"Contemporary Heretics"

VOLUTIONISTS like to spout off about things, as they suppose they once were, in the dim reaches of a distant past.   They talk about things they know absolutely nothing about, in reality, as though they were there and saw it all with their own eyes, and heard it all with their own ears.

    Little wonder, then, that modern religious heretics are starting to do the same.   Proclaiming their wicked imaginings about the past, these would-be know-it-alls actually know less than nothing.   But you wouldn't know that to listen to them rant and rave.

    I recently had the displeasure of running into someone I had known briefly nearly 30 years ago, who was (and now admits to it) a self-righteous, egotistical, false accuser, hypocrite and all-around general pain in the posterior.   He's much worse than that now, of course, but refuses to admit his current flaws, just as he refused to entertain this notion when our paths briefly intersected in Pasadena, California so long ago.

    Of course, he doesn't really take full, adult responsibility for his past self-righteous attitude and conduct, but instead blames it on his former religion, "Armstrongism."   Sadly, such a mindset is not a hallmark of any particular belief system, but rather is an indication of the spirit of the individual consumed by this vice.

    This is the tired old "I'm a victim, not the perpetrator" claim, made by so many malefactors today to escape the anxiety and feeling of guilt they ought to experience, if they ever hope to undergo true repentance in genuine humility.

    Since that time, he was ordained by Joe Tkach, Sr. as a Worldwide minister, who finally came to renounce his religious beliefs, and even faith in scripture itself.   Whereas, on the other hand, I was ordained without human "calling" to any organizational ministry, to serve as the butt for these scofflaw ministers' and ex-ministers' jokes, because they refuse to believe in miracles, prophecies, answered prayers, or dreams and visions sent from on high.

    This particular person, whose stated desire is "to reach as many people as possible with my message," makes clear just what that message really is by plastering his name all over his Internet pages, with even his Universal Resource Locator address in his name dot com.   He apparently likes the sound and appearance of his own name so much, I will decline to use it here, and deprive him of the satisfaction of the limelight he desperately lusts after and vaingloriously seeks.

    Not only vain, but cocky and belligerent as well, this self-proclaimed "guide" to what he corruptly thinks is the truth, his error, lyingly says: "I will repent of my error if it's proven I am in error," right after I sent him specific proofs of his errors (see the article: "In Defense of Inspired Scripture" for the details), which he utterly ignored and refused to address (probably refused to even read).

    Railing against the mere suggestion of mine that: "You may want to consider the possibility that self-righteousness is still a problem that you have, for I gave you some specific research into some of your posted arguments, which you have glossed over without any consideration yet, apparently," B.G. (short for Blind Guide), as I'll call him, lashes out about "this 'self-righteousness' accusation," and immediately accuses me of "using" my calling "to insult others and call down curses on the United States."

    BG's only "answer" to my research was to refuse to seriously read any of it: "I skimmed through the first three paragraphs of this reply, and let the rest go. I've not enough hours in the day dealing with those who are coming out of the horror of your damned false god and his damned book of death, let alone a self-deluded so-called prophet whose sole purpose in contacting me was to heap venom on my head. So, don't bother me, and I will certainly give you no more thought than I have for the past 30 some odd years."

    How's that for the pot calling the sink black?   The "abuse" he imagines actually derives from his own venomous hand, as he talks about all those who refuse to agree with his anti-scripture heresy as opponents, and: "my enemies."

    In response to BG's claim: "As you know all too well, anyone who thought and/or taught others to think outside WCG doctrines, was considered Satan-inspired," I told this pompous windbag: "...for the record, not all Worldwide ministers (or members, for that matter) had the same outlook or judgmental attitudes and conduct."   And this was his reply: "Having met thousands of these people over the years, you cannot prove that to me!"

    Either he was meeting thousands of all the wrong kind of people, as he claims, or perhaps -- and far more likely, in my opinion, having met many thousands of the same people and ministers and perhaps many more than he -- BG was seeing only what he wanted to see, just as he still thinks of myself and anyone else who disagrees with him as his "enemies."

    BG claims: "I've proven the bible to be a corrupt man-made myth that has caused tremendous suffering, destruction and death, and still does. If I was not sure of this, I would not being doing what I do. I've done my homework, and I stand by my research."

    And my reply was: "Your research stands or falls on the specific points you make, and I have taken a few of the more salient of these to task, and found them to be thoroughly flawed, incorrect and based on circular reasoning. Would you care to address any of those specific issues, that I gave in my last email, or not?"

    Apparently not, for BG replied, oblivious to my own research into his alleged "research," totally discrediting it and consequently his accusative claims: "I only have your word that you've found my research thoroughly flawed."

    Instead of the facts, BG is more interested in a mudslinging contest, under his complete control, where he holds all the mud, as follows: "If you feel compelled to write against my findings, then by all means, proceed. However, if you don't want your words posted on my web site, then there will be no need to stay in contact, as there will be no other way for anyone to judge between your points and mine."

