The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

Repost: Originally posted 5/10/06

I have been having some limited follow-up discussion with Roderick over at his site after our interview. Michael Bennet has joined the conversation and started with a bang with his regurgigated routine that many of us have already been spammed with by email. He either cannot or will not understand that I “debate” or “discuss” one thing. Perhaps he hasn’t bothered to read my last two articles in which I make that clear. Instead he continues to pursue issues and debates that I am perfectly satisfied have been addressed by others. That is fine, I know my particular calling, and refusals to take “no” for an answer don’t concern me. It is annoying, however, when someone makes it plain that they are so self-absorbed that they cannot be bothered to even understand the other person’s particular focus. I do believe that this particular heresy for some reason has more than its share of adherents who behave that way when it comes to interaction. With all the cultic groups I have dealt with over the years, none have continued to pursue unwelcome debates once told nor ever regularly spammed me.

You can’t demonstrate anywhere where the resurrection is spoken of that can’t be connected by a time text or the covenant change Dee Dee - face the fact.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hello King Neb. Hugs and Kisses and Smooches. I am dying to know what a Monilist is, can you please tell me? I suggest you trademark it quickly.
Alexander Rodriquez put up a piece somewhat dealing with the issues, though lapsed into some hyperliteralism that would have made Tim LaHaye proud. I will post a response to his comments next week, if my monilism, whatever the heck that is, allows me to. Check back here Alexander. I have another article in the works as well. If I can write three in one year maybe I can be a mominist or manilist or something.

And yes it is confirmed. I am on friendly terms with Roderick. I don’t consider myself on unfriendly terms with King Neb, he just seems to really love the taste of his own feet each time he posts. But in answer to Rod’s mantra, see the below blog (the Newt one) - my lack of Calvinism is irrelevant. If Roderick wishes to consider me a heretic, it doesn’t change his denial of the resurrection one bit, and it is his perogative. If his understanding of the Bible and Calvinism leads to the idea that one who does not hold such has denied an essential (Rod likes to obfuscate between essential and important) of the Christian faith, then by all means, he should consider me a heretic. But if he were to be consistent with that, he wouldn’t insist that we are brethren (which we are not) when he writes.

What Rod is doing is classic cultic bait and switch. He still denies the resurrection. In fact, I believe this bait and switch is dishonest (though in Rod’s case not maliciously so) because he doesn’t in fact believe that non-Calvinists hold to damnable heresy. He insinuates it without believing it to sanitize his own heresy and to muddy the waters. It doesn’t work.

Tune in tomorrow for As the Heretical Hyperpreterist (yeah that is redundant) Obfuscations Continue!

It got better…….

the hyperpreterists have delivered this stunning rejoinder to the fact that they deny the resurrection. Are you ready? It is so pertinent, so relevant, so devastating that I shudder to name it…….

Ready?

Ready?

I am not a Calvinist. Shush yer mouth. Yes. That is it. Of course I could be the daughter of Adolf Hitler and eat babies as apetizers and that still wouldn’t at all deal with the fact that the hyperpreterists are nonChristian cultists. Now if they wish to claim that all Arminians are not Christians I have some tremendous news for them.

I don’t care. That is their perogative. I don’t get my intestines all in a noodle over such things, and it certainly won’t cause me to reconsider for a second the irrefutable fact of their defecation on the redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ who will defeat all of His enemies by denying the resurrection. Strong words? Yes. I think Paul would approve. However, if they believe that, they should stop trying to cozy up to nonCalvinists and go and form their really exclusive cult that is inevitable.

You see, it seems like the hyperpreterists haven’t matured much farther in their theological argumentation than saying, “I know you are but what am I!!!!”

My Arminianism (specifically Molinism which appears also to be a challenge for some of them to spell) is irrelevant to their foundational and damnable heresy. Deflection doesn’t cut it. That is (big surprise) yet another cultic tactic. It will be a sad sad day for them if I ever become a Calvinist. Maybe then their argument will need to change to “She’s not a paeodo-baptist!!!” But guess what? They still deny the resurrection and that is still damned by Scripture.

