A Path of Truth adherent continues correspondence and shows the true nature of the ministry; in particular an inability to handle logic; an unshakeable belief that their leaders are perfected i.e. infallible, and their polarising propensity for ad hominem attacks. It’s an interesting read for those wanting to dig deeper into the Victor Hafichuk’s, Path of Truth.
In previous posts I have shared email exchanges with Victor Hafichuk of Path of Truth, a Christian Ministry accused of being a cult and his long-time close offsider Paul Cohen. I’ve analysed the ministry and more recently commented on an adherent Emmanuel Okpanachi.
In my first post I ‘called’ the ministry in the area of excessive judgmentalism but did state my belief that they were indeed a genuine Christian ministry, something that I think all other detractors I read denied, sometimes viciously. I explained that I agreed and accepted much of Victor’s teaching, even some of the less widely accepted views but not all.
In my more recent post I responded to an email from Manny which started innocently enough but toughened in stance as he went through my words. Manny stated that he accepted 100% of his leader’s words, and then cherry-picked things that he had an issue with in my writing.
In this, his second communication he ignores some of my responses and cherry-picks more, becoming more accusatory. In both communications he fails the test of integrity; applies false logic, and totally avoids the core issue, that if researched has the potential to prove error in his leader – something that they can never let occur, for their belief is based on something other than genuine truthseeking – an activity that applies logic onto fact.
The subject matter of contention; the one that triggered the entire sequence of emails was the figure of Six Million Jews [supposedly killed in the Holocaust, of course]. I asked for validation (i.e. evidence) for despite widespread belief in the story and secular legal enforcement of belief in several countries, I haven’t ever found credible evidence.
Path of Truth explained that they accept this story to be a fact; questioned whether it even mattered whether it was Six Million or another figure; informed me that they had no interest in educating themselves over the matter (one of them referred to rampant anti-Semitism), told me that Jesus had told him there was no need to change what he had written, but then changed it and then cast me off as one who loves the sound of his own voice, being deluded, a nit-picker and lots more, all negative.
Condemnation from a human being would be fine if I respect them. When they have failed to demonstrate their integrity as an organisation worthy of expounding the truth, then I will and have simply taken note of their condemnation, consider what they have to say, then in fear and trembling await the real Judge that knows all and is just.
The Second Communication
Dennis, I appreciate your comprehensive reply. You have systematically gone through my commentary, and answered it bit by bit. I respect that you invested your time and energy into challenging what I have said. Now, in my reply to you (and any reply from here on) I won’t be dissecting all of your text, but only certain points, which I feel need to be addressed.
So the entire conversations past, present and future will only be about what YOU feel! Hmmmm. I thought you wanted to engage? Manny, you are arrogant in the face of my cooperation. I will though, respond and answer your questions here, which are mostly single-mindedly determined to achieve one thing and one thing only, to validate your beliefs in regards to your leaders. I will address this more at the end of my reply and when I make this response public and offer my commentary online later.
Just before I begin, I’d like to pick up on something you observed in my original email. That something is the spelling of ‘read’ as ‘red’. In the email I initially spelt it as ‘read’. But I thought to myself. ”Let me change it to ‘red’ and see what he has to say about it”. And you certainly had something to say about it, in the latter part of your reply.
Then if what you are saying here is the truth, then you probably achieved your goals. You never gave me my score though, which in itself is telling. I’ve either caught you out on a minor cult-like behaviour which you are covering up for or I must have passed your test.
> By the way, I’ll have you know that I usually make no conscious effort to spell ‘read’ as ‘red’ (even though I agree with the logic behind it).
If you don’t do it again this may validate your claims here. If you change your behaviour as a result of my words, so-be-it and, “Good!” I say. If you do proceed with this Victor’s idiosyncrasy then we will eventually all know as it all comes out. Whatever!
There are two issues as I see it – one, the social norms; the widespread acceptance that the past tense of “read” is spelt the same way but pronounced differently. It is a quirk of the English language. I am a wordsmith and the only place in which I see this different behaviour of phonetic spelling of the past tense is with Victor & Paul, and in your supposedly one-off, abnormal usage with me.
The second is the motivations behind the idiosyncrasy. I can’t tell WHY you did this for you never told me. Generally though I have trusted you to say what you mean and mean what you say – integrity in communication is the prerequisite for truth – something that is important to me, and I thought, you [pl]. That you deceive (for whatever reason) assumedly to test me, then my response will be false, or unjustified, or subject to deception – put it however you wish.
Let my words stand. Let your actions stand. I’m not interested in why you did it. I work with evidence and draw conclusions from that. If you provide me false evidence then my conclusions will be wrong. This is simple logic. You now tell me that you don’t normally conduct yourself this way. Your norms changed for me. If they change in the future back, then so be it.
> And one more thing, I’d like to ask a question which I didn’t ask in the commentary. That question is:
> If you find Victor and Paul (Christ’s servants) to be excessively judgemental, prideful, aggressive, and their conduct to be based on arrogance, I wonder what you would think of their Master?
> ‘It is enough for a disciple to be like his teacher, and servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!’ (Matthew 10:25)
I love, respect and honour Him as the Son of God. I consider Him perfect in all ways and NOT “excessively judgemental, prideful, aggressive and [His] conduct to be based on arrogance”. You will need to draw your own conclusions from that. I’m sure you will have already.
> Now, onto the reply:
> > If you think that a godfearing man can’t come up with a few words of wisdom then scrub the books of Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs out of scripture why don’t you?
> Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs – all inspired by God. Now, in regards to the ‘wisdom’ you bring forth (in the ‘Words of Wisdom’ section on your website), are you saying they’re inspired by Him?
Of course. All knowledge and wisdom comes from Him at the outset. BUT that doesn’t put them in the same category as Scripture. You are not using sound logic Manny.
If you tell me that your name is Emmanuel then you say, “but you can call me Manny”, you are giving me two pieces of information. The former is fact. The latter is a demonstration of Wisdom. My “Words of Wisdom” could include the phrase, “Emmanuel likes to be called Manny”. You may say that is not correct because you never SAID that you “like” it, you only said that I could “call you Manny”.
Knowing human nature though; the wisdom I share is certainly inspired in the sense that God gives me the brains and understanding to derive that wisdom from life’s circumstances so that the wisdom the you prefer to be called Manny is derived from the application of logic with learning (common sense) which has a degree of wisdom, and thus is ultimately of a Godly nature.
You appear to object to the use of the word wisdom, specifically my placing of my own words under the category of wisdom. Did I claim to be perfect? No. Did I claim that the quotes of wisdom were equal with scripture? No. My words in reply to your challenge are simply words of wisdom the same as your words when expounding scripture to me can also be words of wisdom too at time you issue them.
