In the novel 1984 George Orwell used the term "doublethink" to refer to a form of self hypnosis required to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. In the novel he states..."The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
Wayne Bent or Michael Travessor, as he is know by his followers, has been skillfully using this technique to claim that he tells the truth, while lying. He claims to be moral while practicing immorality. The reason I am covering this topic again is that I have been reading some disturbing statements by Wayne Bent and his followers that show signs of the possibility of self destruction.
In my brief discussions with Wayne Bent's followers they have emphatically denied that they are currently considering the option of suicide. If this commitment extended into the future unconditionally then there wouldn't really be an issue. In my discussions with a TerryCzap who's homepage is the Strong City homepage there is one sticking point that involves doublethink.When asked "If Wayne Bent or Michael as you call him asked you to commit suicide, would you? Yes or No," this is answered by the statement..
"To your second ridiculous question (suicide). I will not be committing suicide at any time, as you yourself are probably doing right now.
Notice how this is worded. TerryCzap can deny any current plans of committing suicide and yet not answer the question. When further pressed about whether or not he would commit suicide if asked by Michael or Wayne Bent TerryCzap replied...Now your question that you have asked so many times has been answered. “Following the Bible” means to do everything God tells that person to do. Abraham obeyed God and proceeded to kill his own son (as the heathen were doing) until an angel stopped him."
Or in my discussion with Liberty I got the final statement...
"I will not be talking to the devil in a human body."
And Grace stated within the comment section of my earlier post..
"We are, of ourselves and without God. Every man is, and you included. We were born in sin, born evil. Our human nature, yours and mine, is only evil continually without God giving us His very own heart (a new heart, Ezekiel 36) that doesn't sin. The Bible says all have sinned, and that every imagination and thoughts of man's heart are evil continually, that all are under sin, and that there is no one that does good, not one."
This pretty much negates anything that anyone other than Wayne tells them, no matter how illogical or immoral and explains why I will never get a direct NO answer in regard to any command that Wayne gives them, hypothetical or not.
Wayne Bent or Michael explains the problem of adultery in this way in his blog post called "The Heart Of The Events in The Land"...
"The first great weight was when the Father separated two women from their husbands. They would later be known as my Two Witnesses. When they left their husbands it was not something I would have expected at the time. I had not even imagined it. Weeks later, when the Father drew them to me, I was thrust back and forth between a heavenly acknowledgment of how the Father was markedly directing His will, and the natural, human, earthly view of impending “adultery.” This was the hardest time of my life."
Note the switch. Adultery is no longer defined by God or the bible. It is a natural, human, earthly view as apposed to a "spiritual" one. More doublethink and newspeak. Brilliant in a sick way. It makes things very hard to keep track of.
If they consider Wayne Bent to be the messiah or God then, just as Abraham was asked to kill his own son, then they would be obligated to follow what ever Wayne Bent asked, even if that request appeared to be immoral, much like Abraham being asked to kill his own son. Wayne applies this explanation to his apparent adultery or a phrase that is used, "God's strange act." So in a hypothetical situation where Wayne asked his followers to commit suicide, they possibly would "voluntarily." The costs of not obeying Michael or Wayne Bent would be so high in their belief, any sense of voluntary is essentially lost. This request could also be worded in a spiritual way, rather than a literal request, much like pressure to have sexual contact was worded within texts from the Song of Solomon with the situation set up carefully so that a "spiritual" form of deniability could be maintained.On a side note they refer to Wayne Bent as the Son of God and yet there are denials that he is Jesus, but he has the spirit of Jesus in the form of Michael. This is important to note because it allows them to deny things in a literal sense and yet claim them in a spiritual sense. And we have seen where spiritual nakedness has been transformed into literal nakedness and spiritual consummation has become literal sexual consummation.
