Re: anonymous posters

[2ram]

Frank,

The way several regular posters on the board first discerned who you really are was the consistent pattern your posts manifest, no matter which name you are using at the time.  Constant demeaning and ridicule of other board members, joined with a continuous stream of self praise and claims of highly advanced spiritual stature.

This, of course, is exactly the behavior we observed for so many years in George Geftakys.  He claimed mystical experiences, special annointing, apostolic status, powers of discernment, hearing the voice of God, a special mission to be God's choice servant for this age, on and on.
I myself have heard him "call on the name of the Lord" hundreds of times...all the while involving himself in multiple wicked practices.

Here is a quote from a Christian psychiatrist who (reluctantly) has had to perform some exorcisms. 

"I hardly mean to condemn every markedly pious person, but I do admit that excessive and obvious piety does arouse my suspicions.  What better way to try to hide your wickedness from the undiscerning world than by adopting a distinctly religious disguise.  I have seen this phenomenon among clergy and other religious professionals.  I have seen it most frequently, however, among religious volunteers....What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself as well as from others..."

So....I wonder about you "Frank".   

Fruit, not profession.

Thomas Maddux

I beg to differ with you here Tom.  If you recall in my email to you of 14th Sept, I mentioned that frank appeared to be the only "sane" person on board at the time.  In fact the discussion was going quite well, until you refused to concede and randomly threw in that "medium" stuff.

Idiot is too nice of a word to describe your behaviour.

You are simply sidetracking.

Frank, I apologize for my "Legion" joke, since you appear to have been more deeply hurt by Tom's comment than I originally anticipated.

Marcia

[frank]

Frank,

The way several regular posters on the board first discerned who you really are was the consistent pattern your posts manifest, no matter which name you are using at the time.  Constant demeaning and ridicule of other board members, joined with a continuous stream of self praise and claims of highly advanced spiritual stature.

This, of course, is exactly the behavior we observed for so many years in George Geftakys.  He claimed mystical experiences, special annointing, apostolic status, powers of discernment, hearing the voice of God, a special mission to be God's choice servant for this age, on and on.
I myself have heard him "call on the name of the Lord" hundreds of times...all the while involving himself in multiple wicked practices.

Here is a quote from a Christian psychiatrist who (reluctantly) has had to perform some exorcisms. 

"I hardly mean to condemn every markedly pious person, but I do admit that excessive and obvious piety does arouse my suspicions.  What better way to try to hide your wickedness from the undiscerning world than by adopting a distinctly religious disguise.  I have seen this phenomenon among clergy and other religious professionals.  I have seen it most frequently, however, among religious volunteers....What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself as well as from others..."

So....I wonder about you "Frank".   

Fruit, not profession.

Thomas Maddux

What is it you wonder about?  
If is it my salvation, I can assure you that I am a believer.

However, if you are merely wondering about me, why in the world would you suggest that I am under the influence of demons?

It's funny how many people you quote.  Some of them are good, most taken out of context.  What's even funnier is if we quote you:

You've come up with some real zingers in the last few months.

Oh, if you are going to persist in your comparisons of me, with your former colleague and mentor George Geftakys, I'm going to compare you to someone.

Have you ever watched Mayberry RFD?  You're Barney Fife.  I'm sure they made the character off of you.

[vernecarty]

I have on occasion implied that others were under the influence of dark spirits, and on reflection do not think it was wise. While this certainly can and does happen, it is an extremely serious charge and should never be made flippantly.
Even if we believe this to be true of someone, there is a proper way the matter should be broached.
I know I have frequently made statments in anger and/or frustration that I subsequently came to regret.
Here is a verse that has been truly helpful to me, and whose counsel I think would go a long way toward keeping the BB from so frequently degenerating into preoccupation with the petty...

The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression. Proverbs 19:11
 

p.s. I consider this vers to have both special and general qualites of revelation:
It is certainly there for the whole world to read,
but the Lord sent me to it when I  pesonally had a need...
...and some of you did not think I had any poetic talent...

[frank]

OOOOOHH-- OOOOOHH!!!!!  This CAN'T be right, 'cause I heard it said in the assembly!!!

                        (the above message brought to you compliments of the al Hartman iron(y) works)

Personal to frank,

Per your request, I will not PM you in the future.  Thank you for effectively confirming privately to me what others had only suggested.  Up until then, you had me fooled.

al

P.S.--
It was not the voice of God, who has said, "whoever shall say 'Fool (idiot)' shall be in danger of hell fire."  That it was a "familiar" voice is, sadly, not a surprise.

...a truly significant question...

Dear Weird:

while I know you are the second most wisest poster on the BB, behind Professor Maddux, I am concerned about your usage of the verse above.

Here's how I see it:

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

The context here, clearly, has to do with the idea of being, "without cause."

Jesus said:  [Ye] fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?   and  [Ye] fools and blind: for whether [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

I suppose these verses are general revelation?  Does this mean Jesus is in Hell?  What about Paul, who called people fools (idiots)? 

Those of us who have brains, if we should use them, might ask the question,  "What does this mean?"  If calling someone "idiot," without cause is bad; what about strongly inferring that a person is possessed, a medium, or under the influence of deceiving spirits?  Isn't that even worse than calling them an idiot?

Of course it is.

Why is it that you and Professor Maddux are so blind as to not see this?