> That’s right! That’s paraphrasing, just the same as Victor, Paul, and I assume you do when you expound a truth.
> Paraphrasing is not the same as expounding – nor are they similar, else they would be synonyms of each other. To expound is to ‘present and explain (a theory or idea) in detail.’ Whereas to paraphrase is to ‘express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.’ (Definitions provided by Google).
> I could have “lied” in the sense that I have misconstrued reality – yes, of course
> You definitely did misconstrue reality, for you presented things not as they actually were, but rather as you saw them. That is not objective reality, but subjective fantasy. It would’ve been reality if what you said was true, but it wasn’t. And what do you call someone who doesn’t say things which are true?
You failed to identify what aspects of my paraphrasing was inaccurate, therefore this is a moot point and I have no interest in arguing with you. My paraphrasing was done for the purposes of summary. I believe it was accurate. You have not identified any specific error within that paraphrasing but instead call me out on having an opinion that differs from yours in relation to using paraphrase AND clearly in something I don’t know what your problem is. You’ve had your opportunity to engage over that matter twice but it is obviously not important enough to specify the error in two detailed communications. The matter is now finished for me.
> A lie implies mal-intent.
> That’s what you understand a lie to be?
No. You are stupid. I said that a lie IMPLIES mal-intent. Putting words into my mouth and misconstruing what I say is symptomatic of someone with an agenda. Mal-intent is not a definition, it’s an attitude, just like you have in regards to me.
I understand a lie as being anything that’s not true; whether the person who said it had malicious intent or not.
So do I but you (and your leaders) DO imply mal-intent, frequently. In this sense you are playing with words. Calling someone a liar is aggressive and is not conducive to relationship building because it IMPLIES mal-intent. I assess most of your detractors to be in this camp – mal-intent does not exist, certainly at the outset of your exchanges, although this changes quite often after accuse them of lying.
> Those in the past who went around saying the world was flat (and some still believe so) were liars, because they were not speaking in accordance with the truth. From what I understand, a lie is a false word, statement, action, expression, deception, that is not in accordance with the truth. It could be said, for example, that women lie when they put on make up – presenting themselves to be physically prettier than they are.
One of the problems your ministry has is that it is widely perceived as caustic, divisive and judgmental. Calling people liars when there is no mal-intent is provocative and as with the “red” used for “read” conduct, it is not the normal use of the word.
Luckily I don’t respond in the same way as others (emotionally and defensively), but instead focus on the core issue, which in this case is that Paul, Victor and now apparently you believe a story that I don’t and that you will not dare to do the basic research to identify credible evidence that supports the story.
Using your definitions and logic then you are a liar, for you say that I’m foolish to believe something for which there is no credible evidence. You then, by your own definition, are a liar in the same sense that a woman puts makeup on.
> > I am opinionated. I speak my mind.
> If your mind is filled with truth, go ahead, speak it. But the fact that you say you’re opinionated leads me to think that you do not have the truth, let alone speak it. Truth is not an opinion.
You are right that truth is not an opinion BUT I/we can certainly have an opinion on or about truth.
Some people do not speak before they know the truth in certain matters. These people are wise. Others speak foolishness as if it were truth. These people are fools. You may consider yourself in the first category and me in the second, but there is another type of person Manny, someone that you and your leaders cannot accept exists because of your belief systems, and that is someone who thinks they know the truth in certain matters; who does speak it and is open to correction if they are in error.
It is my belief that this category DOES exist; that there exists people who DO indeed know the Truth, but who speak in error to some degree. I classify myself in this category. Unlike you, I believe that your leaders are also in this category.
Scary contentious stuff I know but there you have it!
> > To call me a liar based on your opinion is foolishness in the extreme, and [wait for it] this is based on your arrogance. You know me little, yet deign to call me a liar based on my opinion that P&V go too far in one aspect of their ministry and that they do so based on pride?
> I wasn’t calling you a liar based on my opinion. I called you one based on knowing that what you said wasn’t true.
Again you fail to comprehend that it is possible to be a mature person who conducts them self with a high degree of decorum; to demonstrate a high level of humility but to also err. Shock, horror, Manny, your leaders are in this category, and I’ve blogged about it.
Your foolishness is compounded because I have told you that there is a difference in our take on arrogance. Failing to accept that there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding, or failing to acknowledge a difference of opinion in an area lacking full knowledge shows dogmatism, and blindness – the very same thing you do with the Holocaust. Stuck record. Arrogance. Pride.
> > I have known Victor and Paul for nearly a year now, and though I don’t have the Spirit of God which gives spiritual discernment, I believe I have a natural gift of analytical discernment, and can recognise arrogance in a person.
> > Manny we all have that gift. The reason is that we are all proud people and when pride is apparent in another, it ruffles up against ours.
> How is it then that while you recognise arrogance in Victor and Paul, I don’t recognise any at all? One of us must be wrong in our discernment.
- It is not there and I am wrong
- It is there and you don’t can’t see it and I can/do
- We are not talking about the same topic
The latter two are truth.
> > Just because P&V act in humility does not mean that they ARE humble, or don’t have pride, the sort of pride that spawns the arrogance that spawns the excessive judgmentalism that I’ve fingered.
> Are your assessments correct? That’s what I’d like you to consider.
> We all (including P&V) are sinners, all born into sin and are tarnished with it, through and through.
> Although Paul and Victor were born into sin, they don’t live in it, and are sinners no longer. Why? Because they have been divinely transformed, and given a new nature. They have undergone a metamorphosis and are no longer who they used to be.
> Not everyone in the world is a sinner. There are those who are spirit-begotten children of God, and those children of God cannot sin. That is what the Scriptures tell us:
> ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.’
> > You are right. We can agree on that, but in the light of my above words, neither does it preclude the possibility that arrogance does exist and that error has occurred or that wisdom has lacked within the ministry.
> You believe the ministry to be of God, don’t you? Why would wisdom be lacking in a ministry ordained by God? Did God, Who is Wisdom and a Provider, not provide them with enough wisdom?
> > > You may say, ‘I don’t have a problem with the truth they are speaking, it’s the way they are delivering it’. Well, Dennis, how should they deliver it? Would you rather they deliver it sweetly and soothingly, and leave a person’s ego intact?
> > I do not say this and if you read carefully I say the exact opposite! I advise readers to specifically assess P&V’s words and ministry despite the way they speak or do things!
> Could you answer the first question? That is, could you say how they should deliver the truth? If they’re currently doing it the wrong way, what is the right way?
Your paradigm is that one is either right or wrong. This is PoT teaching 101. I do not subscribe to this belief system. I find that Jesus alone was perfect and that your belief system belies reality.