I have been following some of the shoutbox comments at a hyperpreterist site with some great amusement.  Since they disappear by necessity quickly I will address them here:

1.  Divide and Conquer - someone who fancies himself the “Reformed Gangsta” claims that he is going to do something on the necessary implications of my rejection of Calvinism and somehow compare that to the vile, disgusting, and putrid denial of the resurrection.  That should be funny….. but let’s see what this says about the person’s opinion on their own abilities.  Does he really think that Pastor Gene hasn’t thought about that?  And second, perhaps one day I will be a Calvinist, who knows.  But when one denies a core essential of the Christian faith, distraction is all one has.  I have suggestion.  Do the bit in a clown outfit, that will really complete the shell game.

2.  Matthew 25 - the hyperpreterists got their skirts all blown up (some of them) because I had the audacity to say “I don’t know.”  This is particularly funny in light of Gene’s observations of the pride and arrogane that is rampant in that community.  I am still studying that portion of Scripture.  At one point I definitely did not hold to a transitional text.  Absolutely not.  However, I have been considering the arguments of some, and some of my own conclusions, and am open to changing my mind.  If that is somehow exploited as a weakness, well, that is frankly, retarded.  I disagree with Gene that if one does not believe in a transition at that point that hyperpreterism is the logical result.  IF I ever do take the position that there is a transitional text, it will not be for that reason since for years I took the position, with no problem, as does Gary DeMar, that there was not.

3.  I did in fact give answer with regards to Revelation, but I also stated that I have focused on Matthew 24 for many years and that my indepth study of Revelation is a future project.  I have enough study under my belt to show hyperpreterism for the hog that it is and gave several of my initial thoughts as to what that passage indicated.  It would be quite foolish to say a definite answer on something I have not spent the requisite time upon, but I have spent the requisite time to have narrowed down what it means and that an option is that it will not contradict the very clear other passages of Scriptures.
I am pleased to say that Roderick was not one of those engaging in such foolishness.

I believe I will have blog fodder for weeks to come considering the obsession level of hyperpreterists when dared to be opposed.

A while back I noted with approval how Amazon reviews show a microcosm of the elements of the hyperpreterist movement of which I have been highly critical and the cult-like fervor of these particular posting adherents (compare their reactions to anti-Trinitarians reviewing James White or a similar author). A careful read of the terminology used by the negative reviewers belies a common source - they all originate or have had great influence from a particular radical hyperpreterist faction and not from the others (i.e. the clue is the words “hypo-preterist” which is only used by a particular faction and “hyper-creedalist” which to a great extent is only used by the same faction - yes they are yawningly unoriginal). I have found that it is helpful to revist these reviews. The book is question is Keith Mathison’s “The End of All Things” and the link to all of the reviews can be found here.

This morning I would like to draw attention to the review by Brad Williams on April 22, 2004. It always gives me shivers to see folks saying the exact same things that I have been saying.

If you are interested in study contemporary theological movements, and especially cultic movements, this will be an insightful book. If not, you OUGHT to be interested in what is occurring in theological circles! This book will whet your appetite.

This book focuses on the hyperpreterist movement. This new theology claims to be evangelical, but is attempting to radically change Christianity. The book shows that hyperpreterism teaches: (1) Satan is dead. (2) The Holy Spirit’s ministry is ended. (3) The Second Coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70. (4) There is no physical resurrection. (5) Earth history will never end. (6) Judgment Day occurred in A.D. 70. (7) The doctrine of the Trinity needs to be changed. (8) There is no Hell; all references to the judgment of Hell really refer to A.D. 70. (By the way, A.D. 70 is the year the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.)

This new movement is an Internet-based quasi-Christian religion which is picking up a growing number of disciples. You need to read this book to be ready for the hyperpreterist that appears in your neighborhood. Don’t worry about your neighborhood, though: they do not go door-to-door. They generally prefer showing up in Sunday school classes and at conferences.

This is not a detailed refutation of all the errors in the movement. It focuses on some key issues. It shows that the hyperpreterists are: denying the historic faith of the universal Christian church (Gentry and Wilson chapters); employing strange biblical interpretive procedures (Pratt and Mathison chapters); teaching that the entire church missed the fact that Christ came in A.D. 70 (Hill’s chapter); denying the physical resurrection at the end of history, preferring a spiritual resurrection occurring throughout Christian history (Strimple’s chapter); and trying to use the Book of Revelation to deny all of these doctrines (Kistemaker’s chapter).

I have been alarmed that such a strange new cult-like movement could be advancing by way of the Internet. Internet proselytization is the wave of the present!

I hope this book protects Christians from being sucked into the movement.

Emphasis mine as points which strike me as particularly relevant today that might not have struck me so poignantly in 2004 when I would have first read this review.

