Quote
Truthtesty

Quote

Evil festers because it is not confronted and defeated. Plain and simple logic, the same logic used in driving your car.

Quote
Voltaic
I believe this is unbiblical. Evil will only be defeated by Christ Himself when he finally casts all sin and death and unbelievers and fallen angels and Satan away forever; even during Jesus Christ's personal thousand year reign (prophesied in Revelation), malcontents rise up against Him. [b:eed7ff209e]In the strongest terms possible, I challenge you to find scriptures supporting your statement that Christians are called to defeat evil[/b:eed7ff209e].

Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. [b:eed7ff209e]Abhor that which is evil[/b:eed7ff209e]; cleave to that which is good.

[www.m-w.com]

Do you abhor which is evil? I think abhor is a much stronger word than hate.

I agree. But you were previously saying that Christians are to attack or defeat evil, or that evil persists because Christian’s don’t do enough about it. Abhoring is not the same as going out and working against it. The Scriptures, including the passages that you quoted, clearly teach that Christians are to abhor, endure, bear up, suffer, stand firm, be patient, and separate from evil (Romans 5:3-4;15:4; 1 Corinthians 4:12;16:13; 2 Corinthians 1:3-5;6:4-5; Ephesians 4:2;6:13; Colossians 1:11,24; Philippians 1:27-30; 1 Thessalonians 2:14;5:14; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:3,8-10;4:5; Titus 2:2; Hebrews 10:32-34;12:4,7; James 4:7;5:10-11; 1 Peter 1:6;2:19-23;3:14-17;4:12-19;5:9; Revelation 1:9;2:10); and all this while doing good and living at peace as an example that brings the light of Christ into the darkness of this world (Matthew 5:9,14-16; Romans 12:8; 1 Corinthians 7:15; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12;5:5,13-15; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; Titus 3:1-2; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 2:12,15;3:17). Scriptures don't teach us to work to defeat evil; I’ll leave that to Christ.

Note that the Romans 12 passage you quoted talks about overcoming evil by doing good deeds [u:eed7ff209e]to[/u:eed7ff209e] one's enemies: feeding [u:eed7ff209e]the enemy[/u:eed7ff209e] who hungers, giving drink [u:eed7ff209e]to the enemy[/u:eed7ff209e] who thirsts. I wonder if some of the people in this thread are doing good deeds [u:eed7ff209e]to[/u:eed7ff209e] their enemies? Coals of fire are heaped upon their head by doing good deeds [u:eed7ff209e]to[/u:eed7ff209e] them, not by doing good deeds to others and against them.

Quote
Truthtesty
I suppose with your one-sided interpretation you would give aid and support to Al Qaeda? After 911, did you go to Afghanistan and hand out cookies and milk to Osama? Where's your common sense? Look at both sides of the picture.

Welcome to the internet, where loving your neighbor as yourself means aiding Al Qaeda in murdering civilians. WOULD JESUS GIVE COOKIES TO OSAMA? No really, I thank you for raising the level of discussion.

Quote
Truthtesty
It does not say be complicit with evil. The command [b:eed7ff209e]Be not overcome of evil[/b:eed7ff209e], to me means to resist evil and to hate evil, and to not be overcome by evil, and [b:eed7ff209e]not be defeated by evil[/b:eed7ff209e].

I agree with that meaning, but overcoming doesn’t mean working and toiling and earning. Christ did the overcoming, we ride his coattails and honor Him by living in His example. “Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:5)

Quote
Truthtesty
[b:eed7ff209e][i:eed7ff209e][u:eed7ff209e]If it be possible[/u:eed7ff209e][/i:eed7ff209e], as much as lieth in you[/b:eed7ff209e], live peaceably with all men. This is a conditional statement.

My Lord and Saviour said: "With God, all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27).

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote

The answer to your question is yes you should go to the internet and point out the truth. Have the debate. Put all the facts on the table. You might be right or you be wrong, but the truth is out there.