In another example of doublethink they deny that adultery has been committed because the women were technically, according to them, divorced, while it clearly is adultery according to biblical statements about any man sleeping with another man's wife and God's hatred of divorce for any reason. In an odd twist they appeal to a secular definition of divorce in this case, not a biblical one. I am assuming this because I can't get anyone to answer my questions in regard to their beliefs on the biblical definition of divorce which is due to infidelity only.
Now, up to now, there haven't appeared to be any indications that there are suicidal tendencies other than refusals to eat by the two children who were taken in the documentary on Strong City by Ben Anthony and Wayne Bent himself, while in prison. The term they use for this hunger strike is fasting. As is typical, they redefine their actions using a form of what George Orwell refers to as Newspeak. Instead of refusing to eat they term it as fasting. This changes their actions into a religious practice, rather than a threat of self destruction or protest.
With all this switching back and forth between spiritual and literal applications of various ideas the following statements by Wayne Bent in his post called "Modern Day Witch's Brew are possible warning signs...
"I would rather die than live any longer in this wicked world of lying, prejudice, persecution, and dark vile sensuality."
What is troubling is that Wayne has been promising that they would not see death before they would be taken to heaven.
"I am ready to be offered, and ready to go. I am so homesick for the songs of the angels and the consciousness of only my Father and those who are in love with Him, and I want to take all of my children with me. We must leave this world behind, or we would spiritually die as the wicked are spiritually dead."
And this recent explanation is particularly telling...
"The Father opened to me that He was taking His betrothed bride to Himself, and that the earthly marriages of human bondage and tension, where one human is over the soul of another human, were to be no more. This change is necessary now because the natural marriage that God intended does not exist any longer. The beast (State) now effectively owns the family, and this is especially observable when the State can simply kidnap the children of a family at will. Everyone is under the domination of the State and this is especially marked in the forced public education system. The Father was making me into a parable to show to His children, if I would yield to His instructions. He was going to set the believing soul free forever from the beast and his hypnotic forcefulness. I was greatly resistant of this change, because of how this would make me look and of how it would make God look, but He told me to let Him worry about how He would look, and I had no recourse but to die the death as to how I would be made to look in the process of following my instructions."
This last statement states that the kidnapping of the children is the reason that marriage doesn't exist anymore and that's why he [Wayne Bent] was forced by God to consummate his relationship with 7 women/virgins and implies that because marriage doesn't exist anymore, no adultery could be possible. Fortunately, in this statement, he is defining his death [crucifiction] with public humiliation. As long as this is what it means to die to the world then I think actual suicide is on the back burner. Unfortunately the previous statements refer to a literal death or "I am ready to be offered, and ready to go."Because I couldn't get a Yes or No answer in regard to whether or not they would commit actual suicide when and if Michael asked them, I believe that there is still a possibility, depending on the mental state of Wayne Bent. And if Wayne Bent literally dies, then his statements about wanting to take all of his children with him might have a more fatal application. It could just as easily be "spiritualized" to take away the suicidal reality and suicide could simply become another of "God's strange acts."
15 comments:
Richard,
I think the theme of your blog post is very pertinent; “doublethink” in writing “newspeak” which is commonly known as "doublespeak". In your comments here, you still promote the suggestion that I, or those at Stong City would commit suicide at some point in the future. You went on, despite being told numerous times that suicide would not happen here, by saying; ”If this commitment extended into the future unconditionally then there wouldn't really be an issue”.
Let’s see if your readers have been ensnared by your doublespeak in the way that your presentation is made. My truncated answers (in quotes) to the suicide notion on the thread you linked to follows.
In my post (#17), I said "I will not be committing suicide at any time". I went on to say in post #19, that my statement was “all inclusive”. What does “all inclusive” mean Richard? I clarified the issue further in post #24 by stating; “I will not be committing suicide.... ever”.
For the benefit of the reader, the Webster's definition for "inclusive" follows;
"1: comprehending stated limits or extremes - from Monday to Friday inclusive - 2 a: broad in orientation or scope b: covering or intended to cover all items, costs, or services."
