Greg Stafford

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3410
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Greg Stafford

#11 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 2 months ago

PoJ

For what it's worth I've had some brief interchanges with Greg and I did join his forums for a little bit.

My sense is that he got quite well-known as a scholarly anti-trinitarian (especially after his James White debate), and so I think he just got tired of fielding Trinitarian questions in the end. It seemed to me that once you were on the forum there were only certain topics that could be discussed, and the trinity was explicitly not one of them.

If he just got tired of talking about it, I can certainly understand, even if I disagree with him. But perhaps now he just doesn't want the pain of moderating a new member who has already approached him with a disagreement from the start.

From a more recent video it seems to me that he has become somewhat more dogmatic about what he believes.

But obviously it's all just speculation.

Best,
Apollos

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 324
Joined: 4 months ago
Contact:

Re: Greg Stafford

#12 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 2 months ago

apollos0fAlexandria wrote:
2 months ago
PoJ

For what it's worth I've had some brief interchanges with Greg and I did join his forums for a little bit.

My sense is that he got quite well-known as a scholarly anti-trinitarian (especially after his James White debate), and so I think he just got tired of fielding Trinitarian questions in the end. It seemed to me that once you were on the forum there were only certain topics that could be discussed, and the trinity was explicitly not one of them.

If he just got tired of talking about it, I can certainly understand, even if I disagree with him. But perhaps now he just doesn't want the pain of moderating a new member who has already approached him with a disagreement from the start.

From a more recent video it seems to me that he has become somewhat more dogmatic about what he believes.

But obviously it's all just speculation.

Best,
Apollos
Well that's the thing, I agree with his stances on the Trinity, I was "for" him, not against him, I only brought up a slight understanding of translation difference at Exodus (but it wasn't against him I felt was helping him out on his position). I said "Hey, if you wasn't aware the Hebrew says "I become, not I am in comparison to the Greek OT", that was it. He did respond and say he felt the Greek may be accurate, but I merely pointed out the different words and definitions side by side, and that I felt the Greek should say “ginomai”(γίνομαι) not Ego Eimi” (ἐγώ εἰμί) if it's to match the Hebrew term ehyeh, since the Hebrew for "I am" is "ani".

That's all I said on that subject, and it seems I was blocked ever since... but to me that doesn't seem to be enough of a motivator to block someone, when you compare it to all the other trouble he's willing to engage with on his channel with other (very aggressive and belligerent) individuals, I see those people often enough and being interacted with and not blocked (they even get video responses some times).


I got the feeling maybe he just didn't like my stances in which I disagreed with him on (like me disagreeing with his stance that "Jesus supported polygamy", maybe), and because there was no real rebuttle to that (he actually never replied at all on that subject), so maybe it was that he blocked me over perhaps... or maybe it was the combination of two subjects together in a row in which he didn't have a reply for me and he didn't like it? (Pride?)


Either way, it feels like a suppression of free speech merely due to the fact that someone has a valid opinion which isn't the same as his own. Aperson can always just ignore someone's comment and let their opinion be there if it's not offensive (which he does do on his channel, even with Trinitarians at time).

I mean, I'd like to be wrong on this, because as I've said, I really like his work and content, and I hoped for fellowship with the guy. But the fact I was blocked with no given reason, even though I support majority of his stances, just smelled... off to me, you know?

Sooo *shrug* ?
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3410
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Greg Stafford

#13 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 2 months ago

Hi PoJ

All I'm trying to say is I wouldn't take it personally. Even with people we know well we often struggle to ascribe motivation to their actions accurately.

There are so many variables with people we don't know personally. It might be best just to assume that they also are struggling with some issues, and if we're touching a nerve then we may do well to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of why they might not respond (or even keep us at length).

I respect some people who put themselves front and center out of genuinely believing that they are called to do this, but it can also be a heavy burden. And we know that not everyone who takes such a step is being disingenuous. My opinion is that these people eventually are likely to end up at a new place of cognitive dissonance, but I wish them well provided they are not deliberately trying to exploit others.

If someone just doesn't want to connect with us, it seems proper to accept that as a part of normal social interaction. It speaks nothing to our own person, mindset, or "knowledge". It's just a choice of that person for reasons we may never know.

My 2c in this case is not to burn any energy trying to over-analyze it.

Apollos

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests