JESUIT DIALOGUES!
(CA asks Tyrone questions on whether or not the Adventist Church should change).
In this setting, CA is confronting Tyrone, who has shown his displeasure of her tactics. Observe below that CA is now trying to confuse Tyrone and to make him do as much work as possible. She is trying to diffuse his views in order to establish her own.
CA on Wednesday, October 27, 1999 - 01:09 pm, wrote:
Tyrone,
If I understand your post correctly, you perceive that there is a problem with calling for change in the SDA church institution? And you perceive that the nature of this institution is like the Army, in that it has its rules and regulations, as well as its formulated position on things, and by volunteering to join, one of necessity thereby indicates willingness to abide by these. If one does not wish to abide by these as they are, then one should go elsewhere, i.e., find a different organization to join, rather than remain and try to change things. Do I understand your position here correctly?
Tyrone: First let me explain about Mr. BS, because he is pushing his attributes upon us. He is telling us that in decisions regarding church policy it is our way or the highway, when our views are already in line with the church and he has the harder job. Part of the problem is that his eyes are not to be on the policy of the church nor any politics. His eyes are to be ONLY on where he told us our eyes must be: ON JESUS!
[Mr. BS referred to here was a disgruntled poster who was insisting that the Adventist Church change and become ecumenical. He posted that all Tyrone wants is his way in the church, and that all others must be given the "highway." In order to combat with those who disagree, he makes it out that those who already agree with the way the church is (or who are not dissidents) just want their way only and must kick everyone else out. He is therefore portraying that those who want the Adventist Church to remain committed to her doctrines, were intolerant and were despots: all attributes properly fitting for himself. For clear documentation on the dynamics of this debate, click here when you get a chance.]
He is here to overturn the church and to thereby give those who do not like this process the highway. The article dealing with these issues of authority and liberty have explained very well where the despots can be found. Either way, SOMEBODY has to have the highway. We say it should be those who have come here to destroy the church!
How can we allow people to destroy the church under the lie that they respect all views? Mr. BS and others like him will be relentless to push the lie that we are despots. No new behavior. Mr. BS’s statements are clearly out of line with the idea that he respects differing views. Mr. BS should be given the highway, because those of his views own all that is out there already through treachery and deceit anyway! Our views are not out there, they are in our little compartment which people like Mr. BS seek also to destroy just as out there. Once in here is destroyed and his views dominate here also, they will seek for those who have fled in order to make sure that they do not believe in Adventism on any part of the globe! The whole concept MUST be destroyed!
Yet according to what CA has stated was her assessment of Tyrone's beliefs on the matter of those who dissent from the church, what she stated is correct, but there are more issues to this, and it appears to me CA that you are just here to make me labor.
[As a general tactic, CA has demanded that Tyrone show her "specifically" the actual quotations where she has done the things Tyrone claims. She is trying to put him to work to cover over the force and truth of what he had been saying]
Actually the first issue is that only a certain set of people are qualified to call for change. Those who told us that diversity or a spectrum of views or a questioning of everything are mandatory and that all views have equal weight and therefore no one should presume to be able to "Lord" his opinions over on others, ARE TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED TO ASK FOR CHANGE. Some have questioned your views on this forum, and it doesn't appear very much that you like it. All such like yourself are to have absolutely no voice in the church whatsoever, for these are not honest worshippers, but are despots.
As they are now asking for change, the only basic reason why their voices are heard loud and clear IS BECAUSE THEIR VOICES ARE UNIFIED and therefore lacking in that very diversity they have fooled us to believe is the secret of our strength. They are not conquering us through diversity, but through UNITY. They make us diverse, and were not happy when our views were much more unified as in former days. They pit us one against another, but their views themselves are always so similar and united. They would never even explain why their views are becoming so loud when they have told us that our voices should not be the same, but should be diverse! This first issue therefore strikes dead into one of the problems CA has raised against my position that when you become a member of the Adventist Church, you are not to just think what you please nor fight to have the organization change to your views irrespective of the views of others:
CA: Problem #1: With regard to an established institution and the issue of change itself: If it is found later that some principle therein was originally formulated either erroneously, with incomplete information, or without the level of comprehension that growth in understanding, further experience, and the passage of time afford, should there not be changes made accordingly?