To the reader; "All inclusive" in the applied context would mean that suicide will never happen at Strong City.
It would seem that only those who use doublespeak would be able to misinterpret these statements. Well... for the benefit of people who think like Richard, we even made a short film about the suicide issue, refuting the projections by the disillusioned. It was titled "Is Strong City a Suicide Cult" and can be found on our website or you can Google it. (I tried to link several items in this post, but that option seems to be disabled).
Now to the real demonstration of doublespeak. In this post by Richard (Doublethink/Newspeak), the writer has taken one of my answers from the HH thread (post #22), which was clearly given in the context of adultery, and applied it as my answer to the suicide issue.
For the sake of anyone reading, I will quote the response that Richard has used for his own advantage, so that others can see how doublespeak works.
”My question to cardw was;
“If a woman divorces her current husband and then remarries, is adultery being committed?”
cardw’s answer is; “No”.
Your answer explains why no adultery has been committed by Travesser. Now your question that you have asked so many times has been answered. “Following the Bible” means to do everything God tells that person to do. Abraham obeyed God and proceeded to kill his own son (as the heathen were doing) until an angel stopped him.”
Truly this example of taking my statements out of context exemplifies the epitome of the one who attempts to use doublespeak to further his own purposes. You have taken my answer regarding adultery, and applied it to to your vainly imagined issue of suicide. How can I reason with a person whose mind works as George Orwell laid out so clearly, when they are ensnared in using the guise of doublespeak?
I have responded here for the sake of any reader who is genuinely interested in this subject, and it is unlikely that I will respond any further; for Richard, you do not seem to understand clear English.
Terry,
You will note that I placed links to all of our conversations so people can see them in context. You can solve this difference in understanding by simply answering my question with a yes or no.
My question has always been...
If Michael asked you to commit suicide, would you? Yes or No
I'm not asking if you plan to commit suicide. I want to know if there are limits to how far you would follow Michael.
In regards to adultery, you are still avoiding the questions I have on the definition of adultery. As far as I know divorce in the Bible is ONLY allowable in cases of infidelity. This does not appear to be the case with Wayne Bent and the two wives of the members.
His justification was that God broke these two marriages up and required him to sleep with them. There is no Biblical justification for this belief that I know of. And yet you claim to have Biblical authority.
It makes not sense to me that one would need to change the nature of the family and marriage vows to justify what would clearly be adultery without that change.
So, I think I have been pretty clear about what I am asking.
Richard,
You said no one from Strong City will answer your question of, "If Michael asked you to commit suicide, would you? Yes or No."
You then go on to say what your question is really about — "I want to know if there are limits to how far you would follow Michael."
Your question isn't about suicide at all. I will answer your real question about the limits of how far I would go to follow Michael.
But before I do, I will say this. Michael, the Being, not Wayne Bent the man, said, "Come, follow Me." God drew me to Himself and I said, "Yes, I will follow You." God has come in my flesh too, and He speaks in me. I have seen God face to face and lived.
So my answer is two-fold. No, there is no limit to how far I will follow Michael, the Son of God, the divine Being living in me. I am His and He can do whatever He likes with me, and I am happy to have it that way.
Secondly, God would never ask anyone to commit suicide, because that isn't the way a soul gets to heaven or gets connected with Him, a soul doesn't go to heaven that commits suicide. Suicide is the most selfish thing a person can do and comes from a refusal to change or let go.
Your question is that of a Pharisee who can't see a divine Being in a human body. I don't follow a man — Wayne Bent. I follow the Voice of God in my soul. This Being is the Voice that has drawn me since before I ever met Wayne. And it just so happens that the Spirit that was spoken into Michael is the same Spirit God has put in me. Michael is the Son of God and He and the Father are One, and I am One with them. This is a divine relationship, not an earthly one — God communing with Himself through our human bodies.
