Local: Visalia pastor sues son over 'cyberbullying'

There are 1863 comments on the The Fresno Bee story from Oct 18, 2012, titled Local: Visalia pastor sues son over 'cyberbullying'. In it, The Fresno Bee reports that:

Visalia Calvary Church pastor, the Rev. Bob Grenier, and his wife, Gayle, have sued their estranged son, Alex Grenier, accusing him of defamation and cyberbullying.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Fresno Bee.

F Who

Visalia, CA

#288 Nov 24, 2012
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
"Fact: Who Drunk Molester Pants doesnt know anyone involved.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't.
Fact: Who is a drunk with no credibility.
Fact: Who is a paid cyber troll who works for CCVisalia.
I'll say this one again because it is the truth.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't!
You don't know anything because you don't know anyone involved. You are a liar and a fool.
More lies, less substance then before.
"it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
I gotta say, that's some really stupid reasoning Who. More pathetic then ever.
Who said "Now its not enough that I bully Alex on here, I have to go to other sites to try to peace together my own hate campaign since I coined the phrase and everyone gives me credit for the lawsuit and I'm the best!"
"Oh and I'm Who, waaaaaaaaaaah!"
Poor Who, he can't dispute the facts so he makes up his own.
Ever get tired of lying and spreading hate Who? Do you ever get tired of defending a child molester?
Have you gone to met the man you defend Who? Have you coward?
Go meet him. He'd love to pat you on the back. It's a common thing. Happens all the time. See where that leads you. Lol
I'm 100% positive that he would have nothing but contempt for you. Because you are "beneath him." But that won't matter, you'll still worship at his alter. The alter if Bob.
The Alter of Bob. That's a scary thought isn't it.
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK

And that's how Who responds to anything his little troll brain can't handle.
F Who

Visalia, CA

#289 Nov 24, 2012
DD DeWhoon has Ballooned wrote:
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
"Fact: Who Drunk Molester Pants doesnt know anyone involved.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't.
Fact: Who is a drunk with no credibility.
Fact: Who is a paid cyber troll who works for CCVisalia.
I'll say this one again because it is the truth.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't!
You don't know anything because you don't know anyone involved. You are a liar and a fool.
More lies, less substance then before.
"it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
I gotta say, that's some really stupid reasoning Who. More pathetic then ever.
Who said "Now its not enough that I bully Alex on here, I have to go to other sites to try to peace together my own hate campaign since I coined the phrase and everyone gives me credit for the lawsuit and I'm the best!"
"Oh and I'm Who, waaaaaaaaaaah!"
Poor Who, he can't dispute the facts so he makes up his own.
Ever get tired of lying and spreading hate Who? Do you ever get tired of defending a child molester?
Have you gone to met the man you defend Who? Have you coward?
Go meet him. He'd love to pat you on the back. It's a common thing. Happens all the time. See where that leads you. Lol
I'm 100% positive that he would have nothing but contempt for you. Because you are "beneath him." But that won't matter, you'll still worship at his alter. The alter if Bob.
The Alter of Bob. That's a scary thought isn't it.
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK

Why does Who protect child molesters?

Because he doesn't like how the son of one speaks out for his brothers against one.

Why doesn't Who side with Alex?

Who is a cyber troll who works for the child molester. No one who wasn't in the game would spend this much time cyber bullying the victims if they weren't really involved. No one sane at least.

Why does Who come on here day after day talking to a handful of people, why do any of you?

Because Who has nothing better to do and the rest of us are actual victims of Bob Grenier and know that it is our duty to warn people about this public figure.

Who has no love. He defends only child molesters. He attacks victims and their families. Who is a paid cyber troll. Who has earned his 30 pieces of silver.
Who