Tyrone: Those who taught us diversity are not qualified to tell us ANYTHING definitive. I do not know what that is you are telling us that has been found "originally formulated either erroneously, with incomplete information, or without the level of comprehension that growth in understanding," etc., etc. What I do know is that anyone coming off like you telling us about how one man must be persuaded in his own mind, and another persuaded of something contradictory in his own mind, and no one can lord his opinions over on another’s mind, have shown that the church must absolutely do whatever it takes to make sure that you never make any decision for us over what needs to be changed, what is true, what is false, etc. IF YOU MAKE CHANGES, YOU ARE GOING TO AFFECT THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PERSUADED IN THEIR OWN MINDS OF HOW THE CHURCH SHOULD BE, AND WHO LIKE IT! To seek to change the church knowing this, merely demonstrates that you have been lying to us and deceiving us, and are only sent here as an enemy to destroy this body. The first mandate is that anyone like you cannot possibly be allowed to make any such decision of whether or not the church errs, and should not be allowed to make any decision for anything PERIOD! There is no general of any army who, when faced with a decision, goes among his soldiers to establish an opinion poll, nor to tell them about the benefits of differing. Those changing the church first start in with the lie about their fondness of issues dealing with an opinion poll. They love to come in by sparking debate in confusion, and calling that confusion diversity and a necessity. Once that confusion has been brought in, over and over we always see and notice that the unified views of those who brought in the confusion always has an advantage and then begins to change the church.
People have different views. Because of that, NO ONE, who tells us how great and necessary are different views for the church is to be allowed to tell the church that she either is in error, needs updating, must change, or anything of the like!
CA commented: In the Army, for example (since it is the example you use), there was a time when women were not permitted to serve at all. Later this was changed, to allow women to serve in such capacities as nursing, though they were prohibited from entering combat. Later still, we now find that women who demonstrate themselves physically capable of taking on the challenges of combat are permitted to engage in an Army career on that level. Were these changes wrong? The Army doesn't seem to think so. Did the Army make these changes? Yes, it did. Does that mean the Army revised its position from its former stand on the subject? Yes, they have. Is such a revision evidence that they now consider their former position on the matter to no longer be valid? Apparently so. Are they still the Army? Yes, they are, and probably more efficient and more strongly equipped to carry out their purposes for having faced the challenges of growth and progress.
Tyrone: The army has changed because in the great falling away leading to the revelation of the Man of Sin, everything gets tinkered with. These changes in the military helps to encourage change in the single most important organization Satan wants to destroy: Adventism. Even in the Adventist Church the hymnal changed. These events are to encourage further change which are always planned to destroy Adventist doctrine.
The Army has allowed women in combat and all. That was not a wise change. A change like that is unprecedented in the history of this nation and to a great part a revision contrary to the established order of military since the beginning of time. This revisions was just too high for Moses! The Israelites never considered anything like this, just like womens ordination was never a consideration until now in the great falling away toward the Man of Sin. Similar people who demand change are working in all of these mediums. I also am not sure, but I believe we will soon see the brunt of these decisions if we find out that Communist armies were smart enough not to consider any such changes as these. As we wind down toward the end of time, it is the free nations that have to make stupid decisions for change that would weaken them, while the enemy countries and churches will wind up being smart enough not falling for the trap. Communist countries would never allow people telling them how its great to have differing views and that no man should "Lord" his views over on others, to change their system and country. They are too smart for that.
CA continues: Problem #2: One of the first concepts embraced by the SDA church at its formative inception was that of the notion of progressive understanding of truth. Truth itself, from a "God's eye view", is absolute, but our awareness and grasp of it is not. Were it not for willingness to confront the challenge of change in thought and progress in understanding, the SDA church would not have been able to establish themselves as distinct from other denominations in the first place. Clearly they perceived that the time had come to "progress" from the theologies of that day into a new awareness of the nearness of the Second Advent of Christ and an unfolding awareness of the eschatological issues involved.
Tyrone: Again, you are not to decide that for us. You are not to decide where or when progression needs to come, for you have told us that you were basically wimpy and that you become short-circuited when faced with any controversial topic in respect for different opinions. You therefore are not to tell us when anything needs updating. Only those who did not fall for this controversial stuff, but knew what they were doing are to be permitted to both see and tell us that the church needs changing.
The next point is that without exception, every time someone comes to tell us that we need to change or "update" they come with the intent to destroy the truths we have already found and do not build up on the truths we have found. TN made his appearance telling us that the Three Angels Messages closed up. He knows that our church still preaches and teaches these messages, but he tells us that we need updating, and in his agenda he is telling us that we must close up and discard all three of those messages. There is always the lie that endeavors like these are "progression." That is and always has been a lie, and those who tell lies are not to be allowed in our communion, let alone telling us how it must be changed. When you update software in your computer, you don’t close anything down. Rather you make all its parts work better! Their aims are not for us to stand on the shoulders of what our forefathers taught, but for us to come off of their shoulders and kick them in the shins. We need to know the difference between "progression" and "regression." We are being confused with words. We can change if we strengthen the truths that Adventism has found. We have seen no attempt at change seeking to strengthen the truths she has found, but all such seek to destroy those truths, and cover this attempt with the lie in fondness of "progression." Then they tell us that we must celebrate with all the other churches and unite with them. All this has always been a dead giveaway! The worst enemies of the church are naturally pretending that they are friends.
