Guilluame then goes and uses the following scripture ‘against’ us- he expect us to have followed the below biblical method in speaking to him…

Here, then is my problem: The Bible teaches Christians to settle their differences in love. If we disagree with each other we are supposed to discuss it in private (Matthew 5:23-25). If this disagreement stems from one party falling in sin, and if he/she refuses to repent, somebody should be taken along. Finally this person should be excluded from the congregation in order to get an opportunity to come back to the community of faith (1 Corinthians 5). Interestingly, this passage also refers to revilers (1 Cor 5:11) within the community of faith.

So why didnt you do this before you wrote your 1st article Gulluame?  tsk, tsk.

Oh wait because as per your article below you say,

“Unfortunately, no reasonable conversation with these people is possible, as their agenda seems to be one of radical hatred against “deviant theologians.”

So why bother quoting these verses?  Firstly, we are not in your “physical church building” to be expelled and secondly if we were in your church and you expelled us we would zap ya with Hate Speech legislation.  Thirdly, the body of Christ is spiritual and thankfully you can’t make decisions on who is saved and not for only God knows our hearts.  See how it all this just goes around and around and around.

Anyhow…

You know what this type of thing is called?  It’s called being two faced, I think I told you this before in my last article.  All this only applies to you when you see fit;   the rest of the time you will apply it to everyone else because you see fit.  Everyone else who questions you, you label under the category of Hate Speech, but it’s not Hate Speech when you do it to us.

Hmmm I ponder how rediculous this could get.  Just as an example.  What would a pastor do if someone in their congregation questioned the pastor’s sermon?  Would the pastor call that hate speech if the congregant refused to agree with the pastor?  The pastor then brings in others to help this person agree with the pastor.  But they still refuse so the pastor expells them from the church.  Wonder if the pastor would get a shock when he realise his own hate speech threats were then given back to him in the form of a law suit because expelling someone for ‘disagreeing’ is considered hate.   Hmmmm….that would be a pickle, anyhow, so…

Moral of the story:    practice what you peach?  lol

As per the legislation you mentioned below in your article, you break it because you don’t agree with our ‘Religion:  Christianity.  You don’t agree with our  Ideology:  Christianity as per the Word of God (nothing added or taken away)  and you discriminate against a group of people:  Born Again Christians.’

You said so yourself, we DIFFER.  You said:

“These Christian Cyberbullies specialize  in attacking other Christians….who differ from their theological beliefs”

Oh Oh, now what?  That’s hate speech.

To make things easier I list some of the hate speech criteria here with regards to what Guilluame has said to us.  I will use the same legislation he quotes in his article below – Ordered list

As per Wickipedia:  Hate speech is a term for:

1. speech that attacks
2. disparages a person
3. or group of people
4. religion
5. or lack there of
6. ideology
7. occupation
8. mental capacity

SA legislation with regards to clear intention:

    (a)   be hurtful;
    (b)   be harmful or to incite harm;
    (c)   promote or propagate hatred.

10 Commandments (this is added by DTW)

    9-    Thou Shalt Not Lie

So let’s see what you said about us…

• new breed of bully (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3)
• These people call themselves Christian, but in practice they only resemble the vestiges of Pharisaical religion (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
• These Christian Cyberbullies, specialize  in attacking other Christian leaders, blogwriters and pastors who differ from their theological beliefs. (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
• Write and then quote them very selectively to ensure that their own readers only hear them saying what the Christian Cyberbully wants them to say.  (9- Thou Shalt not Lie)
• In the mean time their opposition is mostly theological  (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• Christian Cyberbully normally adheres to a radically fundamentalistic view of Scripture, has no insight in developments in the area of biblical studies.  (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-)
• And more specifically, actually relish the thought of destroying another person’s integrity.  (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• choosing instead to “worship in a home group” or some or another cult or sect-like fringe group  (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• The damage these Christian Cyberbullies inflict, is tremendous  (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• negate the second most important command given by God – loving another as you would love yourself   (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• The attacks of these Cyberbullies make them instruments of the devil himself   (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• Sowing discord and hate, typical things the devil uses to destroy churches, Christians and ministries   (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9-)
• As Jesus told us in Matthew 5, I continuously choose to love my enemies, these Christian Cyberbullies included. But I have no fear of them, as they will ultimately destroy themselves.  (a, b, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

*  “Their frequent quoting of Scripture hides the fact that they are only busy with slander in the worst possible form”

So my point is Gulliame, you have nooooo right what-so-ever to point fingers at us when you are are doing the EXACT same thing.