I don’t have much time to do a great deal of research into areas other than eschatology, so it is through this lens that I first became familiar with what is known as the “emergent church” movement. Like is done with DeMar, many in the hyperpreterist camp will prostitute any idea, person, or movement to give themselves the “Christian” acceptance they so desparately crave, and that is what they are currently doing with the ideas of the “emergent church.” For example, last year’s hyperpreterist conference was entiteld “A Generous Orthodoxy” - a name which comes from arguably the book on the emergent church movement at this time by author Brian McLaren. At the time of reviewing this usage with regards to the hyperpreterist convention, I didn’t deal with whether or not this hyperpreterist tactic was making fair use of McLaren, but simply critiqued their bankrupt view of a “generous orthodoxy” in an earlier blog entitled “Hollow Christianity.” That blog is worth reproducing again at this time:

Received in my email box: “Covenant Eschatology has been clashing with traditional theology for many years, however as Christianity enters the post-modern era, we see a surge in the adoption of Preterist eschatology and the willingness of believers to graciously sit down at the same table and discuss their differences. This is why, this year’s conference will deal with orthodoxy in a new light, and thus the conference title is TruthVoice 2005: Preterism, A Generous Orthodoxy.”

Ahem. This sounds just like the liberal claptrap that the Christian “tent” should be broad enough to embrace them. Or how about this….. “LDS theology has been clashing with traditional theology for many years, however as Christianity enters the post-modern era, we see a surge in the adoption of alternative views of God and the willingness of believers to graciously sit down and swallow pernicious heresy whole because being polite in the face of error is much more important than truth, and thus the conference title is Orwell 2005: Polytheism, A Generous Orthodoxy.”

Someone get a shovel ’cause it is getting deep. “Full Preterism” is dangerous pernicious error that is a wolf amongst the sheep. We must remember to pray for its adherents to escape the snare of the devil while fighting the error with ever fibre of our being. Perhaps God will grant them repentance, that must be our sincere prayer, but the route to this is NOT embracing error. In fact that the cruelest thing you could do to someone in this error.

More recently, a leader at the hyperpreterist site which sponsors the aforementioned conference has claimed that he has had personal communication with Brian McLaren who has expressed sympathy for the hyperpreterist plight. I have not confirmed whether or not the substance of this alleged communication has been accurately represented by this party. Between these two events (last year’s conference and this recent claim of sympathy from McLaren), I have become more conversant about what the “emergent church” entails and have become alarmed as it seems that the hyperpreterists’ claims are consistent with at least one faction within this new and evolving movement in which there appears to be a struggle between the more theologically conservative elements and the more theologically liberal elements - though at this time the basic doctrines of both groups are likely no different than the evangelical church at large; however, it is the liberal philosophy that will come home to roost when aberrant groups, such as hyperpreterists, start taking them to their logical and pragmatic conclusions.

Within the elements that have caused me alarm, it appears that what is being taught is little more than postmodern relativism packaged in Christianese. In order to have some factual basis for this claim, I have secured the permission of Stand to Reason to reproduce a segment of their radio show hosted by Greg Koukl dated 7/10/05 in which he provided a commentary on some of the things claimed and said within the emergent church in response to a caller and then in a monologue which follows. I need to make clear here that I am speaking of one particular element of what appears to be taught, not the movement as a whole which is widely varied.  Koukl also differentiates between the various elements and proponents.

The MP3 of the phone call is located here.

The MP3 of the followup comments by Koukl is located here.

Please listen, and listen carefully. I was going to cache out further in this blog the good, the bad, and the ugly which seems apparent. However, I wanted time for the import of what Koukl has said to sink in, and for persons to start cashing out the implications of these ideas for themselves. The coming days will see me blogging additionally on these concerns, and hopefully, in all fairness, pointing out what is good and useful (as Koukl does) along with what is theologically pernicious. I have been given a link to a blog from a pro-emergent point of view which I think does fairly summarize some of the foundational philosophical differences that sound good, but are consistent with the slippery theological slope spoken of by Koukl above. The MP3s given above I believe give adequate support to some claims I made at TheologyWeb with regards to the theological dangers of at least a portion of the emergent church movement, and I have invited the participants of that thread for commentary here, and I further invite them to commentary in future blogs.

