Talk:King James Video Ministries

wow
this article is someones labour of love. just had a butchers because i keep seeing it in recent changes and at a loose end.

and wow.

not anything new to say its too long and needs a culling. this is a much simpler than it at first appears. what seems to have happened here is the original contributor must have stumbled across this guys utoob and become transfixed with the crazy. incredulous at just how crazy the crazy is. just how inane and incoherent it all is. at just how fucking earnest it ll is, that its not a joke they fucking believe this shit? you cannot look away. the more you look the more you cant believe what you seeing. and when they mention things you have a personal interest in and knowledge of? no even wrong is the phrase. are people seeing what you are seeing? gotta right this down. this is gold. theres lot to unpick and so on and so forth.

this akin to a microcosm of rationalwikis early obsession with conservapedia. only here restricted to here to one article and largely the one editor. that same personal crusade to document this phenomena. record every argument, every claim, every bit of crazy, rebut every single bit. its all important, its part of a picture, and you ned context and background and explanation to how just how wrong on on so many levels.

probably less crazy making in the rounds back in the day. we can step back now and a few years later less invested. the crazy is a little too common these days. a little less funny or endearing as a result. like with cp, the idiosyncrasies of our first love still a bit special to us, but we move on. the crazy is still crazy, but its still a incoherent mess too. the are bigger fish to fry just as crazy but somehow have their shit together and therefore dangerous.

bryan denlinger does not need this attention. their 'ideas' do not need the blow by blow critiquing. thats a fruitless task when they are such an incoherent mess. some heavy anti-catholicism and KJO crankery seem to me the gist of it, give or take their own personal spin and their, lets say academic shortcomings. both subjects already covered elsewhere and really need rehashing to take down this chaps bullshit. it would enough to just state the importance of these ideas to this guy, noting anything that might be of interest, noteworthy in its crazy. poor historical knowledge, poor biblical knowledge, cherry picking what they believe and take from the bible, misunderstand, misrepresent, flatout make shit up is all sadly common place. its not really noteworthy in itself. every town in the us has at least one church, and its an entire religion of its own. churches group together very often, pool resources, and can have something of a unified message. some do not and do their own thing, with varying success. every pastor is the their own pope. or prophet. or head of their own church. a coherent world view, well researched, based on available scripture and historical record, well argued and considered philosophy need not apply. the good lords word is what the local pastor says the lords word is. that, to quote the article, is american protestantism in a nutshell.

their politics should maybe be mentioned, but now dwelt upon. not unless the is something that stands out and need addressing with more than noting a maga cap or their covid stance. actions and statements beyond the content of their sermons anything of note? is the cult stuff significant enough to warrant the label, or just any other day in the parish of bumfuck america? is this chap really significant at all, considering what we now think is and isnt notable? would they even be on our radar? are they more than a utoob? i have no idea.

even overt and egregious bigotry, preaching hate in the pulpit is probably not significant enough here. fred phelps is the obvious comparison. phelps was notable because he got on the telly. he courted publicity and he had a sure fire method that worked everytime. he would have been nothing without the picketing of funerals and the god hates slogans website - a one two punch to the top of your news feed.

dont get bogged with the details of a confused theology here. kjv only and a bizarre and extreme anticatholicism that runs through everything. that they understand so little of this that their ignorance is apparently not only obvious at a glance, but loudly and proudly proclaimed. the resulting mess of stupidity, hypocrisy,and bigotry does not need more than acknowledging bryan is a dumbfuck bigot with a creed not divinely inspired by revelation or direct relationship with god, but a creed born of being too lazy and too stupid to give it any more thought than is required to make it up as they go along and blame catholics and sodomites and catholic sodomites and you're a catholic sodomite so shut up. very little of the gossipy he said/she said feuding is of much import.

this i what i get from the article as it stands now. if he isnt a dumbfuck bigot then this article is very misleading. if its accurate then i feel safe we wont miss anything too profound after removing all but a brief summary of the their beliefs, and we wont have risk getting our position wrong or need to fact check some of the criticisms that i wont say are wrong per say, but maybe not as correct as they could be in all cases for whats being claimed. that said his feuding with stephen anderson, an unabashed holocaust denying antisemite, makes bryan look reasonable from the couple of videos i did see so dont know what to think there. please dont make me watch his stuff. he has apparently left youtube 7 months ago. maybe we can just delete as not notable? still has a website though so... cross that bridge after a significant culling.

agree? disagree? the massive cull i propose probably needs consensus AMassiveGay (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I do agree that it's waaaaay too long. I've been trying to cut out large portions of fat, which could either be excessive snark or irrelevant info that may or may not be stated earlier. I think it needs some significant change. I get that the dude behind this wanted to get as much context, and really try and debunk what he says, but the original mass of the article came off as stalking. I've seen that Denlinger believes that the length of the article makes it think that he's right. Not sure about an utter purge though, but a huge revision needs to be done. Patty Pat (Yap with me) 03:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision ideas.
I’ve been thinking about revising the header and other things. I thought of removing more irrelevant info and biographical parts in the intro, as well as giving more of an idea of what this dude believes. I might change the name to just King James Video Ministries because it goes into the views of both Bryan and Katherine. The historical context part should probably be moved into the Anti-Catholicism page as well. Does all that sound good? Patty  Pat  22:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
There's a little bit of an edit war going on with me and another. It's this piece of snark that I wanted to remove because I found it excessive and unfunny. "Perhaps Denlinger was dropped on his head as a child, or perhaps his father, enraged at his son's stupidity, picked up his son and threw him westward so hard that he momentarily shattered the laws of physics and began going east" Any idea if you want to keep it? Patty  Pat  20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be removed. It sounds ableist, and child abuse isn't really funny. There are children who get abused by their parents for not doing well in school and such, so it can be triggering for some people. LongStylus (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

James VI and I
What would the King himself have thought of these guys? (Use whichever variety of English would be appropriate.) Anna Livia (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Patty   Pat  12:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He'd likely have had them executed for witchcraft, as was his wont. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)