Since you only see Michael as a man like yourself, instead of the Son of God in human flesh that God sent to us to bring us to full salvation, there is no way that you will be able to wrap your mind around this. You won't even be able to conceive of it. This means you have no oil in your lamp.
Grace posted...
"No, there is no limit to how far I will follow Michael, the Son of God, the divine Being living in me. I am His and He can do whatever He likes with me, and I am happy to have it that way. "
You still haven't answered the question with a Yes or No.
From your statement above, you would commit suicide if Michael asked you. I am not saying that he is or would ask you to do this, but according to your above statement, you would if Michael asked you.
I would note that you don't get to heaven typically by sleeping with your son's wife or laying with naked minors or by redefining what it means to be a family. These are all justified under "God's strange act" and refer to an example from the Bible in which God orders Abraham to kill his own son or to another example of Hosea being ordered to marry a prostitute.
If your statement about your willingness to follow Michael to any end is true, then there is no moral restraint that is above any request made by Michael.
My concern is that, because you don't realize that this is simply Wayne Bent trying to deal with his own humanity, that any madness that he descends to will be followed blindly by everyone in your group.
Richard,
I understand where you are coming from. You see and speak from your human earth view and I am seeing and speaking from heaven's view, the way God sees and does things. These two views will never come together. We will never see eye to eye. This has nothing to do with Michael in the person of Wayne Bent. This has to do with two different spirits that inhabit us. You see though the devil's eyes and I see through God's eyes. These two spirits will never come into agreement, they will never "understand" each other nor will they join hands and become friends.
You don't understand and misquote me. I didn't say I would commit suicide if Michael asked me. You will always think I am going to commit suicide. You assume that because I have completely given myself over to the living God, I blindly follow a man. I tell you I am not going to commit suicide and you don't believe me. Terry told you the same thing and you don't believe him.
You don't believe anything we say. It has been plainly written that Jeff and his wife were not married when the consummation took place. Michael never slept with his son's wife. No one has slept with anyone. But you do not believe us. The fabrication of sex comes out of a head that has eyes, but cannot see. Out of the evil of one's own thoughts and imagination.
Hurt young people full of pain laid naked with a doctor of the soul, and got healed. There was no sexual touch or contact, but you cannot see this nor do you believe the testimony of those involved. You think we are brainwashed. It is like saying that laying in a bed means sex happened. It doesn't. Paul laid on a boy and raised him from the dead. Elisha laid on a boy twice, put his mouth on his mouth and he was raised from the dead. They didn't have sex, neither did Michael do anything sexual with virgins. But then this is not how you see things for you can only see through the eyes of the spirit that inhabits you and that you identify with. And so it is.
tse (I'm not sure who this is since everyone has so many names) posted...
"You see though the devil's eyes and I see through God's eyes. These two spirits will never come into agreement, they will never "understand" each other nor will they join hands and become friends."
I'm not sure why this would be true. If this were the case there would be no reason to spread your message since everyone but your group sees through the "devil's" eyes. To me, this is just a justification to avoid the more difficult claims your group makes.
tse posted...
"You don't understand and misquote me. I didn't say I would commit suicide if Michael asked me. You will always think I am going to commit suicide. You assume that because I have completely given myself over to the living God, I blindly follow a man."
You haven't said that you wouldn't directly. I have the question, "Would you commit suicide if Michael asked you?" over and over? All you have to do is say a simple No to that question and there would be no disagreement in regards to suicide. What is disturbing is that no one will say No to that question. All I get is evasions in the form of long explanations on questions I didn't ask and condemnations of myself. Not exactly the most honest way to hold a conversation.
tse posted...
"You don't believe anything we say. It has been plainly written that Jeff and his wife were not married when the consummation took place. Michael never slept with his son's wife."
I saw Michael, himself, say that he consummated his relationship with Jeff's wife more than once. I'm going to take Michael's word over yours.
And, again, you are using a secular definition of divorce, not a Biblical one. And, again, you are avoiding the clear statements in both the OT and the NT that God hates divorce.