The key issue here is your interpretation of one scripture, that we are perfected in Christ. That from this one man (in this case Victor) is infallible is unwise. You also refer to something “as of God” with a binary approach. To claim an exclusive lien on the truth you must exercise perfection. This is only logic. Jesus did both. You [pl] don’t. When you demonstrate perfection THEN I will listen to your analysis differently.
Proof is the human failing visible within P&V’s ministry where you (three of you so far) not only believe something with no credible evidence, but that they refuse to consider the possibility that they have erred. The basis of this belief system in the face of evidence to the contrary is pride. It is necessary to resort to illogical words/actions and logical fallacies in order to defend against detractors when they finger issues like I have.
The BEST way is to be humble enough to be corrected. When you believe that you are perfected then this is an impossibility. You are most likely seeking a practical solution to your question. I will not give this to you for this will be a logical fallacy on my part. If the core issue is pride, then humility is the antidote. Saying/doing anything different doesn’t address the core issue – it is simply dealing with symptoms, thus I cannot answer your question other than to address the core issue of pride.
The simplest and easiest way is to do the research into the Six Million, produce credible evidence and “face the music”. When you find what I have found, and apply this into your teaching with truth and logic you will have no alternative than to admit that your belief systems are faulty. I won’t hold my breath on that score for you have all so far shown a strong resistance to simply asking the questions.
> and if you ascribe wrong motives to a man simply defending himself then it’s not Christian truth either.
> Why did you feel you needed to defend yourself from those who weren’t even attacking you? They may have been opposing you, but I do not think that’s the same as attacking. I think your ego got offended, and you wanted to avenge yourself, by going into defence mode.
You mocked. I defended. Defending is neither necessarily a crime nor a sin. You and P&V do attack. You JUSTIFY those attacks on the basis that it is the truth, however then logically your Ministry is either perfect or this is circular reasoning.
As I have identified error, you use circular reasoning and nothing anyone can do will change this situation unless:
a) I accept perfection from P&V, or
b) PoT alters their claims of perfection.
I spent a lot of time attempting to do a) however PoT has failed in this regard.
I cannot control and don’t want to predict PoT’s future responses. Based on all communications to date I see a simple impasse.
> How can I tell the motives of P&V Manny?
> Exactly. You don’t know their motives – whether they had good or evil intent.
You shouldn’t ask me stupid questions then.
I said, “their conduct in regards to me was ungodly. They erred.” I stand by that assessment.
So how can you then label their actions (i.e. conduct) as evil and ungodly?
> > Don’t belittle the words I have chosen Manny. It is not just a “statement”; it is 69 words of serious wisdom,
> Where did you get this wisdom from, Dennis? Isn’t it from your own mind? If so, it is you who is the source of wisdom, not God.
No, and you are changing the subject – a logical fallacy called bait-and-switch. I am talking about the 69 words. You talk about the source of the wisdom not what that supposed wisdom is. It is foolishness to conduct communications along these lines. This is twice now that you have failed to address the wisdom (or otherwise) contained in my words. This indicates an aversion to dealing with the substantive matters.
To you, the source of your wisdom has been validated to your satisfaction. P&V meet that criteria, therefore you ignore logic and refuse to countenance the possibility of error. This sets you up so that (as I said before) you CANNOT consider the possibility that error exists. THAT is the reason why you have done, and until you consider the possibility that P&V have erred, I venture to suggest that you WILL NEVER risk the possibility of finding error by commencing an open-minded exploration into the truth!
> multiple concepts wrapped up in no less than three sentences that contain seven clauses, more than a dozen rich words all withdirect biblical basis.
> Yet you provide not even a single Scripture to support what you’ve said.
You belittle the words.
You can’t show me a scripture that specifically supports the contention that you are a boy (or a girl) or aren’t a homosexual or Martian, or that I should reside in Samoa. They don’t exist. I’ve already explained to you, apparently unsuccessfully it seems, that scripture does not “support” every life situation directly.
Scripture sets the scene; the values; the principles and gives examples from life, but we must apply the principles and teaching in the power of the Holy Spirit into our specific situations. That’s what you do. That’s what P&V do. That’s what I do too.
Refusing to assess the wisdom by denying the validity of the messenger is arrogance and just another very simple logical fallacy.
> I want to show you something that you haven’t picked up on yet . . . you know the basis for which Victor cast me off? Think about it for a minute . . . you’ve read it all . . . “that he loves the sound of his own voice”.
> > Remember that? And do you know the response from the real me, what I really am?
> > I said, “Guilty!”
> > Yes that’s right Manny. I pleaded guilty to the charge.
> So what if you pleaded guilty? What good does it make if a criminal pleads guilty, yet keeps re-offending? You admit to loving the sound of your own voice; you plead guilty to the offence. But knowing that it is wrong, what will you do now to change it? Humble yourself, perhaps? Talk less, listen more?
Yes and No.
Guilty as charged means that I accept the accusation. Assuming that this sin (your words “knowing that it is wrong”) is not necessarily valid. Nor does it need to be a binary issue as you make it out to be. You are reframing something personal from my life into your black and white paradigm, which I will not accept.
First, it is not you, nor Paul or Victor that I am answerable to and I know it. Sorry to burst your bubble there Manny.
Secondly, false humility is sin. I have been granted the grace to enjoy my successes as well as the grace to be forgiven for my errors and failings. Am I perfect? No. Am I God? No. When I have a brain and use it; when I speak words of wisdom I am permitted scripturally by principle and in specific situations by the power of the Holy Spirit to acknowledge my successes. You may question and accuse as much as you like but there is a lot that I do that I am proud of and that includes my capacity to divine truth in a fallen world. You will need to get used to this fact.
For the record, I repeat that I do not submit to your analysis that just because I agree that I love the sound of my own voice I have no grounds for this or that this is a reason to write me off as your leaders have. Get used to that.
I think that humbling yourself, and controlling your tongue, will be really beneficial for you.
I told you that I am not interested in what you think. That you persist in telling me what you think when your leaders have already condemned me, and when I have told you that it doesn’t matter to me what you think, then proceeding with advice like this just makes you look stupid.
If you received a tongue-lashing from Victor and Paul (as you claim in the article), I certainly think it was justified. The tongue-lashing you received can be considered a punishment, for the miss-use of your own tongue.
Paraphrased of course. You believe that P&V always get things right. This is your belief, not mine. As I have said before in as many words, kudos to them if they get/got it right, but shame on them if they don’t. In my case I believe it’s the latter.
> > Specifically they still judged me, for having the temerity to love the sound of my own voice and exercising my rights to not only have an opinion on the six million figure but to share it. Crumbs! That’s not very Christian-like is it Manny?
> Dennis, what do you think your opinion is worth to God?
The same as your opinion is worth to me.
If it logical and based on fact – lots for it will concur with His. If it is illogical or based on error – nothing for He knows all and is just.