Epilogue added 1/24/06: Now…. here is what is really ironic about this and too bad, so sad, for the hyperpreterists who wish to paint me as a frothing heretic hunter. I call very little heresy. Despite the slander that certain hyperpreterists have perpetrated against me I don’t view futurism, dispensationalsim, historicim, idealism, pre-millennialism as heresies. That doesn’t stop such slimeballs from lying about me, but there is the truth. Outside of this gangrenous debate, I get more criticism for being too tolerant. It takes a lot for me to draw a line in the sand and say, Go past here, and you have departed Christianity, and one of my usual requirements is really EXPRESS Biblical warrant to do so, which I have for hyperpreterism in spades, but I do not have for other views that most other theological conservatives would rush to condemn as heresy such as annihilationism or open theism (not process theism). I disagree GREATLY with those, but I am not persuaded through the Bible that they are not brethren. Thus… I personally have a very generous orthodoxy. The irony is almost overwhelming in that some of my theological opponents will stoop to lying about me as to this basic fact. One look at the staff of TheologyWeb, in which one requirement to be a staff member is that one does not divide from other staff members in basic fellowship, shows that our staff runs the gamut of theological views, all of which I do not divide from even in extreme disagreement.

It is irked me for a bit that certain hyperpreterists have been using E-Bay for years as a means to proselytize their heretical views to the “Christian” audience. The prices are nominal, this is obviously not a money-making enterprise for them. In fact, one of the factors that got my rump in gear to even have a site like that was when Don Preston noted that I bid on an orthodox item (I lost the bid) and contacted me to try to stump for his heretical products. I told him in no uncertain terms my feelings on the subject (picture that, me saying how I really feel and in no uncertain terms told him NOT to write me again).

Gentle reader, I think we all know what happened next. He wrote me again. And again. And again. Well I am subscribed to E-Bay to be notified of any preterist listings and EVERY day it is more of this hymenaean proselytization. So, okay, now you done it I am researching packaging some of my products more professionally and will also sell them (likely through another ministry and they can keep the “profits” so that my erstwhile stalkers cannot use that as a means to justify their obsession with my “real” name or where I live) at a nominal price. Enjoy your unopposed platform for as long as you can Don Preston (it is primarily his products that I notice) - for it won’t last.

If it wasn’t for stuff like this, persons like me who are so busy that they can barely remember how old they are would never have gotten so fired up to start sites like this. Those who are not quite so obsessed with promoting this strange and divers doctrine, THIS is why hyperpreterism has such an obsessive and cultic reputation.

For those hyperpreterists who REALLY want to see a pic of me, spring for this freakin’ awesome Xena costume and you might get your wish I would at least do a Numa Numa video in it. I got a whole sword and chakram routine worked out already.

Hey, even if you hate my guts, you gotta admit I am funny. Even Samuel had to admit it (though Samuel doesn’t hate my guts or anything like that - though he might after my rebuttal )

I had an interesting message from a friend who is of the futurist camp coming to an understanding of the importance of the AD70 event, and while still embracing primarily a futuristic view point also holds a semi-preteristic view. I am finding that the old vanguard of futurism typified by LaHaye and McArthur is falling and falling past, and new nuances will arise. I find this tremendously encouraging and exciting.

However, it also brings somewhat niave (in that their exposure) has been limited potential victims to the perversity that is hyperpreterism which is only being opposed in dribs and drabs with this site being the only site singularly dedicated to its exposure and dozens of heretical sites. To me this is easily explained by the nature of the heresy which makes its adherents pathologically single-minded in their promotion. It is THE issue. Most opponents of hyperpreterism have thriving ministries in other areas and have limited time to dedicate to this small and obsessive group. However, I think this is a huge mistake. My heart echoes the sentiments of sister Sharon Beverly:

“How many shipwrecks does it take to get the full attention of the collective body?”

How many indeed. The time is critical friends. Sites such as this and many others are in sore need, and I will be devoting as much time as I can to this project.

I quote sister Sharon once again from here:

Saturday morning, May 14, 2005

I think alot of folks running around out there who have been deeply wounded by Pantelism, or who are seriously struggling with it, are afraid to speak out against it, which is quite understandable. Whether you’re a learned, intellectual Theologian, or the common fisherman who loves the Lord, all saints who have stood up to this poison have experienced the dogmatic, arrogant, and rabid fervor that drives it at the highest echelons. It can appear outwardly intimidating, but please, do not let this keep you from speaking out. Whether we stand or fall, we stand or fall to Him, and no one else.