I have followed all of your suggestions to read your blog. I have and your explanations and justifications fail to address these issues.
What I read Michael say is that God changed the nature of the family and broke up these marriages. He even states that he was disturbed by this, evidently because he knows that this is not Biblical. This is far different than what you are saying here about divorce.
tse posted...
"Hurt young people full of pain laid naked with a doctor of the soul, and got healed. There was no sexual touch or contact, but you cannot see this nor do you believe the testimony of those involved. You think we are brainwashed."
I don't understand why this healing required them to be physically naked. Paul and Elijah didn't require their subjects to be naked. There is no precedent for this in the Bible that I know of.
There certainly was sex involved with some of the young girls because on the video on your site one girl is telling how she had difficulty being aroused physically and it took 11 months for her to consummate her relation with Michael. This is clearly morally ambiguous and goes against many Biblical principles.
What I see happening is that your story keeps changing to address what you know is wrong. Your position rests on the idea that everyone but you has the devil in them. It simply doesn't play out in the reality of what Michael says and does.
Richard,
tse is the other account I have for gmail. You may put my Name on that one if you like.
Grace
Richard, your questions, and by extension, your responses to those who refuse to answer them in precisely the manner you require, are on their face, ridiculous. You remind me of some at least more honest individuals who, claming to be atheist, attempt to trick believers with an unanswerable question. They do this by first qualifying their "mark" in asking if they believe God can do anything. To which they of course––and erroneously––respond, "Why, of course God can do anything." The follow-up is then, "Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?"
To you, Richard, who somehow believe that you have the authority to require the form in which an answer to your question must be given, I have one for you. It is your favorite kind, that to which you must answer either "yes or no": Do you still beat your wife? I don't care if you don't even have a wife, simply respond with "yes or no." Little meaningless things like facts and pertinent, collateral information are not allowed.
Or how about this one: Would you commit suicide if Jesus asked you to? Yes or no?
THAT is the nature of your questions, Richard, and the level to which they illustrate your intellectual dishonesty, and very much your intellect as well. They are mindless, thoughtless, and virtually rhetorical interrogatories, the answers to which are clearly intended, not to inform you of anything so that you may learn, but rather only to make your point. It is, however, a point that reveals more of the darkness of your thinking that you would probably want others to know.
Were you to ask me that question, as to whether I would follow Michael if he required me to kill myself (and realistically, you have asked that question of me as well), I would have to respond by requiring of you instead, a reasonable question, based on something that actually has a possibility of occurrence. In short, your question is rankly stupid, and those here who have refused to answer by your rules, are simply refusing to respond directly to the verbatim question. In other words, they don't answer stupid questions either. Rather, they are much more appropriately addressing what is plainly the issue; the not-so-hidden agenda behind them.
Like TSE said, you clearly would believe the answer ONLY if it were "yes." Any other response would likely carry, in its endless train, another empty-headed, silly question, and your entire little playground scenario would begin all over.
You are as one of whom Timothy wrote; "Ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" -- which is simply because you do not want to. The truth requires a cross.
Before I post Grace contacted me and indicated that Tse is her other account.
Gabriel posted...
"Richard, your questions, and by extension, your responses to those who refuse to answer them in precisely the manner you require, are on their face, ridiculous."
In light of recent events I don't take suicide as a ridiculous question. And I would also like to note that I am glad that you are not intending to commit suicide.
But, in light of the changes to moral law instituted by Michael, there appears to be at least the possibility that further shifts in moral behavior could be instituted to meet the needs of Michael.
Gabriel posted ...
"You remind me of some at least more honest individuals who, claming to be atheist, attempt to trick believers with an unanswerable question."
My question is very answerable. It is not a trick question.
If Michael asked you to commit suicide, would you do it? Yes or No
If you answered No and you believe that he wouldn't ask you to commit suicide then you have lost nothing. I would also know that you had an internal moral compass that would tell you that he was not telling you the truth if this occurred.
