JESUIT DIALOGUES !! IV
(Trouble on the Internet discussion
forums! ATODAY). . .
Probing the Mind of Greg Billock!
Updated 12/27/2005
[As you can see from where we last left in the experiences of Emmanuel Clarke, it is plain that he has gone plain too far in defending Adventism. Ways and means now need to show a basis to be conjured up in order to get rid of him. Accusations must be created even while the accusers preach against making accusations. As you can see demonstrated, there was never anything wrong with the way Tom Norris posts. A cry must be raised ultimately loud enough for Greg to hear so that he can do something about this new figure defending Adventism who is torturing those who are its avowed enemies. Notice how no one can notice something is wrong with Tom NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY ARE REMINDED:]
By Becky Schmidt (Beck) on Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 09:44 pm: Emmanuel...the manuel...
I don't know what Tom sees in the Old Testament, and but the accusative stance is still breathing fire....I'm still readin...nasty. ....I did see an attempt at the end to simmer down...But you are saying Tom is debating with intent to deceive...ie lying. Out on a pretty shakey limb there...and if Tom actually called you a communist...out of bounds as well.
My point being that healthy, useful, and life changing religious discussion can only be effective while it exibits those very positive attributes:)
Truth may be unchangable, but our human understanding of truth has evolved over and over through the ages...let's _hope_ perspectives change...otherwise, Jesus' personal journey was rather futile, at least logically speaking:)
but who am I??? Beck
By Tom Norris (Tnorris) on Wednesday, December 29, 1999 - 09:49 pm:
EC: Calm down. The Sabbath can never, ever, be removed from the Adventist Apociliptic any more then the law or the gospel can be removed from theology. Stop saying that nonsense. Calm down. The Sabbath is as secure as the law itself. Moreover, the Gospel is not clearly articulated in the "27' as you assert. You don't know what you are saying. And yes, Ellen White did predict that Adventism would be reformed. It was called the Loud Cry of the 4th Angels Message. This is what we want.
By Bob Lee (Rlee) on Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 12:03 am:
Mr. Clarke,
I find it difficult to understand why you claim "we are a dying sect." Maybe you are buried in some obscure, back-woods enclave, but from every angle I look, Adventism is alive, well, and growing exponentially. Its people are becoming more like God (see Gal 5:22-23 for definition) and less bigoted. It is my observation that this growth has occurred since we started understanding and assimilating the concepts that Dr. Ford was presenting (and please don't confuse that with his warped view of Antiochus, they are two separate subjects).
In reading your posts, I am wondering what it is you are calling the "gospel." There are a dozen different "gospels" presented by different scholars and administrators. Maybe you are actually seeing the "gospel" of Ron Spear and the legalism of the '30s to '60s as a legitimate Biblical paradigm.
[They are trying to catch EC here. They often come in telling us that we have to give up difficult and speculative Adventist doctrine for the simplicity of the Gospel they claimed that even a child could understand. On other forums it was even told them that there had been massive arguments about the Gospel for ages (even as to the functioning of the law within it). Here now this poster admits that the Gospel also is encased in confusion.]
If so, I can understand your fear of trusting God for your salvation and why you find that "gospel" in the 27. [Folks, do you know what an accusation is? If you don't, please notice that first sentence by Bob Lee that just passed you by!!] That list still reflects the era of "work your way into heaven" and "denigrate everybody else" that characterized the church of my youth.
If you are afraid of studying Dr. Ford for some reason, try Graham Maxwell's approach. Start with John 15:15 and go from there. On the way, stop by John 16:13-15 where Jesus not only says the same thing, but offers the Spirit as a teacher to guide us into all truth (by the way responding to or "obeying" that teacher is where obedience comes in, not from "jumping" when some despot says "frog"). When we begin to think of God as a teacher instead of a slave driver; a friend rather than a master, we will be approaching the true "gospel," the "good news of salvation" which God is offering us.
By Emmanuel Clarke (Emmanuel) on Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 08:46 pm:
Dear Becky and Boblee,
Isn't it interesting that you both come in wisdom with posts to teach me a great deal, and have said nothing to Tom except one mention that he has called me a communist! You all will have to pardon me if I do not trust your wisdom.
Becky, you have put in the point that I am saying that Tom is deceptive. I have made mention that he tells me he wants, unlike what I want, a free environment for thought, but keeps telling us about his nondebatable ideas even while they are being debated. It doesn't appear to me that even the New Millenium fireworks can catch your notice to this. If it is not deception, then what is it? Please tell me and don't evade the question. Is it a mistake? If that is so, he can apologize now for not being consistent. He has been given so much time to do that. Several times I have warned him about the nature of his intents, but he just keeps pushing his nondebatable privileges of free thoughts to us he tells us we will not allow. At least, you could have urged that.
I did not call Tom anything! Tom keeps telling us, like you, that we have to enter into discussion, but just as soon as he writes, he is telling us that there is no debate nor discussion upon his ideas. You all then come in wisdom to overlook that fact and see quite astutely that someone needs correction here, and missed Tom all the way. Looks to me like you all are from the same ballpark and are merely trying to soak down my messages. May I make an ass of u and me by stating that I ASSUME that you all want change also?
I am therefore not impressed with your wisdom or reasoning. All you are talking about is a seemingly bright future documented throughout our church history where the so-termed gospel has come again and again upon this church, and uses every maneuver to justify its cause. I have read the book Omega, by Lewis R. Walton--DON'T TELL ME! The book is not reliable. The author is inconsistent or has personal problems, or no view can ever be as wise as yours to even think of allowing the free thought you allow even now!