But lastly, as we can see, all of this is actually just a complete waste of time.  Just scare tacts and a smoke screen to detract from the issue at hand.  The message that is preached in the church today contains a new message a false message that contradicts the Word of God.

I am not even going to bother commenting on the rest of your article (except for a few funnies near the bottom) because:   you slander us by frequently quoting scripture to hide the fact that you are only busy with slander in it’s worst possible form…or something…lol  (Refer to your quote * a few sentences up above in green)

You’ve opened a can of  ‘silly’ worms now –  if you are all red in the face, then I suggest hiding behind a curtain until all this blows over.

Yeah say no more….rediculous isn’t it folks.

——

REVISITING CYBER BULLYING AND ITS HATE SPEECH

by Guillaume Smit

[DTW:  Emphasis and comments in green]

“Hate speech is a term for (1)speech that attacks or (2) disparages a person or (3) group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, (4) religion, or (5) lack there of, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, (6) ideology, social class, (7) occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), (8) mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting . It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport’s scale which measures prejudice in a society. Critics have claimed that the term “Hate Speech” is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.”

The South African law pertaining to Hate Speech and unfair discrimination, Act No. 4 of 2000: Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. contains the following clause:

10. (1) Subject to the proviso in section 12. no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to –
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.

It is indeed a sad day when Christians start to construe public messages about each other to propagate hatred, incite harm or be hurtful. In view of my previous post regarding Christian Cyberbullies, I’ve been invited to go and “bully the bully.” The storm in a teacup my posting caused was tremendous. It seems that my opinion struck a nerve and more than a few people found that the shoe fit and even put it on.

Here, then is my problem: The Bible teaches Christians to settle their differences in love. If we disagree with each other we are supposed to discuss it in private (Matthew 5:23-25). If this disagreement stems from one party falling in sin, and if he/she refuses to repent, somebody should be taken along. Finally this person should be excluded from the congregation in order to get an opportunity to come back to the community of faith (1 Corinthians 5). Interestingly, this passage also refers to revilers (1 Cor 5:11) within the community of faith.

However, disagreements on the basis of theological interpretation should be debated with great eagerness. As I said in another post about proof-texting, all theology is an interpretation of the Bible, and all persons doing Bible study is busy with theology. If my theological position differs from yours, you are therefore invited to engage into conversation with me – this implies that we shall respect each other’s integrity, be willing to listen to each other’s view points, try to learn from each other, and if the differences are unbridgeable, we should agree to disagree in love. Since the core of our beliefs is based on the redemption by Jesus on the cross, we should be able to bestow grace upon each other to differ on other
theological things.

A good example of this is the matter of baptism. As Reformed Christian I believe that children (and infants) can be included in the
sacrament. I base my understanding of this on the covenant that was made between God and Abraham in Genesis 15-17 as well as Paul’s
re-interpretation of this convenant in light of baptism in Galatians 3:26-29. I accept that you may differ from me, based on your understanding of Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12. But this makes neither of us wrong – as Ephesians 4:5 says, there is only one baptism. Our disagreement then stems from an understanding of the new covenant and the inclusiveness of the sacrament of baptism. What is wrong, however, is rejecting one’s view of baptism and forcing people to go through the ceremony for a second time because the first baptism was inadequate or different from what you believe.

And we do not have any right to attack each other’s position or throw doubts on each others’ faith or personal integrity. I was witness to a comment of a woman a few years ago, who specialized in spiritual warfare. She was attending the same prayer meeting I attended, to intercede for the city in which we both worked (not Cape Town, this is an old event). She stated: “Infant baptism is a sacrifice to the water god,” implying the church I belong to is doing something during the baptism of our babies that binds them to the devil or at the very least an idol.