So far no one is willing to answer No. I do know that you have committed to following whatever he asks. This means that IF he asks you to commit suicide, and I'm hoping he doesn't, then you would follow him to your own destruction.
Gabriel posted...
"Or how about this one: Would you commit suicide if Jesus asked you to? Yes or no?"
This is easy to answer. NO!
Gabriel posted...
"Like TSE said, you clearly would believe the answer ONLY if it were "yes." Any other response would likely carry, in its endless train, another empty-headed, silly question, and your entire little playground scenario would begin all over."
I take this very seriously. I am not playing here. I believe there may be a situation coming that could result in the suicide of a number of your members.
I am very encouraged that you have no commitment to that presently. I do not want, nor hope, that any deaths result from the situation at Strong City.
I believe you when you tell me that you have committed everything to Michael. From my perspective it is very clear that Michael is deluded. Obviously from your perspective he is the Messiah.
Time will tell if that is true or not. What concerns me is that, from my perspective, when this begins to fall apart, you will have some hard choices to make and if you don't have an independent moral compass, it could be possible that your emotions could become very painful, considering the extreme commitment by many of you and the sexual connection by others.
I realize that you don't believe this to be possible. And I will be very happy to be wrong about suicide. I think this discussion is more important than me being right.
From my perspective it appears to me that there is nothing that would convince you that Wayne Bent was not Michael the Son of God, no matter how inconsistent his claims have been, nor the moral choices he has made, nor the failed predictions.
Maybe I can ask this, "Is there anything that Michael could do or claim that would convince you he wasn't telling the truth?"
As it stands now, apparently not. But you may correct me if I'm wrong.
Richard, I very much appreciate your response, but not however in the manner I think you would desire. It is quite illustrative of your spiritually flawed thought processes, and your inability to understand the true principles behind what has been shared here. Your thinking reveals an entirely earthly perspective that results from one who has a knowledge of the word, but knows nothing of the Word. This is because you have missed the very core issue that all Scripture must be interpreted by its Author's Spirit to the hearts of men, and not wrestled out in the natural mind (note that "wrestle" has as its root to "wrest" -- as in "...they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16 Otherwise it is all, as James wrote, just a collection of dead letters.
As an example, to illustrate what I mean, I would like to address your response to my question, "Would you commit suicide if Jesus asked you to? Yes or no?"; to which you submitted what could reasonably be interpreted as an resounding, unequivocal "NO!" Then by applying your own a priori thinking to this discussion, you clearly, by logical inference, deny the scriptural evidence of the eternal deity of Jesus. But then perhaps you are in one of those misguided cults that repudiate Jesus' Godhood (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), and, as is clearly stated in Scripture, that all things were created by him.
So then, we now have an irrational theological dilemma: You claim to be a follower of biblical doctrine and moral code which indisputably requires, by Jesus' own words, a clear and willing obedience to ALL the commands of God, yet you indicate that you would refuse to render that obedience were it required of you in this specific instance. This then would reasonably project itself into the realm of situation ethics, where you are now obviously willing to obey the commands of God, ONLY if such commands can be made congruent with your particular moral code that you claim to have received from the scriptures. To further the illustration, this means that truly the only god your believe in is yourself, because you have clearly established yourself as the final arbiter of all that is right and wrong -- regardless of what the true God says. You have effectively dethroned Him from your heart.
Can you even now detect the gross error and inconsistency in your convoluted thinking, Richard? And if by some heavenly miracle that is granted you, perhaps you can also re-read your responses to the other posts here, and discern how you have applied those humanly twisted thought processes to the truth that has been shared in them.
In the days of vinyl recordings, it was not an infrequent occurrence that a ridge separating groves would break down, causing the "broken record" phenomena of endless repetition, which is very much like the rather mindless approach you have taken to what has been shared with you. You accuse us of tautological reasoning, while ignoring your own.
Ps 56:5 "Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil."