You can expect to be slandered. [Editorial note by DDW: you may even expect to be the subject of behaviour that many people would consider seriously threatening harassment and borderline cyberstalking by a certain contingent that have their base of support in one particular hyperpreterist site]You can expect to have a slew of fancy-shmancy terminology thrown at you, along with the charge that because you don’t write or speak according to their intellectual standards, you are a sub-standard idiot not worthy of any credibility. Do not worry. The Lord is simple, and a Man of few words. In the midst of His enemies, He often never spoke at all, even when falsely accused.

The fool is known by his many words, and condemneth his own self with his constantly wagging tongue. Do not contend with the fool. Speak the truth with an honest heart, and leave the results in His hands. Spiritual quickening is the Lord’s work-not ours. Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, will hear and see. Those who do not-will not-and no amount of intellectual arguing will change this. The wise man who allows himself to be drawn back into the fool’s ring again and again, is engaging his own pride.

Pr 29:9 ¶ If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest. .

Do not allow him to intimidate you, dear one in Christ. If your heart is pricked with compassion for those who are falling into this pit-do not hold your peace. If your heart burns with the Lord’s wise counsel-proclaim it loud and clear. Be encouraged, and be of good cheer, for He has overcome the world.

Jesus made himself of no reputation. Can we do anything less? Our reputation died with Him when we were born-again with Him. Is it easy to bite your tongue when you know you’re being falsely accused and misrepresented? No, it’s not, but the more we do bite our tongues, and leave it in His hands, the easier it becomes, and the more peace settles into our hearts. He is, afterall, our one, true Advocate. I pray we can leave it there in His capable hands.

The Lord is faithful to them that trust Him, and today He has spoken two things to me. The first word is to revisit Ecclesiastes. All that we need to understand all poisonous doctrines and stand against them can be found in that book.

The second word is the memory of my past encounter with two very young (18-21 years old I would guess) Mormon “Elders” who came to my front door last year. These two young men were handsome, smartly dressed, articulate, kind, and by all accounts, outwardly righteous. Our exchange ended with me telling them that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and that they needed to repent and believe the gospel. I said good day, and I closed the door, while these previously polite and outwardly friendly young men ranted and raved at me through my closed door. Pride is the greatest deceiver of mankind, and our worst enemy. May the Lord clothe those who love Him in His own cloak of humility.

I recently received an email that I agreed to post without much commentary as my position vis a vis “full preterism” is very clear on this site and is not necessary to be restated here. The background in my case is two-fold. A few years back, as a result of asking to be pulled from a certain mailing list because of their promotion of that doctrine, I received an email informing me that I had better stop using the words “preterism” and “preterist” because said person had a trademark on the words and would take legal action to prevent me from using them because I was such a big meanie, which is, well, idiotic. Later that same person or an associate threatened to sue Wikipedia because they were letting me use the words “preterism” and “preterist” in a way that this person did not care for.

So here is the letter in its entirety from well-known “full preterist” Roderick Edwards (a person I have commented on before positively for his stand against universalism springing up among his associates):

I just wanted to say how ashamed I am that anyone in the preterist “camp” would be so stupid & unchristian as to threaten to sue another Christian, simply over the use of the terms — “preterist” & “preterism”. Some preterists have gotten it into their heads that they are somehow the “leaders” of this thing — but this “thing” has no leaders. It is merely a collection of people who are reading their Bibles and coming to the same conclusion. Preterism is not a new denomination as much as some preterists seem to behave as if it is.

So anyhow, as much as I may disagree with you, I want to offer my apologies for the actions of this individual & let you know he rarely speaks for the majority.

In Christ,
Roderick

I had a pleasant exchange with Roderick that he incredibly survived without any biting or hair-pulling or heinous nefariousity….. and…… without the Xena ululation. Let us please remember that an Admin at a forum which supports “full preterism” came pretty close to calling me a liar about that “I’ll sue you if you don’t say nice things about preterism and preterists because I own the trademark” email. Yes I realize that Roderick has his own agenda, but I am willing to post such comments as intimidation/harassment tactics of any kind (and I know them all too well) should be condemned, and I do give thank you’s to those who do so irregardless of our volatile opposition on matters of doctrine. Trying to intimidate by fear and posting websites that give out personal information is also the tactic of a fringe radical group within Islam.