Manteca, CA

#290 Nov 24, 2012
Who wrote:
you says
"...I think CC gets tested again in molestation lawsuits and..."
Who says
Your vindictive stance toward all things your father is on display here. Molestation cases aren't about 'testing' some group, they are about finding people guilty of a crime and punishing them for it. But this statement of yours betrays the fact that you care less about punishing criminals and consoling victims than you do about watching a judge blast people that you have been spewing vitriol about for years now.
Now.
If CC were behaving like the RCC, then you'd have a better argument. As it stands, you are trying to convince the general reader that CC equals RCC when the facts don't warrant that. Your attempts to bring public opinion into line with your personal views and agenda are deplorable. I completely disagree with you, and for that I and others that agree with me are branded
'free speech chillers.' Imputing a motive to someone doesn't make that their motivation. Just like saying you were abused doesn't make it true. Look up Fred West/House Of Horrors on youtube.com , General Reader, for what the courts consider 'abuse.'
you says
"...I think a good case can be made for agency relationship between mother ship and affiliated/associated CC's..."
Who says
Consider communicating with Another Voice from michaelnewnham.com on the agency relationship. He has some wonderful insights that directly contradict your version of reality, and his position has more law and facts on its side than does your position. But hey....if by typing this sentence you can influence other people to change their mind about your target, well...it's not like truth is important or anything...
you says
"...but it may take an attorney like a Kelly Clark to show this and maybe a court in a state like California..."
Who says
I've read your advertising for this lawyer before...is he giving you a reduced percentage of settlement for all the advertising you give him?!
Sure. Lone Ranger will somehow change facts.
And for all your political ruminations, it seems from my side of the aisle that when you want reduced gov't involvement, you spout heavy about tea party principles, and then when you have an axe to grind against a church you prefer an active judiciary.
It is unprincipled, and THAT'S my problem with your typing...you type what you think will get you what you want, and if you'd wanted something different, you'd simply type something else.
When done in a public forum such slippery principles look to me like public opinion manipulation. Which is after all what you received training for in college, and it is what you USED to do for a living. I think all of this is about how you are addicted to the media game, and when you found yourself out, you'd be willing to type anything to get back in.
no one is trying to intimidate me into silence? you says
"...What planet are you from LOL..."
Who says
Like Benicio Del Toro, I'm from Mars.
-
I'm going to drink some coffee right now, I'll respond to each of your latests points that I haven't touched on later....Like in a few minutes.
My name is Who.
Pretty good points there, Who!
Who

Manteca, CA

#291 Nov 24, 2012
Who wrote:
you says
"...Like the threats i've received..."
Who says
I have no knowledge of this and I have a healthy skepticism regarding your claims here. Claiming you've received threats certainly helps your argument, but it is for that reason I'm skeptical. It's just a little too convenient.
you says
"...and all the stuff from you and others telling me to shut up etc..."
Who says
All I've done is provide an alternative narrative to your public pronouncements and interpretations. You seem to think that if a person disagrees with you and says so, they are trying to chill your speech. That's just not the way things work, dog!
you says
"...isn't an effort to silence me?..."
Who says
I'm not trying to silence you. I'm merely disagreeing with you, and that is not nearly the same thing. You started posting at topix.com , not me. And since you are still posting to your heart's content, IF there was an attempt to silence you, it certainly hasn't worked. Ergo the lawsuit is NOT an attempt to chill speech. It is an attempt to bring a lawbreaker, you, to justice.
you says
"...like Chuck and his attorney's guilt trip telling me the blog is all lies...isn't an attempt to silence me?..."
Who says
No. It's an attempt to show an (ostensible) bro in Christ the error of his (your) ways.
you says
"...BG's ridiculous lawsuit isn't an attempt to silence me and intimidate me into silence?..."
Who says
No. You have broken the law with regard to libel/slander/defamation. Is a criminal proceeding against a confessed child molester an attempt to curb his freedom? I guess in some loose literary sense; it is MORE an attempt to hold said molester accountable for his actions. That's what this lawsuit is about....you have broken the law, and that's what people end up going to court for, usually. Criminal!
you says
"...Oh, OK, LOL. Clearly an effort to silence me from speaking out..."
Who says
Once again, not an attempt to silence you so much as it is a suit designed to get you to accept responsibility for your illegal behavior. ILLEGAL. UNLAWFUL. LAWBREAKER.
you says
"...about an institution of trust and public figure..."
Who says
There are MANY such institutions, and yet you go after a church that your father is in charge of like a pit bull. Your 'positions' argument would work better if your net were wider. But it ain't, and it's never been. Your net is shaped like Bob Grenier.
you says
"...about things that are very much in the public interest..."
Who says
Oh, I get it. Innuendo-izing, theorizing and speculating and implying and lying is allowed as long as it's in the 'public interest'? Okiedokie--I'm going to go mug that rich doctor because he has too much money in his wallet and since I'm going to spend that money at small local shops tomorrow, obviously my mugging him is not illegal because it is in the public's interest to have that money spread throughout the economy, because God knows that doctor isn't going to spend it!
you says
"...and very much a righteous cause.."
Who says
I'm not surprised to read you say that, but simply saying it doesn't make it true. I'm sure the Son of Sam believed he was engaged in a righteous cause, but his belief that he was righteous doesn't change the fact that he was a murderer.
Your relativistic thinking is evidence for the substandard education that Master's College is offering. Either that, or your former professors disavowed you like three years ago.
"Alex Grenier? No...Never heard of him. I was not his teacher..."
My name is Who.
All right! I like how your multifaceted bejewelled argumentation makes my brain move, Who!
Who

