Taylor Marshall's Twitter feed has disappeared

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to expand on that:

a) You can, of course extoll, preach, praise, encourage justice, love, sanctity etc.
b) You can appreciate and be thankful for Life and fertility and creation.
You can even ‘love’ them, in the way we love being alive and recognize the beauty of God’s works.

But we can’t make them a target of our veneration. Veneration/dulia are an expression of a particular form of relational love, where the object is worthy of great honour but not divine. It’s a literal heart-to-heart. Relationship. A form of union. We can’t have it with anything not the proper object of such an exchange or offering.

I think another reason is that reverence also expresses a certain humility/submission towards the object: there’s a kind of, "You’re better/higher than me" expressed in the thoughts, emotions, and gestures (the bow, the kneeling, the prostrating, the kissing, the clasping of hands together 🙏 involved). It would be false to say that to:
a) Something that does not exist (false deities)
b) An aspect of the cosmos/creation that does not have consciousness (it’s not better/higher than the human soul expressing that veneration)
c) A demon (In the case of those pagans in contact with demons that they take to be gods).
 
Last edited:
Someone pointed out that he deleted his account/tweets around the same time that those wooden statue things were thrown into the Tiber. Apparently he’s now going on about how his Wikipedia page has been hacked by people in the Vatican.
 
When he first broke into the world of Catholic issues on the internet, he had a wholesome presence. That’s disappeared completely in favour of secrets, shadows and deflections. Very disappointing.
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
Apparently he’s now going on about how his Wikipedia page has been hacked by people in the Vatican.
Click to expand...
That I’m pretty sure is real. He shows screenshots of the Vatican ip addresses and the changes they tried to make.
 
Wikipedia is useful if the topic is something neutral, like an explanation of how to calculate Student’s t-statistic or some other equally boring thing. If the topic is political or cultural in nature, there is always a noticeable leftward skew.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
D.Erasmus.R:
Apparently he’s now going on about how his Wikipedia page has been hacked by people in the Vatican.
Click to expand...
That I’m pretty sure is real. He shows screenshots of the Vatican ip addresses and the changes they tried to make.
Click to expand...
I’d be leery of assuming it was indeed someone in the Vatican. People misuse servers all the time — and frankly, I can’t imagine anyone in the Vatican cares enough about Marshall to do anything with his Wiki page.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
That I’m pretty sure is real. He shows screenshots of the Vatican ip addresses and the changes they tried to make.
Click to expand...
Plus, Vatican internet went down shortly after his Wikipedia changes went public, consistent with someone covering their tracks. I don’t know who did it. There is no proof it was anyone in Vatican. Its just a second fact in addition to other fact (IP address) that is suspicious.
 
And satan was just challenging Jesus to go beyond his comfort zone in the desert.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Plus, Vatican internet went down shortly after his Wikipedia changes went public, consistent with someone covering their tracks. I don’t know who did it. There is no proof it was anyone in Vatican
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating it was someone in the Vatican?
 
Can you be more specific? I don’t really follow Marshall or Armstrong? Has Marshall targeted any particular person?

That said, I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing to target a particular person if what they teach is is particularly insidious. Many of the saints targeted particular people to an extreme degree because they believed their views were heretical.
 
If people within the Vatican are libeling people it is pretty serious and it should be known. Wikipedia is a public website and to defame someone’s name on it is pretty bad, especially if it is done by someone who is supposed to be a ‘moral authority’. Since it was done in a public way, I think it should be called out in a public way.
 
When the narratives are about the free press it makes me nervous.
We have had free press since the Constitution was ratified.
Enemy of the people coincidentally popped from no place the day Trump took office?
 
Babaganoush said:
If people within the Vatican are libeling people it is pretty serious and it should be known. Wikipedia is a public website and to defame someone’s name on it is pretty bad, especially if it is done by someone who is supposed to be a ‘moral authority’. Since it was done in a public way, I think it should be called out in a public way.
Click to expand...
What, specifically, was libelous about the revision of Marshall’s Wikipedia entry?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top