Recall that it was when God touched Jacob's thigh and put it out of joint, that he stopped "wrest"ling with him, and sought the blessing. I would counsel you, Richard, to stop wresting the Scriptures with your corrupt human mind -- to your own destruction -- and request of God to put your thigh out of joint, however that may look to Him, and simply receive the revelation He has for you. But then, you would of necessity have to be praying to the right God, and not the lifeless, graven image of Him you carry around in your head.
Richard, I very much appreciate your response, but not however in the manner I think you would desire. It is quite illustrative of your spiritually flawed thought processes, and your inability to understand the true principles behind what has been shared here. Your thinking reveals an entirely earthly perspective that results from one who has a knowledge of the word, but knows nothing of the Word. This is because you have missed the very core issue that all Scripture must be interpreted by its Author's Spirit to the hearts of men, and not wrestled out in the natural mind (note that "wrestle" has as its root to "wrest" -- as in "...they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16 Otherwise it is all, as James wrote, just a collection of dead letters.
As an example, to illustrate what I mean, I would like to address your response to my question, "Would you commit suicide if Jesus asked you to? Yes or no?"; to which you submitted what could reasonably be interpreted as an resounding, unequivocal "NO!" Then by applying your own a priori thinking to this discussion, you clearly, by logical inference, deny the scriptural evidence of the eternal deity of Jesus. But then perhaps you are in one of those misguided cults that repudiate Jesus' Godhood (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), and, as is clearly stated in Scripture, that all things were created by him.
So then, we now have an irrational theological dilemma: You claim to be a follower of biblical doctrine and moral code which indisputably requires, by Jesus' own words, a clear and willing obedience to ALL the commands of God, yet you indicate that you would refuse to render that obedience were it required of you in this specific instance. This then would reasonably project itself into the realm of situation ethics, where you are now obviously willing to obey the commands of God, ONLY if such commands can be made congruent with your particular moral code that you claim to have received from the scriptures. To further the illustration, this means that truly the only god your believe in is yourself, because you have clearly established yourself as the final arbiter of all that is right and wrong -- regardless of what the true God says. You have effectively dethroned Him from your heart.
Can you even now detect the gross error and inconsistency in your convoluted thinking, Richard? And if by some heavenly miracle that is granted you, perhaps you can also re-read your responses to the other posts here, and discern how you have applied those humanly twisted thought processes to the truth that has been shared in them.
In the days of vinyl recordings, it was not an infrequent occurrence that a ridge separating groves would break down, causing the "broken record" phenomena of endless repetition, which is very much like the rather mindless approach you have taken to what has been shared with you. You accuse us of tautological reasoning, while ignoring your own.
Ps 56:5 "Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil."
Recall that it was when God touched Jacob's thigh and put it out of joint, that he stopped "wrest"ling with him, and sought the blessing. I would counsel you, Richard, to stop wresting the Scriptures with your corrupt human mind -- to your own destruction -- and request of God to put your thigh out of joint, however that may look to Him, and simply receive the revelation He has for you. But then, you would of necessity have to be praying to the right God, and not the lifeless, graven image of Him you carry around in your head.
Gabriel posted...
"Your thinking reveals an entirely earthly perspective that results from one who has a knowledge of the word, but knows nothing of the Word."
I take this to be code for I don't know Michael in the way that you know Michael. As an aside, I am wondering if you have been naked with Michael or is this just a practice of the women in your group.
Gabriel posted...
"So then, we now have an irrational theological dilemma: You claim to be a follower of biblical doctrine and moral code which indisputably requires, by Jesus' own words, a clear and willing obedience to ALL the commands of God"
I have not claimed to be a follower of biblical doctrine. It is my understanding that you are. I have some knowledge of what is in the bible because I grew up a Seventh Day Adventist, but trying to follow all those requirements just about killed me.