Manteca, CA

#292 Nov 24, 2012
Who wrote:
you says
"...I think CC gets tested again in molestation lawsuits and..."
Who says
Your vindictive stance toward all things your father is on display here. Molestation cases aren't about 'testing' some group, they are about finding people guilty of a crime and punishing them for it. But this statement of yours betrays the fact that you care less about punishing criminals and consoling victims than you do about watching a judge blast people that you have been spewing vitriol about for years now.
Now.
If CC were behaving like the RCC, then you'd have a better argument. As it stands, you are trying to convince the general reader that CC equals RCC when the facts don't warrant that. Your attempts to bring public opinion into line with your personal views and agenda are deplorable. I completely disagree with you, and for that I and others that agree with me are branded
'free speech chillers.' Imputing a motive to someone doesn't make that their motivation. Just like saying you were abused doesn't make it true. Look up Fred West/House Of Horrors on youtube.com , General Reader, for what the courts consider 'abuse.'
you says
"...I think a good case can be made for agency relationship between mother ship and affiliated/associated CC's..."
Who says
Consider communicating with Another Voice from michaelnewnham.com on the agency relationship. He has some wonderful insights that directly contradict your version of reality, and his position has more law and facts on its side than does your position. But hey....if by typing this sentence you can influence other people to change their mind about your target, well...it's not like truth is important or anything...
you says
"...but it may take an attorney like a Kelly Clark to show this and maybe a court in a state like California..."
Who says
I've read your advertising for this lawyer before...is he giving you a reduced percentage of settlement for all the advertising you give him?!
Sure. Lone Ranger will somehow change facts.
And for all your political ruminations, it seems from my side of the aisle that when you want reduced gov't involvement, you spout heavy about tea party principles, and then when you have an axe to grind against a church you prefer an active judiciary.
It is unprincipled, and THAT'S my problem with your typing...you type what you think will get you what you want, and if you'd wanted something different, you'd simply type something else.
When done in a public forum such slippery principles look to me like public opinion manipulation. Which is after all what you received training for in college, and it is what you USED to do for a living. I think all of this is about how you are addicted to the media game, and when you found yourself out, you'd be willing to type anything to get back in.
no one is trying to intimidate me into silence? you says
"...What planet are you from LOL..."
Who says
Like Benicio Del Toro, I'm from Mars.
-
I'm going to drink some coffee right now, I'll respond to each of your latests points that I haven't touched on later....Like in a few minutes.
My name is Who.
Oh yeah! Macho Man Randy Savage likes the way Who makes his brain move! Yeah! Ms. Elizabeth....where'd you go?!
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

#294 Nov 24, 2012
I see I struck a nerve, LOL
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

#295 Nov 24, 2012
I see why you want to bury the stuff I just posted, it makes too much sense.
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

#297 Nov 24, 2012
This is a great book on the subject.

Notice the Excuses made on behalf of clergy who abuse. Very telling. I've heard these same excuses ad infinitum in this situation:

http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/betrayal/
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

#298 Nov 24, 2012
I was very much inspired by personally meeting an awesome child abuse Advocate like Kelly Clark and discussing the issues of child abuse and the church and learning about Positions of Trust, Institutions of Trust and how important it is to Speak Out about Child Abuse with regards to abusers who are in our Society in these powerful Positions (Pastor, Police Chaplain etc).