Quote
Voltaic
If there is a chance that a person is wrong, then this person is guilty of incredible evil in making trouble against others. I will simply have to disagree with you on this point. I don't believe we are called to debate and all this out there to the world at large, and I've never seen a passage in Scripture that supports this idea. Can you provide one?

Truthtesty: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 [b:eed7ff209e][u:eed7ff209e]Prove all things[/u:eed7ff209e]; hold fast that which is good. [/b:eed7ff209e] This is an unrestricted statement, and certainly would include the world at large.

And the very next verse 1 Thess 5:22 says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Even the [u:eed7ff209e]appearance[/u:eed7ff209e] of evil should be avoided according to this passage. So I wonder if your statement "You might be right or you be wrong" is a good standard to use; and I wonder if disputes and accusations and engaging in these kinds of discussion violates the command to avoid the appearance of evil. In any case, “proving” means to test and examine something, as in the modern phrase “proving grounds”, not as in evidence like a trial. So I am simply going to disagree with your interpretation that this means unrestricted working in the world at large to make a point.

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote

Not all love is gooshy, pal.

Quote
Voltaic
1 Corinthians 13 teaches us what love is. Even if you do every outwardly good thing for others but inside you have no love, you gain nothing. I propose that preventing your buddy from driving drunk is different than getting in a snippy little jab on an internet discussion forum.

But, Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

If that snippy little jab successfully wakes people up and alerts them to a previous evil they were doing, but they were previously unaware of, or intentionally ignoring, then no I would say it is in the same unpretentious spirit as elbowing my friend in the face.

As I have stated in my previous posts, it's all a matter of your own motivation and self-examination. If you are honestly doing everything in love and without malice or any hurtful intent of the heart (including towards Thieme), then you are acting in love and without dissimulation. I repeatedly said that I'm not here to judge anyone for their motivations; only to remind all to rightfully judge themselves. (Luke 6:37; 1 Corinthians 11:31; James 5:9)

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote
Voltaic
Quote: If there is a chance that a person is wrong, then this person is guilty of incredible evil in making trouble against others. I will simply have to disagree with you on this point. I don't believe we are called to debate and all this out there to the world at large, and I've never seen a passage in Scripture that supports this idea. Can you provide one?

The Gospels are for the whole world are they not? What type of Gospel, What type of Word, what type of TRUTH are you trying to sell, IF THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS EVIL, HAS TO BE HIDDEN AWAY IN SECRET? Can you provide a scripture that says hide the truth of what is evil? I have never seen a passage of scripture that supports this.

You are changing what I am saying. I have never said that the truth should be hidden, whether it is the truth of evil or truth of the Gospel or anything else. Not once. Go back and read my posts, there aren’t many.

But there are Scriptures that say disputes between Christians (which is why in one of my first posts I asked if everyone agrees that Thieme is at least a brother in Christ) shouldn't take their disputes before the unregenerate world. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 says Christians shouldn't take each other to court and be judged by unbelievers even on worldy matters. In addition, Titus 3:8-9 teaches that we should be devoted to doing good [u:eed7ff209e]to everyone[/u:eed7ff209e] instead of promoting controversies of doctrine. To me this includes public displays in front of the unregenerate world such as, oh, an internet forum.

Then there are many passages teaching that Christians should live quiet, gracious lives as examples to the world instead of putting internal disputes on public display. Our example should be the Grace of Christ pouring out from us: of the One who let the adultress go, even when she had been caught in the act (John 8:3-11); of the One who prayed for those condemning and torturing him, even as he hung on the cross for their sins (Luke 23:34-43); of the One who told us to forgive without limit that we might be forgiven (Matthew 6:14-15;18:21-35). That’s dispute resolution.

Our attitude should be the same as that of the Lord Jesus Christ who set aside His eternal communion with the Father and Spirit, taking on the humiliation of a servant, deprived of justice and going without complaint to the cross, to reconcile all mankind to God forever (Acts 8:32-35; Philippians 2:5-8). Before the world, My Lord presented the truth; when He was alone with the disciples, then he exhorted and encouraged and discussed.