A poster I do not know who goes by the handle of “slippery” made the following comment in a thread on a heretical preterist site where I was dubbed “Dee Dee the Heinous” regarding my phone call with Gary DeMar:

I find in no way that Dee Dee Warren was heinous. She made a point, and Gary Demar could have answered it quickly, he chickened out hiding behind the smoke screen, as to “what the topic is”, even though there are many times where a topic on a radio show gets diverted to other relevant aspects before getting back on course.

Even though Dee Dee the Heinous has such a fantasy-genre swords and dragons cool kind of ring to it, the above poster is absolutely correct. And not only do radio shows get off track, it was Samuel Frost who took the conversation in that direction contrary to the already stated desires of the host. Gary did not tell Samuel he would not answer because it was off-topic, he answered Samuel’s question, made a controversial statement, and then refused to define or defend it when I inquired. If Gary did not wish to discuss the issue, that should have been true for Samuel as well as myself; furthermore, Gary went on for a good deal of the rest of the show going way off-topic (meaning subjects other than Matthew 24), so that hound don’t hunt.

Now to conclude the topic of what Gary did or did not answer - the hyperpreterists were later claiming that he dodged on the issue of Daniel 12, when I had the contrary opinion, I thought Gary answered well. Notice, however, that this is a question that Gary answered AFTER my call, and wow, look at that, it wasn’t about Matthew 24 (it seems that it was only my question that was off-topic). However, I am glad he did answer that one and answered it well.

The fact is that there is a certain faction of hyperpreterists that like automatons just have to say something bad because someone opposes them doctrinally. I don’t have that mentality. I spoke favourably here of a person named Parker, he does not do so of me. I don’t care. Parker was still right when he was right, and boy was he right. I speak favourably of David Green, a hyperpreterist, as well as Todd Dennis and a few others.

The type of behaviour where an opponent must be criticized at all costs is characteristic of a cult-like mentality. Let me give a prime example:

While I was on the phone with Gary I figured that silly heckling would be going on, and I didn’t wish to be distracted, so I lowered my laptop screen. And by the time I got back to the text, certain comments were moved up beyond the viewable screen. Most of it was juvenile belly-bopping and burping, but here is one comment that shows the depravity to which some in this faction will dive:

brad_religion: dee dee is a rude whore

This person is not some infrequent stranger to the Paltalk hyperpreterist scene, he is one of the main players. What I been saying for years is proven true each day: everyone who strongly condemns this doctrine is attacked visciously. And now we see that misogyny is not out of bounds (since said person apparently also supports a site in which I am also called a b*tch and a frequent reference to bust size is made).

The fact is that there are somefactions in the hyperpreterist camp that will apparently stoop to any depth - this has been proven many times over. I am curious if Gary DeMar will still post at a site that promotes a harassment site giving out personal details and threatening to do more such as post home addresses and phone numbers, once already posting my work address, phone number, and boss - especially in light of the not-so-distant Paltalk murders, and even this same night Matt Slick saying he gets death threats, and you can’t be too careful. Oh and not to mention mocking people who are upfront about their own weaknesses for the purpose of ministering to others about psychological diseases that one has (and so ignorantly stating that OCD is a dissociative disorder - clue: it isn’t please get an education - the correct order of communication is to think before speaking otherwise your voice will be garbled by a foot-shaped obstacle that just happens to be in your mouth. Here is a good page for getting some understanding and to stop spreading ignorant bigotry about a significant portion (2-3% of the population) of persons who have certain disorders. I also have a slight lisp - maybe some of this faction can get some yucks out of that too. Too bad I’m not morbidly obese or have a club foot - that would be sheer hilarity. Thankfully my OCD is relatively mild these days once I became educated about the disorder. Depression is another matter, which comes and goes with varying levels of severity. The last severe episode was over five years ago, and I credit a miraculous recovery (within three months) to God (and yep that means that the “potent antidepressant” I mentioned (referring to FIVE years ago for a period of three months) that I am supposedly under the influence of now and that being bad, bad, bad was over more than five years ago - folks come on, at least learn to READ). I have since learned in doing research that it wasn’t particularly potent as anti-depressants go, I am just unusually sensitive to many medicines.

If any of you reading have any type of psychological disorder or think you may have - TALK to your doctor. Don’t be ashamed or kowed by opportunistic predators such as those who have targeted my transparency. I am open about my struggles because it has helped so many people who thought they were alone, or thought maybe they weren’t really Christian because Christians should never be depressed or have other disorders. Been there done that, ” If only you had enough faith…..” bunk. Sometimes God gives us faith through our afflictions.