Read this, it will give you some insight into why it's important (and healing) to speak out and confront the Abuse:

http://www.kellyclarkattorney.com/general/rev...
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

#299 Nov 24, 2012
This is Kelly Clark. I trust his take on Positions of Trust and Institutions of Trust and Child Abuse more than you take "Who/Camp Bob" or AV (Steve) who is a former Insurance Salesman and CC Pastor:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/18/14...

^^ Ya, I'm going with that guy up there as an expert on the subject, and he's "very much in my corner" and we've met and talked the issues through.

I'm right and it's a righteous cause, no matter how Camp Bob tries to spin it
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

#300 Nov 24, 2012
have a good day, I know I will

and I know we'll win and I know I wont' be intimidated into silence for speaking out about the truth
Who

Manteca, CA

#301 Nov 24, 2012
get to you in a few minutes
Who

Manteca, CA

#302 Nov 24, 2012
How's THIS for burying your posts?!
you says
"...I think CC gets tested again in molestation lawsuits and..."
Who says
Your vindictive stance toward all things your father is on display here. Molestation cases aren't about 'testing' some group, they are about finding people guilty of a crime and punishing them for it. But this statement of yours betrays the fact that you care less about punishing criminals and consoling victims than you do about watching a judge blast people that you have been spewing vitriol about for years now.
Now.
If CC were behaving like the RCC, then you'd have a better argument. As it stands, you are trying to convince the general reader that CC equals RCC when the facts don't warrant that. Your attempts to bring public opinion into line with your personal views and agenda are deplorable. I completely disagree with you, and for that I and others that agree with me are branded
'free speech chillers.' Imputing a motive to someone doesn't make that their motivation. Just like saying you were abused doesn't make it true. Look up Fred West/House Of Horrors on youtube.com , General Reader, for what the courts consider 'abuse.'
you says
"...I think a good case can be made for agency relationship between mother ship and affiliated/associated CC's..."
Who says
Consider communicating with Another Voice from michaelnewnham.com on the agency relationship. He has some wonderful insights that directly contradict your version of reality, and his position has more law and facts on its side than does your position. But hey....if by typing this sentence you can influence other people to change their mind about your target, well...it's not like truth is important or anything...
you says
"...but it may take an attorney like a Kelly Clark to show this and maybe a court in a state like California..."
Who says
I've read your advertising for this lawyer before...is he giving you a reduced percentage of settlement for all the advertising you give him?!
Sure. Lone Ranger will somehow change facts.
And for all your political ruminations, it seems from my side of the aisle that when you want reduced gov't involvement, you spout heavy about tea party principles, and then when you have an axe to grind against a church you prefer an active judiciary.
It is unprincipled, and THAT'S my problem with your typing...you type what you think will get you what you want, and if you'd wanted something different, you'd simply type something else.
When done in a public forum such slippery principles look to me like public opinion manipulation. Which is after all what you received training for in college, and it is what you USED to do for a living. I think all of this is about how you are addicted to the media game, and when you found yourself out, you'd be willing to type anything to get back in.
no one is trying to intimidate me into silence? you says
"...What planet are you from LOL..."
Who says
Like Benicio Del Toro, I'm from Mars.
-
I'm going to drink some coffee right now, I'll respond to each of your latests points that I haven't touched on later....Like in a few minutes.
My name is Who.
+=+=+=+=+=
Fact is, this is a response to you that I personally don't want 'buried.'
Here's another.
Who