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote

What if the teaching from the teacher was causing people in the family to "rebound" so much that they would bump into walls or fall down stairs, hurting themselves? What if the teaching from the teacher was causing people in the family to have dysfunctionalizing nervous breakdowns, breaking down the individual's identity? causing them to hear voices? (and on and on you can read what damage people have witnessed on this forum) WOULD YOU CALL FOR THE FALSE TEACHER'S HEAD IN THIS CASE? THIEME IS STILL CAUSING PHYSICAL HARM IS HE NOT?

This clearly relates to reality of what has happened to some Thiemites. Yet you do not answer.

WOULD YOU CALL FOR THE FALSE TEACHER'S HEAD IN THIS CASE? THIEME IS STILL CAUSING PHYSICAL HARM IS HE NOT?

Quote
Voltaic
I don't think someone bumping their head into a wall is enough cause to vilify a pastor.

I AM NOT VILLIFYING THIEME. THIEME DID THIS TO HIMESLF. Just like Hitler, Saddam, BTK, David Koresh, Jim Jones and others, villified themselves. I AM POINTING OUT WHAT THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS EVIL ABOUT THIEME'S TEACHINGS, TO SPARE OTHERS EVIL HARM.

"Vilify" means to speak ill of someone, make vicious and defamatory statements about someone, or to spread negative information about someone. Are you saying that Hitler and Saddam and Koresh spoke negative, defamatory information against themselves? Are you saying that there is no speaking ill of Thieme in this thread? Look, you may agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, but the simple defintion of the word I chose makes my meaning above clear. If I say something negative about you, I am vilifying you. Whether it's true or false, good or bad intent, doesn't matter; that's what the word means.

Quote
Truthtesty
[Notice Voltaic makes no mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions.)

Now you are plainly lying about what I have or haven't said. I refer you to post #44879 in this thread where I did briefly discuss this and where you went off into left-field about wanting me to go to jail because I believe Christians should follow the law when the Anti-Christ is in charge or something outlandish. Maybe you don't agree with my answer or things could be misinterpreted, etc. That's fine and we can discuss it. But what I have or haven't said is very plainly documented here in this thread.

Quote
Truthtesty
I directly confronted Thieme. I am not going around Thieme or behind his back. I have consistently challenged Thieme. I hear Thieme is too old to debate(not that Thieme debated anyone when he was younger), so, if his son would join this website(spouting the same cultic information), I would confront him too.

If he or his son were here, that would at least be Biblical. All the scriptures I see say that if a brother ignores rebuke or exhortation, you just leave it alone and go separate ways (Titus 3:10); none of them talk about taking it to the people or speaking it to the world or what have you. Even Paul says he rejoices when people preach Christ for false motivations as long as Christ is preached (Philippians 1:17-18).

Quote
thiemite
I ordered a copy of the Thieme biography (ISBN: 9781598582345 ) after reading about it here and on the Wikipedia site. WOW, talk about an eye opener. Thieme took all of two, yes two, introductory Greek courses before going to seminary at DTS as that is all that was offered at his college at the time. I definitely recommend the biography, it is a simple read and provides a lot of interesting insight. I would definitely like to fact check some of the information.

I also recently received a copy and read it over the weekend. Overall it was a decent piece of research but it contained numerous editorial flaws which annoy me in any published book no matter the topic. For instance, on p.87 he refers to Joe Wall (the author of the thesis) as "John Wall". And there are quite a few typos, copy-edits, and other things that make me want to break out my red pen.

Also thiemite, while it may be nit-picky to point it out, Hunt doesn't say that RBT, Jr. only took two Greek courses; he says that only two courses were offered in Greek language "outside of independent study" (p.59) and that RBT Jr. "graduated 'with high distinction', his major being Greek 'with honors'" (p.64). I don't think RBT, Jr. would have received that recognition with only two Greek classes on his transcript, and I definitely think Hunt would have said something other than that if it were the case.

