[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

You have mostly confessed that the real problems were not visible to the average participant.

And you are correct.

But when Paul made reference to any owing him their "very lives," was this because he was the one who brought them the gospel, or because he was some wonderful, special person that they just had to fawn all over? The problem with the former is that if someone else had been the ones bringing the gospel, then it would have been that person's place to say that. And it would not be wrong. It just wouldn't mean what we are thinking of when we read it (whether directed at Paul or someone else).

Paul wasn't making himself out to be some special person that they should never question. He was pointing out that if they were thanking anyone for their introduction to Christ, it was Paul.

Ohio asked why they said what they said and I merely said it was a quote from Philemon. I am not saying it was properly applied. I heard Ray Graver say repeatedly that "he owed his life to WL". That was his personal testimony, opinion, delusion, whatever. Never did I stand up and say the same. WL did not mean that much to me as I have said repeatedly on this forum.

Originally Posted by OBW

When it comes to saying that anyone could, if asking the right questions, see certain problems in the LRC, you are correct. But did you even know there was a Daystar to ask about?

Yes, I knew the basics, but I did not invest in it and did not lose any money on that scheme.

Originally Posted by OBW

Were you aware that when Ray Graver made statements about Lee being the MOTA, he was basing it upon a carefully orchestrated series of separate statements — often not even in the same meeting — in which there was a back-door statements about who would be the minister of the age. It would be the one with the ministry of the age. And what was the ministry of the age?

No, I was not privy to back room maneuvering. That said it seemed pretty easy to put two and two together. It always seemed very clear to me that if WL wanted to put a stop to this he could, so I didn't put any stock in his public denials and pretense about not saying these things.

Originally Posted by OBW

In a significantly separated statement, Lee would make it clear that there is no useful ministry at the time other than his. Therefore if there is always a ministry of the age, then it must be his. And if the one who brings the ministry of the age is the minister of the age, then . . . . you figure it out.

Yes, you would have to be dim witted to not figure it out. So then his public disavowal seemed suspect at the very least.

Originally Posted by OBW

If you didn't hear all of those statements close enough together to remember one when you heard the other, then it slipped right on by. But Ray's grandiose declaration, no matter what you think of him personally, was not dreamed up in a vacuum. He was just doing exactly what you suggested. Connecting the dots. And Lee expected each of us to eventually get on board with it and be obligated to him for everything that he could publish.

And despite those carefully separated statements, it was just such separated statements that made some of Lee's deposition testimony false in the Mindbenders/God Men lawsuits. He declared that he never said any kind of thing as grandiose as apostle or minister of the age or anything else like that concerning himself in those depositions. Yet he had made some of those independent statements already. Just not as voluminous at that point and not in as close a proximity to each other as to be as obvious to everyone.

While I still agree that applying the "cult" label is not particularly helpful, the things that bring people to arrive at those conclusions are very real. And even if you don't like that label, there is clearly a problem relative to several of those characteristics that collectively indicate there is a serious problem with the LRC. Don't like "cult"?

I have no issue with the "cult" label. My issue is with a definition that is not useful. The NT teaches us to "give honor to whom honor is due". Yet according to this definition it would be very difficult to discern someone who is giving honor with someone who picks up on two or three of these points. Is it now an indicator of a cult if someone has given their life to know the scripture? Why would I want to listen to a pastor who doesn't know the scripture? Is it an indicator of a cult if you disagree on some point with a Christian denomination? Is it an indicator of a cult if they "give the scripture an extra twist"? Am I the only one who sees these criteria as idiotic?

Originally Posted by OBW

Fine. But you agree that there are problems with the issues. Problems beyond the simple fact that groups have leaders. And we are a "personality cult' of Christ. The entire mantra of the LRC is that they are a new and better way. And they have twists on scripture that require external overlays so that the revised meaning can be derived from words that could never get there in any form. And they are busy pointing at the errors of all of the remainder of Christianity.

(Some will point to the fact that we are doing the same re: the LRC. but it is notable that we are not generally saying that of all other Christians, just those who take extreme positions related to all other Christians. Mainly the LRC as far as we are concerned.)

I agree that none of us are transformed. We all come up short. Apollos wasn't clear on the word, but he wasn't making merchandise of the saints. James was involved in a "personality cult" which he later repented of. But he didn't set himself up as a "false Christ" and he didn't fabricate stories. Peter and Paul both pointed out errors in teaching that was generally accepted, that didn't make them cult leaders. How do you come up with a definition that makes James, Apollos, Peter, Paul and Jesus all leaders of a cult?

The criteria is simple:

1. Your ministry is based on a lie -- a fabricated story.
2. The purpose of your ministry is to make merchandise of the saints.
3. You set yourself up as a false Christ.