> Secondly you are missing the point that I have done the research, hundreds and hundreds of hours of it too BTW over years!
> I wonder, if all the research has enhanced your life?
If so, in what way(s)?
I have a greater understanding of not only the deceptions that exist out there but more importantly a greater idea of how to identify deception, like I have with the common knowledge that you and your leaders have gotten sucked in by.
Has it made you into a better person?
Has it positively transformed your life, and the life of others?
Yes, a lot but clearly not in your [pl] case.
> > The Holocaust however is different. The story is so much a part of our “common knowledge” that big picture approaches are only suitable for the hard-core investigators. 99.9% of the world however has to start with something very small, letting them smell a rat, then very slowly as they can cope with the paradigm changes required, keep looking at the evidence little bit by bit until they can come to their own conclusions that basically it never happened like it’s been presented to us for 70+ years.
> To what degree do you think the Holocaust ‘story’ is fabricated? 75% accurate? 50% false, 50% true? You’ve been asking questions, and I take it that you’ve come to conclusions? Now I’m not so much interested in the conclusions themselves, but in the supporting rationale behind them. What’s the rationale, that led your to your conclusions – if you’ve made any?
Funny that you want to know this from me. One would have thought that you were confident in common knowledge. Quantifying what a condemned man believes is rather foolish except when it comes to Jesus on the cross of course. I’m not Him. That makes you a fool – first because you don’t do the research and secondly you are asking an opinion of one who you [pl] have condemned.
But, that said, I’ve blogged about this extensively and told you previously where you can find my thoughts. Not only do I do a full summary of the three key issues and my take on them, I also give my rationale. That you continue to ask these questions shows me that you are not prepared to do the basic research even when given opportunity to do so. Even if I spoon feed you, you refuse to eat. None is so blind as those who do not want to see.
Even though it is clearly a waste of time talking to someone who is too arrogant, lazy or scared to do the basic research, I will tell you my answer as a matter of completeness:
- Hitler’s intent to kill – – no evidence. Proffered explanations – highly implausible. Hitler’s knowledge of some maltreatment very probable. Likelihood of being worried about that – very low. Active instructions issued in any shape or form – 100% falsehood at this stage.
- Six Million – no credible evidence. Proffered proof – highly questionable. Evidence of around one tenth the figures is strong through natural causes including illness.
- Gas Chambers – no credible evidence and indeed an outright physical impossibility.
> The simple reason was that there simply WERE no Gas Chambers!
> What is your basis for saying this? What has led you to this conclusion? I’d like to you to show me your trail of evidence, and your line of reasoning.
Go back to the evidence offered and analyse it yourself, Manny. I’m not your Holocaust teacher. You believe the story. I don’t. You don’t even know the questions to ask (!) let alone have read the other materials I’ve written. Too bad for you, then eh? That’s rhetorical.
> > ‘Until there’s a change of nature, you won’t see a change in the system, no matter how well men think they understand it and can make adjustments. Man is the issue.
> > Yes, I agree, you are 100% right. More than that though evil is never the focus of the Lord’s attention – restoring relationship however is.
> > One of the big downers is to get people to try to fight a concept, or a big mirage. Jesus saved the world by addressing individuals’ needs and being obedient to His calling. God is not interested so much in changing the system as drawing individuals – me, you – into a closer walk with Him. He will worry about the systems and saving the world.
> > Hence my massive investment into teaching, helping you here now as a part of my obedience.
> Now under what circumstances does man’s nature change?
> It’s the arrival of the presence of God – for better or for worse! Jesus brought out the best and the worst in those who met Him!
> So, what brings the presence of God? Our humbling and seeking of it according of course to His purposes.
> Our repentance keeps it.
> Our pride stops it.
> > > Why do you presume to teach the things of God, when you have much to learn yourself?
> > What crazy logic are you using with this nonsense? Do not parents teach their children what they know? Can a young man not share what he does know about God to his wife and young family?
> Note the underlined word in the above sentence, and consider the context of your words. Who is the ‘you’ ? Who is being addressed?
You, Manny. I wrote to you.
Is it not Victor and Paul? So are they the child, and you’re the parent? Were you addressing your wife and family, in the words above?
You didn’t answer my questions. I am fully aware of your belief about P&V. I have a different opinion about their status before the Lord than you.
> Or does he have to know it all first?
> It would be supremely better if he himself was well-educated on a subject, and actually knew what he was talking about, before teaching others.
So you are hypocrite to tell me that the Six Million figure that your leaders believe in is fact when you are ill-informed on the subject and wish to remain that way.
By saying things that are not true, you do damage, and are not helping anyone at all. What you said in that paragraph (above, in red), you were just guessing at – speculating. It happens that you did say a couple of true things. But you did so blindly – you did not really know what you were talking about. If I asked you to write an essay about man’s nature change, it would reveal, even more so, that you did not, and do not, know what you are talking about.
Maybe so but this is conjecture based on your judgment that you understand something that I don’t. Funny that the subject I know a lot about and you don’t, you won’t do any research on!
What you said was not informed by an objective source, but rather manufactured from your own subjective reasoning. Your sentiments are not based and rooted in truth and objectivity; they are instead rooted in your own subjective mind. It matters not if you speak truth (and you have spoken some) but where that knowledge emanates from.
Your opinion. I’ve already told you that I do not value it. When you can show me the proof for the Six Million figure THEN you will have my ears as someone worthy of listening to.
> > Is it OK for him to teach in Sunday School when he is 40 years old, or does he have to be 50, or 60 or perfected first?
> If he is to be of benefit to others, he needs to know what he is talking about. I don’t think that in order to inform others, one needs to have perfect knowledge.
ne can know a basic amount, and still inform those who know little or nothing. But I would draw a distinction between those who are informers, and those who are actual teachers. I think there is a difference between those who pass on information (such as myself), and those who have been trained to be teachers by God (such as Victor and Paul).
I’m not interested in what you think until you address the key issue from all of this discussion. Show me the evidence of your belief in Six Million then I will know that you have done the basic due diligence of a man who genuinely wants to know/share/discuss the truth. Until then all I see, observe, witness and can deduce is that for some reason you believe everything that your leaders believe and are not prepared to research. That makes you someone with an agenda, for you have an a priori assumption that P&V are always right. I don’t share that a priori belief.
Now, I think it would be ideal, if a teacher had perfect knowledge. If he didn’t have perfect knowledge, he wouldn’t have maximum effectiveness, as a teacher. If he didn’t know everything about his subject, how would he be able to answer very advanced questions? But that’s another thing, do all questions need to be answered – in regards to spiritual matters? Isn’t it more important to do, rather than know? Jesus said, ‘Those whodo [not just know] my commandments are those who love me”.