It is a little bit weird that the author went around to all these private residences and took pictures of their current facades (p.50, 51, 63, 66, 71, 104). People who are totally unrelated to the Thieme family live in these places now. Pics of historical places like a military base or university or Berachah would have made sense and added character to the book (p.4, 36, 80 were good); but shooting the poorly-lit door of his college rental from the lower staircase (p.64) was just creepy.

Also, I thought I was getting a Thieme biography, but it was largely a Thieme family history. So this is my fault based on the expectations I had though; the title is accurate at least that it is partly his ancestry, partly his life. The family-relation diagrams on p.2 and 21 were very useful to this end. But anyone looking for an in-depth bio isn’t going to find it here; it’s more basic family historical research.

Quote
Truthtesty
It is very easy to jump in here from the outside and ask people to examine themselves, especially when you have no apparent understanding of the gravity of the harm which was done.

Understanding the gravity has nothing to do with it. Even if Thieme ate your baby with a nice Chianti and fahver beans, it would have absolutely no impact, whatsoever, on the very commands of Scripture. Note the Bible citations in my posts; I don't live my life based on how I feel about certain verses. I've cited dozens of Scriptures backing up, in plain reading, how I personally feel a Christian should live [i:eed7ff209e]even if s/he has been horribly wronged[/i:eed7ff209e]. If you disagree, that's fine too; but don't you think I've got a whole lot of passages that back up my reading?

Quote
Truthtesty
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed" (James 5:16)

Would you have any faults of your own you would like to confess?

I have admitted any errors I made in this forum. I believe thiemite had it right previously when he said this forum isn't only made up of believers, so I'm not going to do any more than that.

Voltaic quote

Quote

[u:b2db9bd94f][i:b2db9bd94f][b:b2db9bd94f]Even if Thieme ate your baby with a nice Chianti and fahver beans[/b:b2db9bd94f][/i:b2db9bd94f][/u:b2db9bd94f]

Truthtesty:
Everyone else knows these type of statements are uncalled for. Is this your CHRISTIAN LOVE? What kind of PERVERTED animal human hybrid, would use "[b:b2db9bd94f]Even if Thieme ate your baby[/b:b2db9bd94f]" in an analogy?
This is typical sick and disgusting Thiemite "shock doctrine". It has no conscience and it is designed to disorient.

Here's other typical sick Thieme "shock" statements:

Thieme BOC

Quote

The priest took a [u:b2db9bd94f]sweet little lamb [/u:b2db9bd94f](or other acceptable animal) and tied all four legs down to the brazen altar. Then he [u:b2db9bd94f]grabbed that sweet little muzzle[/u:b2db9bd94f], and with a sharp knife [u:b2db9bd94f]he cut through the jugular until he hit the carotid[/u:b2db9bd94f]. [u:b2db9bd94f]When the carotid is cut, a stream of blood spurts out, and the animal's heartbeat shoves the blood out of its body. [/u:b2db9bd94f]

Thieme BOC

Quote

That is why, for example, when you open up a frog, you can still see his heart beat. But just hit one of those veins or an artery, and he will pump about three times; and when he pumps the blood out, he is through!

Truthtesty:
[b:b2db9bd94f]You are no one to barge in here say:[/b:b2db9bd94f]

Voltaic

Quote

"I have only said (and meant to say) that every person who does so should be careful to examine his own motivations and make sure he's doing it for the right reasons, and [b:b2db9bd94f]in any case should avoid attacking any person directly[/b:b2db9bd94f].

Truthtesty:
[b:b2db9bd94f]1st you are a hypocrite because you personally attack me[/b:b2db9bd94f]. To even suggest [u:b2db9bd94f][i:b2db9bd94f][b:b2db9bd94f]Even if Thieme ate your baby with a nice Chianti and fahver beans[/b:b2db9bd94f][/i:b2db9bd94f][/u:b2db9bd94f], is a personal attack on me.