This is hate speech.

The problem arises when no discussion is possible, when one of the parties refuse to listen to the other’s view point and when listening only occurs to get ammunition for yet another attack on the opponent’s integrity or view. In my opinion the people whom I view as Christian
Cyber Bullies have a hidden agenda and that is to promote their own theological view point as the only truth to adhere to. Because youdiffer from that view point, you are branded as an enemy (of the faith) and should be attacked. Their favourite proof text is 1 John 4:1. They conveniently choose to ignore 1 John 4:2 which states that anybody who refuses to confess that Jesus is the Christ that became human is a false prophet.

(Incidentally, I am on record that I confess Jesus as Christ incarnate. Moreover I am very specific in my confession that Jesus indeed rose from the grave in his physical body and not metaphorically or even mysteriously so that one is unable to say exactly how. Several texts from the gospels make it quite clear to me that these Bible writers understood Jesus’ resurrection to be in exactly the same physical body as the one He died with. I therefore take serious exception to the accusation that I profess another Christ.)   [What about extra biblical teachings like Mysticism, Contemplative Prayer, Meditation, other  New Age teaching and practices, Ecumenical/Interfaith etc, etc, etc, etc, etc – Just because you confess the above means nothing because you add and subtract tons of other stuff to suit your new world christian beliefs – if you accept teaching that goes against the Word of God then you go against God…no really!  But don’t take my word for it,  God says so in His Word – the Word of God that was made Flesh – Jesus Christ.]

Unfortunately, no reasonable conversation with these people is possible, as their agenda seems to be one of radical hatred against “deviant theologians” and them trying to convince their readers that the church is under attack by some new world order. Their favourite current topic is to attack pastors from the emerging church grouping. I would have seriously listened to them if their approach was steeped in the 1 Joh 4:21 principle and if they demonstrated a willingness to learn from those of us who have a different theological perspective in the same way we are willing to learn from them.

Now, all that is left for those Christians that constantly gets attacked by these Christian Cyberbullies, is to start considering the involvement of secular protection meganisms such as the abovementioned law (which, incidentally, I am not considering). I am only quoting this law as a sad commentary that a country with a secular constitution such as South Africa’s should have to make laws to protect people against other people’s verbal hatred and insults, especially in the area of religion. And that it has indeed become necessary to fall back on secular processes to re-align a situation, such as the current spate of hateful attacks by Christian bloggers, that clearly has gotten completely out of hand.

The problem is even bigger: If Christians do not even adhere to their own “constitution’s” requirements (i.e. the Bible), how can we expect unbelievers to take Christianity serious as an alternative to no faith or to another religion?

To end this post, let me provide you with examples of hate speech by Christian Cyberbullies. I will protect their identities, as I want to state it quite emphatically (again) that I have no personal vendetta against any of the individuals who operate these web sites. I only want to show you how far this thing has spiralled into a downward roller coaster without any hope of reconciliation. Please note: all following remarks are taken from actual sites, refer to specific persons (other Christians who confess the Christ of the Bible), and to specific remarks that were made by these Christians and are now getting branded as false teachings by those people operating and participating on these websites (please also note, some of the quotes are in Afrikaans).

* I don’t comb selectively, I take the entire article and then quote
false teachers verbatim and point out the blatant error of their
teaching.    [DTW Quote]   Just have to add this, don’t want Guilluame to think he was not crediting me and breaking any laws.

* But you do teach a different gospel, you said so above….  [DTW Quote]   Just have to add this, don’t want Guilluame to think he was not crediting me and breaking any laws.

* But of course!!! We adhere to the FUNDAMENTALS OF SCRIPTURE where
the new age theological’ists’ adheres to anything that opposes the
Word of God]. [Re:- Insights? There are NEW insights in biblical
studies? Nooooooo, you kidding!! This is such a pity, all those
hundreds of years before us, people passed away never hearing these
NEW insights that would have ultimately changed their beliefs. Thank
the Lord they believed in Jesus Christ by FAITH ALONE.  [DTW Quote]   Just have to add this, don’t want Guilluame to think he was not crediting me and breaking any laws.