As I have asked before, how can there be a Biblical divorce when the conditions for divorce in the Bible are infidelity? How can Michael who is the Son of God cause something to happen that He hates, or at least states that He hates in both the OT and the NT. And the NT is quite clear that there should be NO divorce in the early Christian Church.
And yet I have quotes from Michael that it was God who separated both women, including his daughter-in-law, from their husbands. As far as I can tell this clearly goes against what is stated in the Bible, the book that you claim to follow and obey.
It is pretty clear that Michael is claiming that marriage, as we know it from the bible, is no longer binding. Other than claims, there doesn't seem to be any Biblical authority for what Michael is doing.
Gabriel posted...
"In the days of vinyl recordings, it was not an infrequent occurrence that a ridge separating groves would break down, causing the "broken record" phenomena of endless repetition, which is very much like the rather mindless approach you have taken to what has been shared with you."
Well, if you would actually address my questions rather than these convoluted evasions, I wouldn't have to keep repeating the questions.
Your defense is based on evasion and attacks on my intelligence, my honesty, my character, etc. And while I don't really care about your attacks, the truth is that you don't seem to be wiling to look at the questions in any honest manner.
You will note that I have taken great pains to actually read what Michael says and he doesn't say the same things that you are. At least that I can tell.
Richard, why do you engage these people in conversation when you know its going to go directly down Crazy Rd. and on around to Kookie Loop? Do you know who Doug Batchelor is? Have you been to the
AmazingFacts website? I recomend looking there for Biblical insight and to see what a real Christian is.
I know who Doug Bachelor is. I have met him. As long as he preaches what is contained in the Great Controversy, I still consider his teachings to be fear and shame based. He wraps it in a pretty nice package, but when broken down, it communicates the same thing I grew up with.
My experience with him was in the context of a Revelation Seminar, which I consider to be pretty poorly documented. The things that I heard taught were often outright wrong and based on myths that historical discoveries have proven to be made up.
That is why I believe that once someone really studies this stuff and becomes informed, they won't be able to continue believing it.
That is why I engage in conversation. And, as I predicted in my blog, the situation you see is playing out with Esther. I knew this would happen because I recognized the system of belief in place. This system permeates the writings of Ellen White.
Hopefully Esther's intuition will surface and she will be able to be free of this system.
Oh, well, I guess I don't see anything wrong with a little healthy shame and fear. People nowdays just don't have any. If I were caught doing something shameful, shouldn't I feel shame? Don't you think it would've been nice if Rod Blagojevich felt some shame and remorse, or even fear of prosecution when he did what he did? Instead you get an unhealthy dose of narcissism and entitlement issues. It happens to be the norm these days, don't you think?
And fear...well, as a parent, I see where God is coming from. I have rules in place to protect my daughter, and they are in place because I want her to be safe and healthy. She should definitely fear the consequences of playing in the street or touching a hot burner. Having a 4 yr. old I'm always like, "Don't run with the scissors! I told you not to climb on the counter, now go to your room, stand in the corner, etc." I feel like half the time I'm promising things for acceptable behavior and the other half I'm threatening, and its all because I just want her to follow the rules and learn to do what is right. "I know the thoughts I have for you, that they are good and not evil." God says that to us, and as much as she complains about not getting her way, I find myself thinking the same thing. I'm like, "Lord, now I know how you feel dealing with such disobedient and self-centered children." That's how I've come to relate to God, as a loving parent. And the #1 thing Satan wants to do is twist His image into something ugly and brutal. I think Christians are a poor reflection of God, and always will be. Like Doug Batchelor for instance, I really enjoy his stuff, but if he were to EVER start straying from the Bible and ask anyone to break a commandment then you should run far, run fast. That's what I think these people at Strong City missed along the way. God would never ask us to break a commandment, and He also gave us a brain to think and reason. It's so sad, but I've seen stuff like this on all levels. Strong personalities preying on weaker ones. Look at gang indoctrination for example. Doctrine itself is not bad, but just like everything else that can be good, it can be twisted also.
Post a Comment