This is the typical sick, disgusting, vile, lack of conscience of Thieme and Thiemites.
[b:b2db9bd94f]
2nd You need to examine your perverted, polluted, cauterized, stupefied, evil conscience![/b:b2db9bd94f]

The conscience is very important, as Paul said:
Romans 9:1-3 “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, [b:b2db9bd94f]my [u:b2db9bd94f]conscience[/u:b2db9bd94f] also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit[/b:b2db9bd94f], that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”



I say again, I am not "smearing" or villifying Thieme. Thieme villified and smeared himself. Everyone can see from your statements and Thieme's statements, that you are both completely capable and willing to smear and villify yourselves.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

From the University of Arizona -

The 1935-36 description of courses Classical Literature section states:

Quote

The major: 24 units above 1b; the supporting minor shall consist of 20 units advised from English, French, German, Spanish, philosophy, history. The courses in Greek offered are:

51a-51b Elementary Greek. (4-4) Yr. A beginners’ course in the Greek language and literature, including selections from Plato and the New Testament.

152a-152b. Attic and Homeric Greek Literature. (4-4) Yr. Reading and interpretation of selections from Attic and Homeric Greek. Prerequisite, 51b.

Classical Literature Honors (2-2) Yr. The college of Liberal Arts and Education offer Seniors an opportunity to enroll as candidates for Departmental Honors. Honors students could receive 4 credits with either a grade of 1 (Recommended for Honors” or 2 “Passed”) Those who fail were given a grade of W. The honors classes were largely independent studies.

Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
Everyone else knows these type of statements are uncalled for. Is this your CHRISTIAN LOVE? What kind of PERVERTED animal human hybrid, would use "[b:325e577e2d]Even if Thieme ate your baby[/b:325e577e2d]" in an analogy? This is typical sick and disgusting Thiemite "shock doctrine". It has no conscience and it is designed to disorient.

Uh, you are getting way too excited about one single phrase I used, a phrase which incidently was a joking allusion to a popular movie and was kind of anti-Thieme. But OK.

Quote
Truthtesty
[b:325e577e2d]You are no one to barge in here say:[/b:325e577e2d]

Quote
Voltaic
"I have only said (and meant to say) that every person who does so should be careful to examine his own motivations and make sure he's doing it for the right reasons, and [b:325e577e2d]in any case should avoid attacking any person directly[/b:325e577e2d].

[b:325e577e2d]1st you are a hypocrite because you personally attack me[/b:325e577e2d]. To even suggest [u:325e577e2d][i:325e577e2d][b:325e577e2d]Even if Thieme ate your baby with a nice Chianti and fahver beans[/b:325e577e2d][/i:325e577e2d][/u:325e577e2d], is a personal attack on me.

How is that a personal attack? I'm honestly curious. To me, a personal attack against you means I say something mean or evil about you; and is not when I say something mean or evil about someone else.

Quote
Truthtesty
This is the typical sick, disgusting, vile, lack of conscience of Thieme and Thiemites.
[b:325e577e2d]2nd You need to examine your perverted, polluted, cauterized, stupefied, evil conscience![/b:325e577e2d]

The conscience is very important, as Paul said:
Romans 9:1-3 “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, [b:325e577e2d]my [u:325e577e2d]conscience[/u:325e577e2d] also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit[/b:325e577e2d], that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”

This is actually what my very first post on this forum said: that each of us should examine our own consciences when making statement as are made here. So you have said many times that I have no business coming in here and reminding everyone to examine our own consciences, so how is it now OK that you tell me to examine my own conscience?

Quote
Truthtesty
I say again, I am not "smearing" or villifying Thieme. Thieme villified and smeared himself. Everyone can see from your statements and Thieme's statements, that you are both completely capable and willing to smear and villify yourselves.

I'm sorry but you aren't reading or are ignoring what I am saying. "Villify" means to say something negative about someone. Please explain when Thieme said something negative about himself. If you can't, then he didn't "villify" himself. It's just the plain definition of a common English word.