Remember first however, that those who tell us about this diversity business are not to cry out for change. Diversity prevents change. Those who tell us about the necessity for diversity and allowing people to be persuaded in their own diverse minds, who yet call for the denomination to change regardless of what so many thousands going into the millions think, are conspirators.
CA writes: However, if the above postulate is false, then those who are led by Christ toward further progress in their understanding of Truth are free to leave, go elsewhere, or start another movement. They would then be not required to do so, but "theologically" permitted. Yet who is calling for them to do so? Who holds the above position of "go elsewhere instead"? None other than those who hold the above postulate to be true!
Tyrone: CA, someone has told me that my posts are too hard to understand. Reading what you have written makes my head hurt. Let me first add that those who brought in the debating and confusion in our church ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE LED BY CHRIST. For the longest we have put forth the question to all those among us pushing this heresy where in bible is such a seeming mandate encouraged? Where is it encouraged in the scriptures that all the members should have differing views? Some of the worst times in the church appeared when the members had differing views, for the bible was not created for people to debate upon its lessons. It was created to clear away confusion. I am therefore here reiterating again that those who brought in the confusion have no right to tell us that the church must change.
Those who demand change must leave. We have already tasted what happens when they get their feet in the doors. Those bringing in the Celebration Movement told us that it was just a test. They told us that we had not seen the fruitage of the new movement, and that we should merely wait and see what it does. Soon people found out that the movement dared not start its own churches, but conference presidents were sending out pastors to seduce and even brow-beat churches to be transformed into Celebration Churches. Once in there, these pastors proceeded to shut down any study of the distinctive doctrines of Adventism. There was hardly a Celebration church we saw that was not formerly a bonafide Adventist Church. The movement could not exist on its own and start its own churches, for its very function was to accomplish just what is the endeavor on this and other forums: to pounce upon, silence and stop the special doctrines of Adventism--anything to stop the voices exposing the Papacy! We were first hand witnesses and victims of this process in action.
We are to be convinced for change by the beauty of the new movement and by the beauty of the people pushing it. That was what Christ did. He did not subvert the Jewish organization. He wasn’t willing that it be taken over, but that it be wooed over through His natural beauty. Neither the media nor the scrolls of the Jews changed imperceptibly beyond the knowledge or consent of the Jews. It is different in the case of these struggling for change.
In our case, knowing that it was impossible for the Celebration movement to stand on its own (for its purpose was to take over and therefore stop any identification of the papacy by policy), the Celebrationists had other tricks up their sleeves. The more we see is the more we are unconvinced of the power of truth or the Holy Spirit working in those who demand our church to change.
When you talk about the postulate of those leaving being designated as "Babylon," we still say that they should leave. Those demanding change always naturally doubt the positions of Adventism. How then can they be concerned about whether or not the Adventist Church thinks that they are Babylon? That should not bother them! They doubt everything else! The Adventist Church teaches them that if they reject the truths of the church through unbelief, they are no more going to heaven anyway! They doubt the church, and therefore how can they worry about any warnings the Adventist Church gives?
CA continues: Solution: Realize that those seeking further progress in the understanding of Truth are, in fact, being led by the Spirit as they understand God to be leading them. Revise either the above position or the above postulate accordingly to remove the contradiction involved in juxtaposing them.
The people must either be released to leave, or released to pursue progress in the comprehension of Truth within the "safety of the ark". In either case, "Thus sayeth the Lord: Let My people go, that they may serve Me."
CA
Tyrone: In other words, those who have shown themselves so deceitful and unqualified must presume to make changes that would affect thousands whether they like it or not! We say NO! Go ahead and serve Christ! There are no Pharaoh’s here! You can go! Leave us and accept Christ and take your eyes off of His church! Don’t you worry about being Babylon, for you didn’t believe most anything else the church said anyway. How can you tell us you presume to teach us about Christ and the Holy Spirit, to be telling us that you are worried about being called "Babylon?" And what about all the names you have called God's people, who to you are "legalists," "Pharisees" and all?
Go to Christ, start your own churches and show us how it is done. We presume that you know the results will be very unconvincing. We have not seen any of you being willing to follow this worthwhile alternative to show what you are made of. Just so long as everyone understands that the revisionists did not make this church and the necessary sacrifices for its construction. They are just interested in stealing the goods in the aura of fondness for Christ!
If we let them take this church, the organization will be used as a tool against us in the near future to the threatening of our very lives! It will then be time to follow the "mainstream" in order to be protected against "cults." Cults are defined for us as those who oppose the Jesuit movements. No, they will not be allowed to have their honest views, even though the mainstreamers told them all along that they are supposed to. They lied!
END
TO THE ADVENTIST BETRAYAL PAGE