Manteca, CA

#303 Nov 24, 2012
Here's another 'resurrection.'
you says
"...Like the threats i've received..."
Who says
I have no knowledge of this and I have a healthy skepticism regarding your claims here. Claiming you've received threats certainly helps your argument, but it is for that reason I'm skeptical. It's just a little too convenient.
you says
"...and all the stuff from you and others telling me to shut up etc..."
Who says
All I've done is provide an alternative narrative to your public pronouncements and interpretations. You seem to think that if a person disagrees with you and says so, they are trying to chill your speech. That's just not the way things work, dog!
you says
"...isn't an effort to silence me?..."
Who says
I'm not trying to silence you. I'm merely disagreeing with you, and that is not nearly the same thing. You started posting at topix.com , not me. And since you are still posting to your heart's content, IF there was an attempt to silence you, it certainly hasn't worked. Ergo the lawsuit is NOT an attempt to chill speech. It is an attempt to bring a lawbreaker, you, to justice.
you says
"...like Chuck and his attorney's guilt trip telling me the blog is all lies...isn't an attempt to silence me?..."
Who says
No. It's an attempt to show an (ostensible) bro in Christ the error of his (your) ways.
you says
"...BG's ridiculous lawsuit isn't an attempt to silence me and intimidate me into silence?..."
Who says
No. You have broken the law with regard to libel/slander/defamation. Is a criminal proceeding against a confessed child molester an attempt to curb his freedom? I guess in some loose literary sense; it is MORE an attempt to hold said molester accountable for his actions. That's what this lawsuit is about....you have broken the law, and that's what people end up going to court for, usually. Criminal!
you says
"...Oh, OK, LOL. Clearly an effort to silence me from speaking out..."
Who says
Once again, not an attempt to silence you so much as it is a suit designed to get you to accept responsibility for your illegal behavior. ILLEGAL. UNLAWFUL. LAWBREAKER.
you says
"...about an institution of trust and public figure..."
Who says
There are MANY such institutions, and yet you go after a church that your father is in charge of like a pit bull. Your 'positions' argument would work better if your net were wider. But it ain't, and it's never been. Your net is shaped like Bob Grenier.
you says
"...about things that are very much in the public interest..."
Who says
Oh, I get it. Innuendo-izing, theorizing and speculating and implying and lying is allowed as long as it's in the 'public interest'? Okiedokie--I'm going to go mug that rich doctor because he has too much money in his wallet and since I'm going to spend that money at small local shops tomorrow, obviously my mugging him is not illegal because it is in the public's interest to have that money spread throughout the economy, because God knows that doctor isn't going to spend it!
you says
"...and very much a righteous cause.."
Who says
I'm not surprised to read you say that, but simply saying it doesn't make it true. I'm sure the Son of Sam believed he was engaged in a righteous cause, but his belief that he was righteous doesn't change the fact that he was a murderer.
Your relativistic thinking is evidence for the substandard education that Master's College is offering. Either that, or your former professors disavowed you like three years ago.
"Alex Grenier? No...Never heard of him. I was not his teacher..."
My name is Who.
Who

Manteca, CA

#304 Nov 24, 2012
So. There's me trying to 'bury' your posts. Notice that I responded to every point you raised. I will continue to re-paste these posts whenever I feel they will get lost, because frankly I am addressing issues you are raising, and I believe in what I type.
Who

Manteca, CA

#306 Nov 24, 2012
I was at your hatesite the other day looking for the original thread where you discussed the police report and Paul going to court. Where did that thread go? I'll go to your site and look for it, but I know it wasn't in 2012, and I can't seem to find it anywhere. I need it for my argument against you.
Who