> Dennis, what would you think of an algebra teacher, for example, who did not properly understand the subject, yet spewed out what he thinks he knows, to others? I wouldn’t want such a person teaching me. If he didn’t know his subject properly, I’d see him as unfit to be a teacher of that subject, at least to an advanced level.
Manny there is a lot that I agree with you and P&V. I suspect that there is heaps more that we have in common than many of your detractors however the sticking point is your [pl] dogmatic refusal to even understand the issue that I challenged Paul on, which was the Six Million figure.
Dennis, you need to learn. You need to learn the things of God, before speaking about them.
Manny, first, to date you have not earned my respect, thus I do not submit to your greater wisdom.
Secondly you need to learn. You need to learn the things of deception, before believing them or if that is too late then you need to adjust your reality when you learn new knowledge.
> The information is available to you at the Path of Truth. Avail yourself of it.
Manny, you are making a fool of yourself for not only have I done that I continue to do that. I downloaded a full set of all files of the entire PoT website, read every word which was a major investment into knowing and understanding your belief systems and I have read the best part of Victor’s entire biography – a major task for it is a tome. There is a difference between reading it though, and agreeing with it.
> Shut your mouth and open your receptors, to receive knowledge.
I thought that you were the one asking me questions and I was replying.
You are also obnoxious. This language, attitude and arrogance is the thing that your detractors find contemptuous and it shows a high focus on dogmatic supposed truth and a dearth of love.
I think that you should apply sound logic to the knowledge you already have to receive wisdom. Remember that you have accused me of seeking and living by knowledge previously, and that I’m not interested in your opinion until you have done the basic research on the first subject!
> After you’ve had teaching, and instruction, and tutelage; then you can inform others.
Thank you for the advice but I will be determining my career based on my faith, and understanding of what He wants. I’ve listened to you and will consider your words in the melting pot of my growth and learning.
> Read Victor’s own diary and you can see that he’s been doing great things for God for years even in his imperfection.
> From what I understand, Victor is spiritually perfect, as all children of God are. He has been made perfect by God. He has been imparted with God’s very own nature – which is perfect. But Victor is a human being. He has his weaknesses (which are not sins). And like the apostle Paul, I’m sure Victor glories in his weaknesses.
So you say! Whatever. The point remains that in his spiritual perfection he has no interest in dealing with the truth outside of his world spiritual perfection for a genuine truthseeker wants to know the truth. Neither he nor you nor Paul does though because even while informed that there is no credible evidence of the Six Million, you all consider it a fact and steadfastly refuse to even undertake the basic due diligence. Worse than that you defend the indefensible and even worse still, you then attack a genuine truthseeker who has actually done the research and applied logic to fact. Arrogant foolishness!
‘Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Some of those infirmities are the unwillingness to accept correction; the inability to apply sound logic and the refusal to engage meaningfully as you presented that you wanted to do at the outset of your communications.
> We are all self-biased Manny. All of us – yes even you, P&V. That is not the issue that matters. What matters is where we are going. Not who we were before we met Him.
> Have you actually met Him? And do you know Him?
You change the subject and turn the tables on me. I make a statement and you question my relationship with the living God. This is PoT conduct to a tee but it is a logical fallacy. It is akin to a child saying, Mummy the pigs have jumped the fence and are out eating the taros!” and the mother replying, “Can you even spell P-I-G?” and then losing the taro crop as a result.
The topic of my words related to bias. We all have it, including you.
> If you have met Him, as you claim, why is that you are not in agreement with those who have – such as Victor and Paul?
I can potentially be in agreement with V&P inside one minute when they (and you) do the basic research and we compare our notes on the topic that is the stumbling block and one that caused our differences. P&V cast me off with logical failure.
It is because you do not know Him.
You have changed the topic and reverted with an ad hominem attack. You may or may not be right in your claim BUT unless or until you do the research and/or show me the evidence, I’m very sorry Manny but you must accept that your opinion means nothing to me.
Otherwise you would share their same perspective, or align yourself with their viewpoint, which must be true, if their viewpoint originates from the One who is Truth. If you believe that they are from God (and that He teaches them all they need to know), why wouldn’t you accept the viewpoints of those who are His servants? If they are wrong on a matter, God will correct them. Do you think God can’t correct His own children?
I believe that He can.
> > That understanding can give us liberty only when we act on that understanding so when we are use the natural systems that God created then we have His blessing.
> What are those ‘natural systems’?
Any system that avoids the Scripturally prohibited usury. Any Mutual Credit systems are the natural way.
> Monetary systems built upon interest are accursed.
> What other alternative do you propose we use, as opposed to the current ‘cursed’ monetary system?
Any system that avoids the Scripturally prohibited usury.
> Have you devised a better one? I think you answer this in your following statement: ‘Having done the work, I’ve established a pure currency. It’s active, tested and ready for release but I’ve held it back to date.’
That’s right you read me correctly.
> > Why have you held it back?
> > The time is not yet right for me personally.
> When, do you think, will be the right time to release it? Could you give some more information about this ‘pure currency’? What makes it better than what is already in place?
Because it is a system that avoids the Scripturally prohibited usury. There are 19 negative reasons and a dozen or more positive reasons all explained in my book Mistakes of the Monetary Reformers, and on my various posts online.
> Yes and no. I have designed and conceptualised it. The blueprint is out there and has been for a couple of years. Anyone could take it and make it happen as it’s all Open Source and ownership in the commons. I’m an author and investigative blogger and while I could take it out to market and do the backend it’s not the right time for me personally. Many others are doing good things in this space, I’ve just taken it a little bit further than others, that’s all.
> Would you agree that such a task is too much for one individual to accomplish? The research, the testing, the implementation etc.
No. Not at all and the assumption behind your question is based on guesswork, a poor form of knowledge. The website and eBook is available for you. You simply have to avail yourself of it. I’ve told you that it’s all Open Source. This is not “one individual” although one individual has studied, researched, analysed, thought about and conceptualised a perfect traders’ currency.
> But what I’d really like to ask is: How would you introduce such a currency into the current market, and what success would it have, over the form of currency that has been established for so long?
Two issues – functionality and measuring success.
1. Currencies involve measurement. Shells, tally sticks and other things have been used as currencies in the past. A currency we use here in Samoa is a carton of tinned fish. A wedding gift will cost you between 10-20 cartons of 24 tines of herring. A functioning currency simply requires a unit of measure agreed and recorded in a manner agreed by two trading entities. Use a piece of paper, a digital technology, write it on a cigarette packet or simply memorise it. There are hundreds of ways you could do it. My design included a hybrid digital/non-digital system. Read about it online if you want more.
2. You have to define success. It is already a proven success for me in my eyes. Again though tenure in power is no valid measurement for quality. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day were in power long before His ministry. You fail in basic logic yet again.
> > Freedom from what?…
> > Free from monetary enslavement by TPTB
> Can’t one obtain that freedom by not taking out a loan in the first place?