Also, none of you have shown me that the Gospel is not in the 27 Fundamentals. You all and Tom have the burden of proof to show that it is not, for a false and unjust charge has been made. Then we will refer to the fact that it is in the OT and then bring the comparison back to the 27 Fundamentals in order to show that the Gospel is in it. It must be that you all agree with Tom, for when he was making his hair-raising statements, none of you appeared to object. None of you noticed that Tom's post is far less discussion than mine. He often doesn't even refer to my points, but continues to hammer in his ideas with the constant statement that they are nondebatable to the point that even we "communists" can't debate them. Ellen White is dead. Paul is also dead, yet Ellen White's commentary is far more contemporary in the language of our time. The only problem is that Ellen White, in this free environment Tom tells us about, certainly stands in his way. For Tom's purposes, Ellen White must be ignored. Why? For us to enjoy freedom? All these points were ignored. Tom is most always telling us how his ideas are beyond debate and are final after calling me a communist.
In other words, thanks for the wisdom, but no thanks. Such wisdom will only guarantee a further damaging of the church the further the existence of the new ideas remain. It is far more a cause for raised eyebrows to witness even Tom's statement that the 27 Fundamentals do not have the Gospel within them than anything I have written here. You all gave up the chance to give a message much needed to Tom in order to tell me secretly that our church must change to his ideas. You all can therefore keep that wisdom! That wisdom is opposed to inspiration and in favor of domination by men.
By Becky Schmidt (Beck) on Friday, December 31, 1999 - 12:19 am:
Emmanuel,
I'm not a man...and if Tom be outa line, I think he should apologize/and or tone down as well...I just noticed that the discussion seemed to become more attack oriented...if I was mistaken, I apologize.
I can't say that I am in total agreement with Tom except that I'd like to hear more formulated dialog or even study style given by professionals whenever that might be possible, and that I'd like to hear from other Theologians if possible.
Just know that when people begin to use accusitive statements like lie or whathave you or pick one of Tom's words and such...and whatever Tom's words were...communist and you fill in the blanks...that the discussion turns from the subject at hand and gets sidelined and tempers start to raise...just calling your attention to the fact that it was beginning to take on a more accusative shape. I am no expert. Just an observer.
If you think my comments obtuse, so be it...it is a rather free forum. "I'm nobody, are you nobody too?" Beckwaddling
By Emmanuel Clarke (Emmanuel) on Saturday, January 1, 2000 - 07:28 am:
I am doing a little research on past messages, and what I am finding is startling. Why would Becky and Boblee remain silent with posts like Tom's and then come out because they see a problem in me? Why would they only mention lightly about his comment that I am a communist and would miss everything else to come on me?
When I came and witnessed the startling words of Tom, I knew I had to comment. Could it be possible that Tom had always posted like this? When I came in, nobody was saying anything about the discussionless way Tom posted: telling everyone we must do what he says, telling everyone they are wrong, or silly, or insane, or cultic, that Ellen White must not be used for discussion, and then telling everyone he wants an environment of free thought.
I therefore view more clearly what the actual problem that is causing what Tom says is the gradual death of this body, is the very movement he is participating in for a role he has no business to be undertaking. Yes, something was introduced as Ellen White said it would be, and is attacking this church and telling it, like from day one, that it needs to change and give up the doctrines which are the foundation of its faith. It would therefore have everything backwards, and then accuse those that disagree of having things backwards.
Yes Becky, this is a rather free forum, but there was something about me that had to bother you and Boblee. Nothing about Tom bothered you. I am in shock at some of the posts I am viewing in the recent past that were written by Tom. All of these passed you by. If this really was a free forum as you have stated to justify your conclusions, you certainly would not have had a problem with me; for you said that I was accusative of Tom, and missed the awesome accusations flying all through the air by Tom. From then, you moved out to accuse me. You have missed the following terms:
cultic, insane (insanity), legalistic, communist, anti-gospel, and other terms. You all missed the demands that we must let our views go in the free environment he is telling us about. A major contradiction right before our eyes. Is this the fruit of the Gospel you all were telling us about that came upon this church and is instrumental now in its polarization and slow death?
Yes something came in. And that something from the beginning was determined to transform this church into what its foundation stated never should be. Can it show from the scriptures that Adventism is wrong? Can it show that the Gospel is not in the 27 fundamentals? When it came in, then was trouble and not before with the principles it already had. The solution to the problem is therefore rather plain to see.
[Now that Emmanuel has explained himself well, his words must be ignored. The Jesuit Oath must be obeyed and come into play. When a jesuit is pushed to the wall, he must persist no matter how absurd his position is. If he is asked a plain question that pushes him to the wall, he must make sure he either ignores it or evades around it. If they really believe in free thought, why was Tom allowed to babble without opposition? The common tactic is to pretend that they were not even written. The humor must also be reserved for more appropriate occasions:]
By Becky Schmidt (Beck) on Saturday, January 1, 2000 - 12:34 pm:
Emanual
Think that you might be more ruffled that someone would ask that the discussion be less personally oriented. But I have no bias to Tom inparticular. I have appreciated his efforts and his interview with Dr. Ford. And I've become acquainted with him through his postings. Most here would not consider my views alligned with Toms or most everyone else's, for that matter.
Why are you so verbose about being asked not to attack one another???? I have fussed about pesorsonal attacking styles on many of these threads...don't think it adds to the discussion at all.
When we are writing here...we sometimes tend to respond in more direct ways..than say if we were standing face to face and meeting one another in a church, or social situation.
This mode of communication just lends itself to this somewhat...seems to free up the tongue a bit ...sort of a bit like getting into a car and driving around in heavy traffic triggers interesting behaviors in some of us:)
Becktwinkle