* You are the one who is losing control because some people are waking
up to the NEW AGE gospel you preach.   [DTW Quote]   Just have to add this, don’t want Guilluame to think he was not crediting me and breaking any laws.

* Only someone who does not know the original and genuine Gospel is
capable of saying something so utterly anti-God and anti-biblical.

* If you can get people to believe that the Bible is just another holy
book with no inherent uniqueness of its own, and indeed to sow seeds
of doubt as to the distinctive matchlessness of the Bible, you can
mesmerize people into believing just about anything you say. This is
exactly what *** sets out to do …

* The Emergent Church may be of the opinion that they are restoring,
renewing and reclaiming the world and that they are instrumental in
the giant resurrection rescue that is allegedly underway, but they are
actually succumbing to Satan’s temptation to worship him in return for
the kingdoms of the earth.

* Ek kan net sê ek dink nie *** is ‘n wedergebore christen nie nie na
alles wat hy kwytraak nie.

* What wimpy balderdash from this so called “man” of God,

* Ons leef voorwaar in ‘n gekkeparadys waarin die sg. “manne van God”
meer begaan is oor ‘n anorganiese, lewelose wêreld as oor die kinders
van God wie se koppe vermorsel word, onthoof word, gemartel word,
huise afgebrand word ensomeer, ensomeer, ensomeer. Nee! die sg. “manne
van God sal eerder saamwerk met godlose en godonterende organisasies
soos die Kopenhagen Konsensus en die VVO om die wêreld kwansuis te
red. Ja, nee, ***, jou kop is gewis geswaai, nie soos die “Stephen”
van die Bybel hemelwaarts nie, maar na onder (aardewaarts). Kry jou
kop ‘n slag in rat, man!

* The emerging church is no place for Christians.

* Waarom sou *** dan so graag wil hê dat die laste in Matteus 11:28-30
na “reêls” verwys. Ag nouja! dis tog seker nie te moeilik om ‘n
antwoord daarop te vind nie, veral nie as ‘n mens in ag neem dat die
brose wesentjies van ons post-moderne eeu se nekhare gewoonlik rys
wanneer ‘n mens praat oor sonde en die verskriklike gevolge daarvan as
hulle hul nie bekeer nie. “Weg daarmee!” skree hulle. “Ons wil hoor
hoe om ons selfbeeld op te kikker en nie hoe sleg ons is nie.”

* Ons hoor voortdurend uit die monde van super apostels en predikers
soos ***, ***, *** en nog vele ander dat Suid-Afrika reeds ‘n
geweldige groot herlewing belewe. Ons is beslis nie nou midde-in ‘n
groot herlewing nie. Skryf dit maar gerus op jou magie en vee dit met
jou hempie af. Daar is hoegenaamd nie so-iets in ons land aan die gang
nie. Wat as herlewings voorgehou word, is valse sogenaamde herlewings.

* Die emerging kerk is openlik besig met hulle poging om die
Christendom te vernietig en hulle word ondersteun deur die lering van
***.

* I say this on account of ***’s reluctance to quote any of them on
his blog for fear that his own agenda may be opened wide and revealed
to the entire world for what it really is – an attack on the core
doctrines of Jesus Christ.

* I cannot question your sincerity when you say that you are trying to
reach this generation for Christ but I do put a big question mark
behind your continued affirmation of *** who does not even know what
it means to be saved.

* When *** teaches that you are the Gospel, he is wrong and should
repent. When *** teaches that maybe the Gospel is giving your all to
Jesus, he is wrong and should repent.

I omitted the names of the people who gets attacked, to underscore the extent of the Christian hate speech that is incessantly doing the rounds. [LOL, how convenient]

And finally, I want to re-iterate my previous commitment:   I will love these people in the way Jesus asked me to, even if they declared me to
be their enemy.    No no, you said:  (here and here) that:  

 “I continuously choose to love my enemies, these Christian Cyberbullies included. But I have no fear of them, as they will ultimately destroy themselves“

——-

PS, to all out there, if you recognise those ‘quotes’ listed in *…* above as being yours, please comment below and let us know.

——-