Going into debt, especially with accursed moneys based upon prohibited usury increases our enslavement. You really should do some basic research Manny and get some knowledge in the subject.
Can’t freedom be obtained by producing one’s own products (such as food) rather than buying them from corporations and companies?
You don’t understand the subject. If you do the basic research on the Six Million; show me credible evidence (which is the first topic you have deliberately avoided) then I know that you are worthy of my time and I will help you understand the basics of money, but you will need to read my book and digest the subjects and issues before I waste any more time with you.
It’s all explained. If you want handholding I will give it to you but this will relate to understanding what I have written in the book/website and its significance NOT simply trying to pump me without reading the materials.
> And by the way, what’s TPTB?
> You make this an either or situation but it’s not. We can live within enslavement and still be winners in society just like we can live under oppression yet still be free through obedience to Him. The Jews still managed to keep their faith and identity even while in captivity. Paul and John were captives in a physical sense yet free in spirit.
> Interesting points.
> > Likewise with the monetary systems that enslave us – we can “go to heaven” even though we use accursed money but there is greater freedom from exercising increased wisdom in the money we use.
> Do you use money?
If so, why are you going along with the ‘accursed’ monetary system?
Because I have not quite yet got to the situation that I have fully developed the relationships in Samoa that I need to achieve the alternatives. I was hoping/planning to achieve this end of 2015 but it looks more like Q3/Q4 is more reasonable.
> Why not abandon it altogether?
I would if I could today. I will eventually.
> I’d like to know, to what extent does your lifestyle reflect your philosophy on the nature of money?
Something I tried to tell you before but you clearly haven’t yet ‘got’ Manny is that I’m for real. I’m genuine. I mean what I say, say what I mean and am totally dedicated to Him.
My lifestyle reflects my philosophy.
> Wouldn’t your life be more reflective of your philosophy/theory if you didn’t use money at all?
Oh how embarrassed you would be with these statements if you really knew the truth! I’d be wasting my time going into a lot of detail but I have spent years developing a pure currency specifically for people like you and me to be able to trade outside of the accursed currency systems. I have made substantial lifestyle changes in the last decade and hope to be Legal Tender cash free very soon because I know and understand things that you clearly don’t.
You’ll learn though, soon enough.
> Proof of this lack of knowledge is that the majority of Christians (including your Paul BTW) still see stock market gains as normal and healthy; use of credit cards, interest-bearing mortgages and cash all based on interest-bearing systems to not be a problem, whereas I do.
> Let’s say we live in your ideal world, where interest isn’t charged.
I simply apply the biblical principles, believing that when the Lord prohibits interest He not only means that, He also gives us the wherewithal to obey. It isn’t MY “ideal world” Manny it is His ideal.
> How then, does one profit from their business, and earn a living?
You raise a related but indirect issue, that of profit or earnings. This is a logical fallacy, again. They MAY be related but they do not HAVE to be related. Until you get a grasp on sound logic your capacity to reason will be stunted.
> Should we go back to a society, where bartering/trading was the common practice?
I never said that. This is your extrapolation and guesswork on a solution a little arrogant or foolish to present to a guy who has literally written the book. I will repeat my claim that I have devised a monetary system that complies with Scriptural guidelines.
> I actually think such a practice would be better, although there may well be some problems in the system of trading/bartering. I think that whatever system is devised – as long as it is devised and used by corrupt humans – there will always be problems.
I’m not interested in what you think Manny for you are waffling about secondary philosophical issues when I told you that the issue at hand is that I asked Paul for the evidence of Six Million. You have all avoided the basic due diligence and have failed to produce any credible evidence.
I have the capacity to talk ad infinitum about currencies, alternative currencies, the true nature of money and to do it at a high level having spent years researching the subject, mixing with the global industry leaders and as an investigative blogger exposing and in the process continuing to expose some of the worst criminals and fraudsters out there in this space. I have not only written a book on it, I have analysed the entire gamut of commentators and monetary reformers and summarised this into nineteen core issues. On top of that I have conceptualised and disseminated a positive biblical solution to each of those 19 issues.
However you have told me that I love the sound of my own voice and agree with P&V’s condemnation. I will not waste any more of my time on someone so lazy and unable to apply logic and do basic due diligence. The website and free eBook is there.
> > Where’s the contradiction? You summarised it well. We are all in the process of sanctification are we not? God sets the agenda, the scene, the script and we comply now or later – it’s up to us.
> No, not everyone in the world has begun the process of sanctification (which begins with faith and repentance). If everyone had, the world would be a strikingly different place.
So you say.
> > Also, what does God say about what you have to give to Him, even if it is EVERYTHING. Consider Isaiah 64:6, which says, ‘For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment’.
> > Consider the words of Jesus and what He told us it would cost us to follow Him. Was it 10% or everything? How much will you be taking with you when it’s your turn to depart Manny?
> Christ said “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). Are those the words you’re referring to? From what I understand, that doesn’t mean giving up EVERYTHING. Otherwise, it would mean giving up the essential things of life – such as food and water – in order to follow Him. And I do not think Christ advocated such a thing. We do not technically give up everything, but we do give up everything that is of great value to us; choosing to deny ourselves and obey Him, rather than keep our personal treasures.
> The cross is letting go of that which He commands us to let go of – either through the Scriptures, or as a personal command from Him. Things which we hold dear, such as sins/idols, career, family, home, possessions, and even our own life (in which case it will be giving up everything). But letting go is not the same as giving, is it? What I said, when I quoted Isaiah 64:6, was about giving – our own works of righteousness – to Him. We can’t give anything to Him. What do unholy creatures have to offer the Holy Creator? In answer to this statement: ‘So where did it all go? Sacrificial giving, necessities, and a unique set of circumstances I won’t bore you that brought me to my emotional knees.’, I was saying that your sacrificial giving, is a self-righteous work, which is of no value to God.
The “Cross” Manny means nothing of the sort. The cross means unto death where you have no need of food, water and all the things that you refer to. Speak to those martyred for their faith and try and pontificate this nonsense to them.
> Yes, Manny you’re smart . . . I do. I have an IQ of somewhere between 130-140 and I use my brain. I am passionate and opinionated as you know well by now. I have a big ego, am fearless to speak and I give everything a go, living on the edge. Sometimes living like this you fall off but you never miss a minute or an opportunity.
> > Might I ask, were you born between the months of March 21 – April 19?
Yes. UPDATE: Oops, sorry a wrong answer, No. I was born in October.
> Are you an Aries?
No. UPDATE: Libra
> > ‘Thus all mankind are brothers under His authority and it is His role to judge, not ours.’