    Hopefully, the linked article above should disabuse him of that little fantasy, if BG were still capable of any sort of honest admission of reality.   My initial recent contact with this character came about as a result of his attempts to proselytize through a letter to the editor of a newspaper I frequently read, in which he claimed (apparently insincerely): "My challenge is that if anyone can prove my research wrong, then I will return to the faith I once preached.   To date I am still waiting."   (With eyes and ears firmly plastered shut, but mouth wide open, it seems!)

    Contrary to my research-laden initial email contact, which was substantially the same as presently in the linked article immediately below, BG's take on this, said in response to what he misperceived as "abuse," was as follows:

    I told him: "I have no intention of having my words or name bandied about on your web site in any carte blanche fashion. You can, of course, allude to my research without directly quoting it or using my name, if you please, just as I am doing in preparing an article -- 'In Defense of Inspired Scripture' -- in relation to you and your research, to be published soon on a new site that I'm presently developing.

    "If these rules of civil behavior and conduct are not to your liking, and you wish to terminate any further contact, that of course is your choice. But it would only prove you to be manipulative and deceitful, for the main object here is to reexamine your research, and see where (at this point 'if' is no longer a possibility, according to my research) you have erred."

    BG's reaction to this was typically volatile: "You lecture me on civil behavior?   Your initial e-mail to me was insulting, accusatorial and generally written in a vein of venom, here you heap more abuse on my head with the above. When someone starts their correspondence with such behavior, then I feel no need to be polite in turn."   Apparently BG never feels any need to be polite to his imagined "enemies," much less "in turn."

    My reply to BG's impolite accusations and apparent wish to be uncivil and mean-spirited, was as follows:

    "I have no intention of getting involved in your idea of 'the light of day' mudslinging contest, where you hold all the mud and make all the rules.

    "Ever hear the saying that he who accuses first is ultimately guilty of what he accuses others? I did not accuse you, but simply called a spade a spade, using your own words to judge the matter. You replied by assuming a lot of negative things with no basis in fact, and read into my attempt to communicate things that simply are not there.

    "Things such as 'insulting,' 'accusatorial,' and 'in a vein of venom,' all of which do seem to adequately describe your web site, your last reply, and therefore you personally."

    Further, I reproved BG: "There was a man seen taking something of paper and when caught in the act, even while being restrained, delighted in trying to destroy what he had stolen, with the glee of a maniac, by tearing it into pieces, and attempting to scatter them.

    "The man who caught him in the act, and apprehended him, went about the difficult task of putting the pieces back together again, even though they did not belong to him, on behalf of the true owner.

    "Which of these two men, do you suppose, the thief or the apprehender, had respect for the property of others, and which of them deserved punishment?

    "What I have just described to you is a recent dream/vision.   And [BG], you are the thief and destroyer of property that belongs to another (faith in the Creator Yahveh through inspired scripture), and I am the one who has apprehended you.

    "And even though you have been caught and are restrained by those pesky scriptures you have misused to allegedly 'disprove' scripture, which have now disproved YOU, you are still attempting to destroy and scatter them to the wind.

    "I never said I was proving SCRIPTURE true using scripture. Instead, I have proven YOU false in your misuse of scripture, in your corrupt attempt to 'disprove' scripture using scripture. You cannot have it all your way.

    "You cannot set all the rules by which you alone always come out 'the winner' and everyone else is turned into 'enemies.' The use of this word by you to describe my efforts on your behalf, and doubtless the efforts of others (though most likely not all, to be sure) is the hallmark of a true adversary, or a child of the adversary (i.e. you are the enemy, not I).

    "So judging by your very own words, you are just as I said in my first email. You don't like this truthfulness in relation to yourself and your own conduct, much like when apprehended a thief doesn't like to stand trial and have the truth of their crimes exposed to the light of day.

    "You prefer that I lie for you, call a spade a 'toothpick,' or else you will think me your 'enemy' and will act toward me according to your own insulting, accusatory, and venomous vein of thought.

    "I have used the scriptures that you hate so vehemently -- because they prophesy of you, and of your punishment in the end, unless you repent -- not to prove scripture, but to disprove you, and your refusal to answer my research is not unlike the thief who thinks their refusal to testify at their trial will somehow save them from a guilty verdict and the punishment they so richly deserve.

    "YOUR behavior is what proves prophetic scripture true -- prophecy that foretold your very attitude and behavior, and even the specifics of your false conclusions ('denying the one who bought them') -- and that must gall you no end.

    "Well, stew in your own pot, if you must, but you will not so easily tie the hands of your pursuer and apprehender. You have been caught in your own devious devices and snared by your own actions, words and attitudes."