I'm going to sound like a jerk for asking this, but your latest post compels me: are you a native speaker of English/American English? Maybe I am out of line assuming too much and English is a second language for you so some of these meanings are lost. If so, that's my fault. It can happen on the internet with a globa audience.

Truthtesty wrote:

Quote

Everyone else knows these type of statements are uncalled for. Is this your CHRISTIAN LOVE? What kind of PERVERTED animal human hybrid, would use "Even if Thieme ate your baby" in an analogy? This is typical sick and disgusting Thiemite "shock doctrine". It has no conscience and it is designed to disorient.

Voltaic

Quote

Uh, you are getting way too excited about one single phrase I used, a phrase which incidently was a joking allusion to a popular movie and was kind of anti-Thieme. But OK.

Truthtesty:
You are no one to judge my excitement. I will tell you about my excitement. I would be excited to meet you in person. That was an insult of conscience. I am not familiar with the movie. Someone with a conscience would apologize.

Voltaic

Quote

How is that a personal attack? I'm honestly curious. To me, a personal attack against you means I say something mean or evil about you; and is not when I say something mean or evil about someone else.

Truthtesty:
Oh really? And what if I have a 5 month old baby? How stupid are you?You don't find that offensive? Why should I have to explain simple common sense to you? Are you out of highschool?


Do you happen to attend the Thieme affiliate, Amador Bible Church, outside Sacramento off of New York Ranch rd? Pastor Major Billy J. Puryear?




Truthtesty

Voltaic

Quote

I'm going to sound like a jerk for asking this, but your latest post compels me: are you a native speaker of English/American English? Maybe I am out of line assuming too much and English is a second language for you so some of these meanings are lost. If so, that's my fault. It can happen on the internet with a globa audience.

Truthtesty:
Are you a native speaker of English/American English? You can't even spell global.



Truthtesty

Voltaic

Quote

"Vilify" means to speak ill of someone, make vicious and defamatory statements about someone, or to spread negative information about someone. Are you saying that Hitler and Saddam and Koresh spoke negative, defamatory information against themselves? Are you saying that there is no speaking ill of Thieme in this thread?

Truthtesty: Yes, I am, inadvertently. They brought thier own negativity to themselves, either by thier own actions or words.

Voltaic

Quote

Look, you may agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, but the simple defintion of the word I chose makes my meaning above clear. If I say something negative about you, I am vilifying you. Whether it's true or false, good or bad intent, doesn't matter; that's what the word means.

Truthtesty:Wrong. Check the meaning. If it's true it's not vilifying.
[www.m-w.com]

Saying that Hitler was evil, because he murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews is not vilifying. It just a negative fact - the truth, which Hitler brought on himself. Stating the details of it, is not slander or maligning. For victims of Hitler, Timothy Mcveigh, BTK, David Koresh, Jim Jones and others mentioned, to state the details of what the perpetrator did, is just stating the simple facts. It is important for the healing of the victims and as a warning for others.

Hitler spreading Nazi propaganda vilified the Jews. (Note Voltaic makes no mention of how Thieme vehemently vilified thousands of christians by of "bleeding heart liberals" or by calling black people "melanoderms", there are many more instances of Thieme's vilification of people, all of it, is on tape or in Thieme's literature.)



Truthtesty

VOLTAIC SAID:
This is actually what my very first post on this forum said: that each of us should examine our own consciences when making statement as are made here.

QUESTIONS:
1. Now that you have delivered your message to all of us here, not just to Testy, what else useful do you have to say to us?

2. Since you are so solicitous of our moral condition, what about all the other forums that need your help to be reminded of their spiritual danger? Or is this forum the only one you have graced with your advice? If it is the only forum you are attending to, WHY? BE HONEST.

VOLATIC SAID:
I'm sorry but you aren't reading or are ignoring what I am saying. "Villify" means to say something negative about someone.