> > > Why is it then that we are told to ‘judge righteous judgment’ (John 7:24)? If it is only His role to judge, as you say it is, why is that He told His disciples they would be judges (Matthew 19:28)? Furthermore, why is that Jesus, said that all judgment is given to the Son? If the Father has committed judgment to the Son, His child, aren’t those who are His children (those begotten of Him) entitled to judge? ‘then we usurp God’s future role of judgement.’ Why do you put His judgment into the future? As if it were something yet to happen. You are wrong by implying that it’s only a future event. God’s judgements have already happened, in a myriad of ways, for different people, both individually and collectively. His judgements have occurred, are occurring, and will occur. If God’s judgment were in the future, why is it, for example, that Jesus said ‘the ruler of this world [that is, Satan] has been judged’ (John 16:11)?
> > > ‘He wants us all to UNDERSTAND an issue and then take responsibility in His strength. This is a key part of the process of bringing His Kingdom into affect on earth.’
> > > The kingdom of God comes through understanding/knowledge? Yet again you spew your own ideas, and set them forth as though they were truth. Are there any Scriptures you can give to support this point you have made?
> > > ‘First He will put people who can hear Him and see the issues clearly from His perspective (i.e. in the light of scripture) – that is the role of prophetic ministry, Then He will put people who have the authority (anywhere doesn’t matter – He just takes and uses what He is given) and who have the faith to act on that understanding.’
> > > Again, ideological, unscriptural nonsense, erupting from the fantasy factory of your carnal mind. Once more I ask for Scriptures to back up what you are saying here?
> > I’m going to ignore these two sections for the moment. If you want me to address it in the future, raise it again and I will invest the time into it for you.
> There are three questions I asked you in the above section. And yes, I would like you to address them.
I will try to address your three questions here in a separate blog post at a later stage, hopefully prior to Christmas. Check out my website www.dennis.co.nz in the top of the right column. I will do it in a public forum using your questions as a foundation for my blogging in my usual format.
> > Understanding is indeed a form of knowledge. Jesus understood the temptation and wasn’t deceived like Adam and Eve were. His capacity to read through the deceptions of the people around Him and the devil in His own temptation gave Him an advantage. This came from multiple sources
> What multiple sources were those?
First He knew who He was. The Holy Spirit had only just alighted on Him with the Father speaking His identity. Understanding our identity correctly enables us to counter deception. Pride blinds, and this was the error of Adam and Eve.
Secondly the Holy Spirit was in Him and empowered Him through His total dedication to doing the Father’s will. Again this required humility and thus pride was countered enabling Him to chose
Thirdly He knew the Scriptures (knowledge) and applied them in the power of the Holy Spirit (wisdom). This negated the effect of deception.
> I strongly suspect though that even if I did search the whole website and find it, and show it to you, that the last thing I’d get is an apology and certainly not an attitude change!
> I very much doubt you would find it. Prove me wrong.
No. I told you that it is not important. It isn’t. I have a copy of your entire website on my Hard Drive and COULD do this, but in the context of the tone of this your second communication I see that I made the right decision about not worrying about proving my diligence and accuracy. I doubt that you would apologize or change your attitude towards me even if I did invest the time.
For the moment then it is a matter of “he said, she said”.
> It wasn’t an accusation Manny! Get real will you? This isn’t or wasn’t the Seventh Spanish Inquisition. I simply asked a question, explained what alerted me to it and Paul responded with the explanation. End of story. You’re right – you do lack discernment skills. Let it go.
> Just as I thought. No supplication of evidence. No substance. At this point I’m very much inclined to believe that you’re a liar.
Yes your attitude is a real stinker isn’t it? Important to you to nitpick making a big deal of something that neither Paul nor Victor nor me considered important.
I mentioned in passing note (if you will go back to my original words) while simply asking Paul why you guys did this. I made the claim that there is one example on your website where there is the use of the word “red” in a communication from one of your detractors had been changed – NOT to accuse you, but because it intrigued me and I wondered why – That’s all.
Your belief is in something that I challenged without investigating yourself, sadly not the first time. I note however that you use excellent “weasel words” to hint at a position without actually stating it as fact when you say, “At this point I’m very much inclined to believe that you’re a liar.”
I congratulate you for the words that you use for this is a valid viewpoint and logical. You are welcome to think this. I can understand the logic behind both your belief and see the logic that you apply. It is sound. However I think that you miss the importance of the context in which I made the statement. I had no reason to lie. None of us at the time considered it important. Only you do.
> > So the evidence for Hitler’s instructions to exterminate? Hmm it’s strangely absent! Surely in a country so thorough that we can know the distribution channels and quantities of toilet paper throughout the Reich, there would be some document, or some proof of some instructions to exterminate? But no . . . in 70+ years we’ve never found that missing document! Darn!
> Have you considered that the instructions might have been verbal?
Yes, I have indeed and I’m sure that you realise of course what this means when you think this through. Remember that this is a subject I have studied very well. FYI this is the ONLY explanation that exists by those who believe the story. You didn’t know that when you wrote it, I’m sure for you appear to have done no research into the matter. You see, there is no other explanation possible for the story.
So let’s look through the full picture of this topic.
You believe something. There is no credible evidence. You admit this tacitly and defend a concept, an idea, a story by suggesting that Hitler’s team never wrote it down. That’s fine and the absence of evidence doesn’t confirm that there wasn’t a verbal instruction BUT in the context that you have a nation that culturally was and still is in many ways highly organised with systems and documentation down to the minutest detail, run by a leader who was fearless in all other ways in front of virtually the entire known world; who instructed something so secretive, so much (I assume you will claim) shame that he was scared to write it down? You can keep believing it Manny but for me logic, common sense and a reasonable look at the situation admits that:
1. By your own admission there is no evidence; and
2. The only conclusion that I can come to following this absence of evidence and your suggestion that the instructions were verbal, is that Hitler was scared of being found out to have instructed extermination when all evidence points to his supreme confidence in the face of adversity.
Dogmatism is the opposite of truthseeking. Defence in the face of reason is akin to clutching at straws. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what Hitler said or didn’t other than what he was documented as saying, but when there is no evidence and the explanation offered makes no sense, sorry, you’re the crazy conspiracy theorist, not me!
Now, throw in heaps of lies, deceptions, frauds, and an agenda and the whole thing loses credibility. Darn, again!
I don’t buy it! You are welcome to your belief systems Manny.
> > The Gas Chambers are a total fiction too! Do the research and you’ll find that the evidence, yes, there’s that horrible word again, the evidence doesn’t stack up!
> By now, your research has surely produced stacks of evidence; evidence against the existence of Nazi gas chambers. Where is that evidence, Dennis?
I told you to do the research and you will find this out. Why you don’t do the basic due diligence is very telling, identical behaviour to your leaders. Furthermore, you are inverting the question Manny, a failure of logic, yet again. All I did was ask for evidence, for I haven’t found credible evidence. It is YOU Manny not me that makes the claims, or at least is defending those claims in the face of me simply asking questions.