Manteca, CA

#307 Nov 24, 2012
Found this interesting instead....
Probably a good idea to get Pastor Bob's perspective on this thread.
The following is taken from Alex' hatesite, from a document he got his paws on---he calls it "leaked," but he attaches labels to things in irrational ways.
AnyWho, here's Pastor Bob's take on Alex and the whole internet cyberbully mess...
_+_+__+_+_
Bob says
He is trying to force reconciliation with his mother…….
He lost the relationship with his mother after he screamed and yelled at her calling her a hypocrite etc, etc……
His rants and raves at that point are no different then what was stated in his first letter 4.5 years ago…..
All of his efforts are in our opinion, motivated by the goal of reconciling with his mother. He thinks that he can make this happen through the means he has expressed….
He bullies his way around, and is trying bully us into his world……..
Historical perspective leading up to today..
Gayle and I….
We are, and intend to by God’s grace, and have served the Lord since we have been born again….
We have never turned away from following Him…….
All the years our children were living here we …
Followed the Lord…
During the years our children lived here..
They gradually and progressively lived a double life……
And, we do not condemn them for the way they lived……
this is what happens when you are not saved……..
Alex, just admitted he got saved in May of 09….
I certainly don’t see the fruit of the Spirit in his life before then, and certainly not since then…….
But, the fact is, that while we lived for, and served the Lord, they did not…..
The trouble with Geoff and myself…
He was a rebellious child. He at some point began using steroids…
Amy XXXX enters the picture…..
She sought almost from the start to dislodge our son Alex from the relationship we had with him……
We began realizing that she and her entire family, were gossips and backbiters……
Following Alex and Amy’s marriage….
Alex caved into her way of thinking and living…
Our relationship with Alex, grew strained and extremely difficult….
At one point when talking to Alex about his faith in Christ…….
he told me he never wanted me to talk to him about Christ….
Paul’s turning away from his faith in Christ. His announcement of that to us. His fall into drugs drinking, living away from our home…
Again, no condemnation, we understand that is what sinful people do……
What he told me before his wedding. No Bible Crap in the ceremony….
Paul announced that he was gay.
Helped put him through COS, and Fresno State….
To the tune of $15,000.00 Paul gave Jesus the middle finger..
Alex and Amy grew apart. Alex at one point was thinking of divorcing her.
Eventually the strain was unbearable. Rude and hateful attitudes from Amy……
Paul severed his relationship with us…..
It became apparent to us that Alex and Paul had been in cahoots together. We had asked Alex to help us, only to find out he was an adversary. It was that night that the switch flipped in my mind and heart….
I realized what had been going on all this time, and was only now seeing it for the first time….
Two weeks later, the explosion to his mother…..
At that point.. Gayle tried to keep seeing XXXXX (Granddaughter). Soon, that became threatening.
A few months later we got the letter. Since that time we have never said a word to them…….
And now… Alex, who has given into his wife, and allowed his brother Paul to link up with him, realized that he has lost a relationship with his mother…..
And continues to try and pressure us to admit to things we never have done,
Alex has been bullying his way around on the internet, and is now trying to bully our board at Calvary Chapel……..
_+_+_+_+_+
My name is Who.
Who

Manteca, CA

#308 Nov 24, 2012
Top of next is yours. I'll repost this entire page if necessary....wouldn't want it to get 'buried.'
DeWhoon has Balloned

Visalia, CA

#309 Nov 24, 2012
Thanks Who, that whole thing you just put up shows the heart of Bob Grenier and the extent of the efforts to which this "man of God" will go to step around the commands of God. Reconciliation is not a choice, it is a mandate. Bob is guessing about Alex's salvation and with that excusing himself from doing what's commanded. It's easy for anyone outside the situation to see as it has been all over the net with every blog and news agency that has covered this. The comments in these blogs always point out that Bob should have gotten his house in order and he did not or not did he ever. The bible is clear about that, he should not be a pastor for all the reasons described in the qualifications to be a pastor. Not only does he not get just one of the qualifications wrong, he doesn't meet any of them. By his own merit, he deserves the turmoil he has caused because he ignored the qualifications and stayed in a position that he was never supposed to hold. His disobedience is sin and his sin has caused his hardened heart to abuse others.

You can't see this, just as non believers can't see why we try to adhere to the Word. If He isn't in your heart, you can't possibly understand.

The diference between Alex and Bob. Alex admits his faults and reconciles. Bob ignores how he hurts others and leaves it to them to deal with.

This all could have stopped if BOB had just sat down with us to discuss the issues WE ALL have had with him. Not just his boys but all of us castaways. He would not and will not. This is his fault. He is not a man of God. He is a Man of Bob.
DeWhoon has Balloned

Visalia, CA

#310 Nov 24, 2012
His arrogance will be his undoing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Texas Senate Democrats help 'open-carry' amendment 9 min Donny Brook 4
News Stacey Burns murder case "an ongoing investigat... (Apr '10) 1 hr HWB 383
News City administrator aims to put TIF issue to rest 1 hr judge judy 5
News House votes to block EPA regulation of streams,... 1 hr spud 57
News Zimmerman: A person in his circumstances can't ... 1 hr Right is right 3
News ICE Director Saldana faces protests at Dallas m... 3 hr wild child 1
News Former Eau Claire County DA sentenced in forger... (Aug '09) 7 hr Hawk 2
More from around the web