COMMENT:
VILIFY does NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS. Use your dictionary before you attempt to instruct others. You cannot invent definitions Webster's NEW WORLD DICTIONARY says ABOUT VILIFY:

QUOTE:
VILIFY: TO USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE ABOUT OR OF; TO DEFAME.

WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY:
Vilify
VIL'IFY, v.t. [from vile.]

1. To make vile; to debase; to degrade.

Their Maker's image forsook them, when themselves they vilified to serve ungovern'd appetite.

2. To defame; to traduce; to attempt to degrade by slander.

Many passions dispose us to depress and vilify the merit of one rising in the esteem of mankind.

[This is the most usual sense of the verb.]
END QUOTE

Now suppose you be honorable enough to specify the VILLIFICATION TO THE PERSON OR PERSONS INVOLVED OR STOP YOUR SILLY INSISTENCE OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL SUPERIORITY OVER US.

Oh I know, you are too righteous to actually be specific! You can't be soiled by mentioning specifics lest you be contaminated by someone else's immoderate language! WelL YOU CAN ALWAYS REBOUND. Can't you?

You ARE DEFENDING THIEME ON THIS THREAD AMONGST PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INJURED BY HIS FALSE TEACHINGS. What do you expect us to say? You keep saying the same things over and over.

You have had your say. Now if you don't have anything else useful to say, why not consider moving on to another forum or thread here or elsewhere that needs your superior ministry?

I am SURE they will be easy for you to find.


And use a DICTIONARY next time you tell us what something means. You are like the character in Alice in Wonderland who says words mean what he wants them to mean. WRONG.

Hello, I am new, my first post:

I guess I am confused by all of the posts as far as labeling a church a cult. Why cult? When does a church become a cult? When is what a pastor teaches heresy? How about blasphemy? Evil?

My opinion about Theime is as follows: I beleive he is a man who loves God, and has devoted his life to preach God's word. Is Theime infallable? No, but neither is any pastor.

As belivers we attend church to worship, give praise, receive communion, give an offering, learn God's word, etc. I have never seen Theime, listened to one of his tapes, or watched a DVD. I have read numerous books of his though.

If we agree that as belivers we attend church, then here is what may be happening. I think it is as simple as idolatry. Really I think it's that simple.

Lets take a little journey back in time. After Christ arose it was approxamatley 35 AD. John the last author of the Bible died around 100 AD. About 350AD the Catholic Church started rule over the Roman Empire. Around 1000AD the church split into the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. 300AD to about 1300AD was known as the "Dark Ages." Around 1350 the Reformation started. There were many reformers: Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. You had the Church of England, Bloody Mary, Queen Elizabeth, the Spanish Inquisition, and other events. After 1000 years of Catholic rule by the Pope the world now had Catholics, Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Puritins, Menonites, Presbeterians, Protestants, etc. The world was changing. Many of these reformers were persecuted, even burned at the stake. They were called Heriticts, some I would guess were considered cult leaders, or false prophets even.

Then came the age of enlightment, the industrial revolution, and here we are today. Along the way many great men of God studied, and wrote many study guides. This was all made possible from the reformers before them (I know, God is the real reason it was possible, but it was the men God used)Many different interpretations of the Bible were written. In the early part of the 1900's a man named Cyrus Scofield wrote a study Bible. In the mid 1900's a prodigy of his named Lewis Shafer published his Systematic Theology. Lewis Shafer founded the Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924. Guess who studied under him? That't right Theime. I know what you are thinking. Looks and sounds like a list of all the popes.

My point is that for the last 650 years or so, a lot of men have devoted their lives to studying God's word, preaching God's word, and spreading God's word. All of them have had their critics. All of them have died, or will die. All of them sinned over and over again. None of them were, or are infallable. Nobody ever will be infallable.

We have been blessed by the knowledge that is at our fingertips, and at the same time it can really be confusing. Just go to google and type dipensations, covenant theology, tounges, tithing, baptism, woman pastors. abortion, prophesy, etc. and you can spend hours reading pastors, theologians, doctors of theology, and plain old regular people all quoting scripture, and all contradicting each other.