If I claimed you are a girl when you are a boy, or a lesbian or a homosexual or a Martian when you are not, then it is incumbent of me to validate those claims. You do NOT have to produce screeds of evidence that you are something or don’t believe something I claim. If I say that I think the moon is made of cheese then laugh at you because you do not produce screeds of evidence that it is not, then who is the bigger fool? It’s a rhetorical question BTW.
> > I started truthseeking at the age of five, Manny. I met Him at the age of 20. I have spent the best part of four decades living with Him and learning to love and serve Him.
> You’re deceived and deluded, Dennis. One day you will find out how sorely you’ve been deceived, and how deluded you’ve been. It’s ironic how you say the Holocaust believers are deceived; yet you don’t recognise your own deception. How could you anyway? It wouldn’t be deception if one could recognise it.
On the contrary. I used to believe in Santa. That belief changed when I assessed the evidence and applied logic. I used to believe that Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust. That belief changed when I assessed the evidence and applied logic.
You yourself identified false evidence when you deliberately changed the word “read” to “red” for in order to see if I would note it or to see what I would say. I believed one thing based on the evidence before me. You revealed that the evidence I used was faulty then I was pleased to accept a potential error when the evidence came to light.
This Manny is the way that genuine truthseekers work – we alter our opinions and beliefs when we assess evidence that changes or becomes obvious. We apply cold hard logic on top of facts. We ask questions, think and in my case write. Common knowledge however says variously that because something is commonly believed (either globally or in specific situations) then we will ignore, or have no interest in assessing evidence.
Your problem is that if there is no credible evidence of Six Million and that if you believe in your leaders’ perfection then you have an identity crisis of the first order. A person outside PoT can simply ask a few questions and has an open mind in regards to the truth. Arrogance on the other hand means that we defend the indefensible; obfuscate when challenged with logic; issue ad hominem attacks and in the last resort cast problems adrift.
Oh how sad when you have to go through all this BS just because you believe that your leaders are perfect[ed].
> > I note that the entire planet runs on logic, that the Word of God is indeed the best demonstration of logic in practice.
> The world runs on logic, does it?
Except in and around you, yes.
Logic, like truth is self-evident to the humble.
The world exists. Logically there is a Creator.
We exist. Logically there is a Creation.
There is a force we call gravity. Logically if we drop an apple it falls.
Logically if God is trustworthy then He will cast His creation out and death will occur as He said.
> Why is there so much chaos, confusion, and lack of reason, in the world then?
Because of pride. There was an event summarised as the fall, whereby good became tarnished through pride. That though has nothing to do with whether or not logic exists.
Sadly though, you do not respect logic.
> And as for the Scriptures, there were many illogical things that happened – that is, things that aren’t logically explainable.
Scripture reports mankind’s failures, including incest, rape, murder, greed and foolishness of all kinds. This doesn’t ascribe those things to logic. I said that the “entire planet runs on logic” meaning that logic is a core, integral part of the way that God created.
You have failed in basic logic yet again for it is perfectly possible that logic and conduct are separate issues. Yes the world does indeed run on logic. It is logical that if God created a world perfect and set the rules (which BTW) include perfect logic, that if mankind failed, then the consequences would be that which He said would happen does happen. In a perfect world you would realise that if you believe something which there is no evidence that you would do the basic due diligence to establish the facts before calling yourself a truthseeker, or perhaps more accurately a truth speaker.
You haven’t, don’t, likely won’t and can’t. Logically that makes you a fool.
Manny this entire engagement occurred following my post about Paul Cohen’s resistance to the possibility that there was no credible evidence of the Six Million figure; his logical fallacy to start talking about rampant anti-Semitism (straw-man); his logical fallacy to attack the messenger (ad hominem); V&P’s logical fallacy to believe the Holocaust story in the face of a challenge (everybody knows) and then Victor’s logical fallacy (call to authority).
I have received now two communications from you. Both have been polite to a point but you have not engaged in the normal sense of the word. True engagement involves connection. Furthermore you have demonstrated both a poor understanding of logic and poor application of logic.
Your first communication did not address ANYTHING from your leaders, deliberately, thus you simply picked out my words, questioned them and waited for my response.
In the second communication you have again cherry-picked certain phrases and again made comment (mostly negative or challenging) but left off from any connection (aside from a very little on a secondary topic – alternative currencies). You, like your leader have also proven your unwillingness to do your own research into the core claims of the Holocaust story. That speaks volumes to me about your real desire to establish, love and worship truth. P&V trust common knowledge. You trust them. Great it you are right. Foolish if you are wrong. I’ve done the research. Clearly none of you have, therefore we are at an impasse. I will be moving on.
Thank you for your concern sufficient to invest your time into correcting me. I suggest that you take your leader’s advice Manny and accept that we are on different pages.
Aside from your rudeness, you are an arrogant fool Manny. You claim to love and speak the truth yet you believe the stories of man, fail to do due diligence when challenged and fail in the basic application of logic onto fact – not once, not twice, not three times but many, many times, as I have pointed out in both your communications time after time.
I value and apply logic. You don’t. I value and attempt to build relationships. You don’t. I love, serve and appreciate the truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the truth. You don’t.
I will also be summarising my take on the Path of Truth Ministries following these communications in an upcoming post, and some of the issues arising, for you have helped me understand some of the key issues relating to your conflicts with the world.
There will though, not be a third communication along these lines, at least from me anyway.
- Analysing Victor Hafichuk’s Ministry - the orginal post of May 2015 in which my call is "Yes, Christian but excessive judgementalism"
- Path of Truth Emails - the evidence
- More from Victor Hafichuk - analysing a third party communication
- “Path of Truth Cult” – Vanity Search - An adherent supports PoT but challenges following a vanity search
- Aquatechnology.net – Victor Hafichuk - A longstanding third party analysis
- Path of Truth – Logical Fallacies - Exposing multiple logical fallacies in an adherent's communications
- Path of Truth IS a cult - Analysis following claims PoT is a cult
- Victor Hafichuk – The Other Side - A Christian Ministry
- Victor Hafichuk “Nobody Is Perfect” - Confusing Perfected in Christ with Perfect
- Analysing A Path of Truth Detractor - Correcting a Disillusioned PoT follower
- Handling the Path of Truth - Leaving the PoT can be hard
- Path of Truth – Ripped Asunder - Victor fires his long-term 2IC
- Paul Cohen After the Path of Truth - Paul's opportunity/challenge
- Maturity in overcoming Path of Truth - An ex-PoT adherent bares all
- Victor Hafichuk – False Claim Analysis - Exposing 'Delusions of Grandeur'