    Though BG is loath to read this, and by his reply apparently refused to do so, I went on to set the record straight about his false claim that it is "the Bible" that is responsible for most of the bloody violence of history, as follows:

    "I won't bandy about words further with such a fool as one who refuses to see their own errors or repent of their evil. Other than to say the following:

    "Just as you ignore the true message of inspired scripture -- long-suffering, patience, grace, mercy, and forgiveness -- you have also missed the important fact that I not only prayed for a drought (for reasons for which you falsely assume were vindictive and aimed against 'those who disagree with me'), a drought which to my knowledge killed nobody, but I also prayed for that drought to end.

    "Since that drought did happen, and it did end when my prayerful request was made, that's pretty convincing evidence that there is something more at work here than the leakings from your deviously fevered brain can possibly comprehend.

    "As for that 'book of injustice, death and destruction,' as you like to call it, where was it when the world was destroyed by flood, for the destructive bloodshed and violence that prevailed on earth before the flood? The evidence of that destructive flood is all around, if you care to look,

    "And where was scripture in the bloody purges of Stalin following World War II, or in China when the Communists had their revolution, and killed anyone with an education or experience in running the government?

    "These were among the most bloodthirsty, unjust, destructive and death-dealing episodes of recent history, and yet the bible was in no way involved or 'responsible' for any of this (other than prophesying 'wars and rumors of wars,' among other evils facing this mostly secular, pagan and 'evolution'-worshipping world).

    "And you merely add to the stinking heap of steaming dung by attempting to take away the one thing that holds out hope, peace of mind, and gives purpose to the lives of the poor, the downtrodden, and those abused by the secularists and false religionists in our midst.

    "Count yourself among the number of those who causes unjust hurt and harm that is far more deadly and lethal than bullets, bombs or swords."

    In one of his replies to my attempts to present evidence of his errors to BG -- evidence he claimed would make him "see the light" and repent, but which unsurprisingly he rejected unread -- this monumental charlatan revealed more than he intended of his true motive and intent.   BG said:

    "I will repent of my error if it's proven I am in error. I will not do so in private. I have made public declarations based on my research, and if you can prove me wrong, then it will be done publically [sic] and then publically [sic] I will repent. It's a simple and effective formula."

    It is a simple and proven psychological fact that when a person has taken a public stand on any issue, such as BG's "public declarations based on my research," right or wrong they will thereafter utterly refuse to change their mind, as doing so would be inconsistent with their already declared position.

    So any statement such as "I will repent of my error if it's proven I am in error" is known as a "weasel clause," for the proof will never be seen as proof, and the error will never be admitted to be error, to such a liar.   This is why the "public" as opposed to "private" stance has been taken.   It is just BG's underhanded admission that he will never repent of his error, even if the proofs were stacked from here to the moon against him.

    BG's "simple and effective formula" is otherwise known as: Hypocrisy (with a capital "H"), and whenever you encounter someone who makes a public spectacle of himself and then claims to be willing to "repent" if you can prove him wrong, you can be almost 100% certain that you are dealing with a subtle deceiver who would never change his mind even in the face of apparent approaching disaster!

    It is obvious now that BG's professed claim of willingness to "repent" if proved wrong was nothing but a torrid, lurid lie.   His entire purpose was to ignore any real proof of his many errors by accusing the offerer of being "accusatory," "insulting" and "heaping venom" upon his "poor undeserving" little head.

    And by such wicked games as this, BG hopes to lure more unwary "flies" into his spider's web of deceit, corruption and spiritual destitution in regard to the pure faith preserved by the chosen elect.

    I refuse to let such negative types -- such as BG, who seems to delight in wallowing in all the muck and mire of his own misgivings, misperceptions and false accusations -- corrupt my faith.   So I ended my contact with BG on a humorous note, as follows:

- Zeravbabel *                           

    "Something told me you were too big a chicken, [BG], not to mention a coward, and that you couldn't stomach a real challenge.

    "Keep on spurring, rooster old boy, but the stew pot's awaiting, and who will weep to see it come to that, but you?

    "Thirty years certainly isn't long enough, apparently, to make you any more palatable than you ever were, you poison in the pot."

    (* Zeravbabel, meaning: "One born in the midst of Babylon," a name that suits my calling as someone born in the heartland of modern Mystery Babylon, the United States.)

    And the following post script was added for good measure:

    "P.S. Remember the one that goes: 'He who answers before listening -- that is his folly and shame' (Proverbs 18:13)?   Sorry, how 'unjust' of me to quote such a 'greedy, bloody, anonymous rabbi' such as he who wrote this (horrors) inspired scripture!

    "But since the shoe happens to fit you and your ilk... I figured, 'Why not?'

    BG refused to read any of my last attempts at communication, but it made me feel a little better, and helped wash some of the acrid taste of this bitter, big-mouthed petty tyrant of a false "savior" out of my mouth, along with getting his muddied, mistaken suppositions and accusations out of my hair.

    And for those purposes, if none other, it served admirably.