This is not a fringe fundamentalist belief, but a core doctrine of the Protestant Reformation.

Regarding William H. Kennedy: we’ve also had non-believers, New Agers, and people whose faith I honestly don’t know on the program. Rather than being inconsistent, maybe we’re a little more open-minded and tolerant than you think.

Re: the book of Enoch. If you’ve listen to our shows over time, you’ve heard us say that Enoch is not canon, should not be considered as canon, and is useful only insofar as it compliments or amplifies scripture. Where it contradicts the Bible or ventures into topics on which the Bible is silent, then Enoch is to be considered fiction.

Regarding Michael Corbin: he was the finest talk show host of his day in any genre. The tribute website was set up by Sharon as a favor to a friend of Michael’s. It was intended only to pay tribute to Michael and his legacy, and to help Michael’s family defray the expenses of his funeral. That was the extent of our involvement. Questions about the “mysteries” surrounding his death were raised by that friend. (If you’d like to read how we reported Michael’s death, you can read Sharon’s article from 2008 by clicking here.)

That friend then chose to accuse me of stealing production elements from Michael’s show, a charge devoid of any basis in reality. (To be specific, even if I had wanted to steal his work, Michael’s program streamed over the Internet at 8 kbps. That is a level of fidelity below that of AM radio. In other words, his production elements would have been completely useless from an audio standpoint.)

This thread has outlived its purpose and it is hereby closed.

Ultimately it comes down to two things money and power which are never easily shared.

21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” (1 Pt. 2, NASB)

Apology accepted. And, I thought your “Peering Into Delusion” jab was kinda funny.

I just wish that I could get some decent answers to my questions. This show really doesn’t seem to have any.

I don’t know much about the misgivings between the Collins brothers and the Gilberts. The way I see it, I wasn’t in the middle of it, so I can’t take sides.

But, I do think Paul has point about credibility. We shouldn’t take claims like the ones the Gilberts make at face value. I mean, on what basis can the Gilberts even insinuate that Catholics are celebrating Beltane? A date? I don’t think so.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think I am wasting my time here. People are more interested in grinding axes than giving honest answers. Catholics are satanists? The Washington Monument is a penis? After hearing this junk, I’m more confused than before.

So, it’s “poor taste” to cite serious credibility issues with the show hosts?

You need to distinguish between what constitutes a “personal attack” (ad hominem) and what constitutes questioning credibility.

A personal attack would have been a statement like: “Derek has a stupid haircut.” I made so such statements.

I merely cited instances during which Derek appropriated the work of others on behalf of dubious personal biases. Those instances are very important because they undermine the veracity of the claimant.

You have no frame of reference for your statements. Have you dealt with the Gilberts on a personal level? I have dealt with them on a personal level for years and they incessantly pulled stunts that called their credibility into question. You’re out of your element, Dude.

And, I noticed you could cite no instances where our research qualified as “fringe.” Did you even read any of it?

And, if our work did qualify as “fringe,” perhaps you should ask yourself why you mindlessly defend the Gilberts. After all, they invited us on their show several times. So, aren’t you defending the promoters of “fringe” research.

Ironically, our very derision for “fringe” research was one of the things that drove a wedge between us an the Gilberts. They wanted to affirm questionable presuppositions and they tried to use our work, particularly over Dominionism, to do it.

But, you are right about one thing… I do need to go somewhere else. There is nothing of genuine didactic value on PID Radio anymore.

May I suggest they get their own website or blog to make your views known.

Disagree with their ideas but stop attacking them personally….or better yet go away and post some were else.

Thanks for responding. But, we still have problems

“If you are insisting on finding a verse in the Bible which actually uses the term “sola scriptura”, then you will of course never find it, since when the N.T. was written it was not written in Latin!”

I never said I was looking for a verse with the Latin term “sola scriptura.” I said that there are no passages in the canon, as far as I can tell, that state that the Bible is the sole authority. And, historically, Christians engaged in certain practices long before the codification of their canon. Who is to say that Catholic practices aren’t among those?

Besides, I notice that Derek and Sharon talk a lot about the Book of Enoch. That’s not an officially recognize part of your canon, but they pay credence to its claims. Why the double standard?

“But the Bible unquestioningly does teach that there is no other source of authority for believers in Christ. The term “sola scriptura” is simply a short-hand way of refering to this teaching which we find througout the Bible…”

Could you supply some specific passages from your canon to verify this claim?

“You can lump them all together because they all claim the word “Christian”, but that word alone does not mean we believe the same things!”

Then, why should I believe you when you say that you’re a Christian? Do you see what I mean? It’s a vicious circle. The same sort of rhetoric was used to justify the Thirty Years’ War and we all know how bloody that was. You’re just confirming what Dawkins and Hitchens have said about religion… it’s just divisive and hateful.

I don’t necessarily agree with the spiteful way that Hitchens and Dawkins look at religion. While I don’t have a faith, I don’t think that having one necessarily makes you proponent of holy wars. But, can you see where what you’re saying actually confirms that view?

If you disagree on the basic doctrine of “sola scriptura”, then it baffles me why you would expect to agree on much else with either the Gilberts, myself, or anyone else who believes that the Word of God is the only authority for Truth…

If you are insisting on finding a verse in the Bible which actually uses the term “sola scriptura”, then you will of course never find it, since when the N.T. was written it was not written in Latin!

But the Bible unquestioningly does teach that there is no other source of authority for believers in Christ. The term “sola scriptura” is simply a short-hand way of refering to this teaching which we find througout the Bible…

This is not because I or anyone else is “looking for a reason to hate people within my own faith”. It is a simple recognition of the fact that people who put themselves under the authority of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church are at odds with those who do not. You can lump them all together because they all claim the word “Christian”, but that word alone does not mean we believe the same things!

He was a radio show host I worked with for six years. His specialty was investigative journalism. The Gilberts didn’t let their intolerance towards Catholics prevent them from taking some of Mike’s program elements without giving him credit.

They seemed to stir the pot of theories surrounding Mike’s death, which ticked me off because Mike was a close friend. Mike was a smoker who had obesity problems. He died from a massive stroke, which should have surprised no one. When I spoke about Mike’s passing with Jimmy Rothstein, who acted as a criminal justice consultant to Mike’s show, he stated that the circumstances of the death overwhelmingly pointed to natural causes.

The Gilberts set up a site that was supposed to be a tribute. You look at it, however, and there is a section entitled “Mysteries Surround Michael’s Death.” One of Mike’s associates who was having a hard time coping with the loss may have contributed to this section. It was her way of dealing with the whole thing. The Gilberts, however, seem to be taking advantage of the situation in order to build their conspiracy cottage industry.

I acknowledge the fact that covert forces are at play in the world today, essentially manipulating social change. But not everything is a hexagonal conspiracy. Mike’s death, though tragic, was natural causes. Nobody should have been allowed to capitalize on it, especially two people who never even spoke to the man.

Who is Michael Corbin?