Theime's books have aided me greatly in my walk with God, my spirtual growth, my understanding of God's will. My understanding of God's plan.

Back to the idolatry, but first one more thing. If Theime's "flock" look to him in idolatry, one could ask is that Theime's fault? Maybe, more on that later. If it's not idolatry, then it could be what Paul warns the church of Phillipi in his letter. He warns of pastors who put themselves first. Pastors who believe that the people are there because of themselves not because of God. Is Theime guilty of this? Maybe. One could say that any pastor who ends up where Paul is talking about could be called a cult leader. Or would he be a heretic? Again, I have no idea.

Back to the idolatry again. I think that many people for some reason idolize other people. Just pick up any magazine, or watch any news show. What is the top story? Britney Spears, OJ Simpson, Linsey L., Paris Hilton, etc. etc. etc. We are at war and the top stories on TV are about Britney, or OJ. So, with this mentality that seems to have taken over many people today it does not suprise me that a Christian would idolize a pastor.

This isn't something new. It happens at quite a few places. There are some larger churches that on purpose have different pastors each week to prevent this. To do this you would have to be a large church to be able to pay three or four pastors. I think it's a good idea, if financilly possible.

The question is this: Does Theime think, or did he think that the people came to see him, or to worship God? Did the 1000's of books and tapes get ordered to hear him, or hear God's word? Did his church grow because of him, or because of HIM?

Theime has a sin nature. I think it would be hard to accomplish everything he has, and not be tempted to think that he actually had something to do with it. I think it would be hard to stay humble, and to show humility.

As for Theime's theology, well that's a whole other topic. Like I said before just go to google, and type in any his theology, and you will find opponent & proponents.

This is a cult site, so therefore I am only trying to address the cult debate.

Like I said, I have read many of his books. I have never sent a penny to his church. I don't have a poster of him hanging in my bedroom. I pray to God the Father, through Jesus Christ.

Here is a good question for one to ask themselves. If you go regularly to a local church, and you like your pastor, and you like your church, ask yourself this. On the few days each year that your pastor goes on vacation, or is sick, and there is a guest pastor in his place, what goes through your mind the instant you find out your regular pastor will not be there, and there is going to be a guest pastor. Do you think something like "Gee, if I would have known this, I would have stayed home this Sunday?" If you have ever thought anything like that when your regular pastor is not there, than you may be an idolitor. My guess is that if there was a way to monitor these thoughts at Theime's church trouughout the years when he was away, most of the congregation were probably dissapointed when he wasn't there.

People are supposed to go to church to hear God's word, not Pastor Tom, Dick, Harry, Bill, Ted, or anyone else.

Again, is this Theime's fault, or the members? I guess one could argue either way. I guess that's why they call it a forum

One last thing for now. As belivers we are all part of the body. Our walk with God is as different as our fingerprints are. So are our sin natures. As we grow spiritually we become more knowledgeable of God's word. More understanding of God's will. Paul says beware for knowledge puffs out ones chest. If as a mature beliver we attend a church, and the pastor is misguided, or conveying something that we don't agree with, show wisdom, and thank the Lord that he has blessed you with the knowledge to even know the difference. There is nothing wrong with debating the Bible, as long as your true intent is to serve God, and glorify God while doing it.

We live where we can access almost anything on the internet. From the reformers to pastors today such as Theime, all of these men have aided Christians to discover the mystery doctrine that the Bible talks about. We haven't even scratched the surface, but think of the resources we have as compared to someone 200 years ago. Be thankful for every pastor who lived before you, and for their work. Trust God, and He will lead you to the right church, the right books, the right websites, etc.

Thankfully, God's word is abundent on the internet, and unfortunatley at the same time satan the prince of the cosmos is present there too.

Keep seeking Him, pray for Him to guide you on your journey, and love your fellow belivers that are part of the body, the bride of Christ.