[frank]

I beg to differ with you here Tom.  If you recall in my email to you of 14th Sept, I mentioned that frank appeared to be the only "sane" person on board at the time.  In fact the discussion was going quite well, until you refused to concede and randomly threw in that "medium" stuff.

Idiot is too nice of a word to describe your behaviour.

You are simply sidetracking.

Frank, I apologize for my "Legion" joke, since you appear to have been more deeply hurt by Tom's comment than I originally anticipated.

Marcia

I forgive you Marcia, although I was never offended at the Legion joke.

I agree with you regarding Al and Tom. I've been meaning to ask Tom if this looks like a philosophy classroom to him. Call me off, but I don't believe that people are coming here to get a dose of whatever the latest philosophy lesson Tom has learned. Maybe Tom can play with it outside.
frank

[GDG]

Quote from frank:
"He's over his head on this discussion, but hasn't the stones to admit it, let alone concede a single point."

frank,
I am not wanting to belabor my comments over your post, so please forgive me this one last one on the subject, but I feel I need to clarify something.  You calling Tom an idiot was not the only thing I thought you could have phrased a bit better.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but there it is, my humble opinion. 

Gay
PS: This doesn't mean I'm taking Tom's side over yours or negating your feelings or opinion over the issue.  I'm only focusing on the verbage of delivery, not what you were trying to convey.  Tom's actual words were not offensive.  Whether or not his message was is up to the individul, the same as with your post.

[frank]

Quote from frank:
"He's over his head on this discussion, but hasn't the stones to admit it, let alone concede a single point."

frank,
I am not wanting to belabor my comments over your post, so please forgive me this one last one on the subject, but I feel I need to clarify something.  You calling Tom an idiot was not the only thing I thought you could have phrased a bit better.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but there it is, my humble opinion. 

Gay
PS: This doesn't mean I'm taking Tom's side over yours or negating your feelings or opinion over the issue.  I'm only focusing on the verbage of delivery, not what you were trying to convey.  Tom's actual words were not offensive.  Whether or not his message was is up to the individul, the same as with your post.

Hi Gay,

Thanks for maintaining a cordial posture with me.  I do so appreciate it.

Here is where I am coming from.  Tom ignores Margaret's challenge to stay off the board for six months.  Tom ignores Brian's admonition to stop calling people "George," when there is a disagreement.  Tom makes statements that are off topic and distracting.  Tom can't back up his statements.  Tom says that I am likely demon possessed. 

Several people provide passages that negate his theory on special/general revelation.  (yes, I am aware that these are terms and ideas taught in Seminary.  I am also aware that Tom is applying them poorly, causing confusion, and doing a generally lousy job of educating us.)  Nevertheless, Tom ignores Verne and others when they provide evidence that contradicts Tom.

To top it all off, he ignores the pickle he's got himself into, and calls me a medium.  I am offended by that, and I certainly don't deserve it.

Nice people, like you, take me to task for responding to Tom, but say nothing to him.  That's a little difficult, wouldn't you say?

Try this on for size, in the theoretical sense, Gay.  "You're  demon possessed.  You may say you're a Christian, but Satan has given you just enough light to pretend."  Make believe that someone said that to you on this BB, and no one came to your side, but just let it go.  Then, imagine that you attempt to stand up for yourself and are called a childish namecaller, rude, etc.

Better yet, pretend that someone called you a whore, or an adulteress.  How would you like that?  Do you maintain that if it was said to you, "Tom's actual words were not that offensive?"  The whore part is past history that doesn't have to do directly with Tom, but I bring it up to show how I've been treated here in the past.

What is it about what Tom said to me that you don't find offensive?  That is a most sincere question.

[Oscar]

Verne,

I have on occasion implied that others were under the influence of dark spirits, and on reflection do not think it was wise. While this certainly can and does happen, it is an extremely serious charge and should never be made flippantly.
Even if we believe this to be true of someone, there is a proper way the matter should be broached.
I know I have frequently made statments in anger and/or frustration that I subsequently came to regret.
Here is a verse that has been truly helpful to me, and whose counsel I think would go a long way toward keeping the BB from so frequently degenerating into preoccupation with the petty...

Actually, I do not know what the source(s) of "Frank's" bizzare postings is/are.  When I encounter things like this, I consider all possibilities.  There are basically three classes of possibilities here:

1. Frank is basing her claims to advanced spirituality on personal reality.
2. Frank has misinterpreted her inner experience to such a degree that she believes that #1 is true, but it in fact is not.
3. Frank is being influenced by "negative" spritual entities.

To my mind, the type of responses that come from Frank would seem to rule out #1.  I don't think that resorting to name calling and personal ridicule is evidence of advanced spriritual stature. 

I posted the quotes for three purposes.  First, I wanted to show that highly qualified experts who are Christians recognize that evil people frequently profess a high degree of piety.  Second, I wanted to point out that the type of "Deeper Life" or "Keswick" teaching that she advocates can easily lead one into New Age'ish and mediumistic practices.  Finally I wanted to alert "Frank" and other readers of this board that she could very possibly have a problem with being more open to the occult than she realizes.  I did not expect her to thank me for it.  But then one never knows what will develop in the future.

But...she "heard" what I said, and it will not disappear from her memory. 

Finally Verne, thanks for the admonition, it is wisdom.  However, I am not angry at "Frank".  I have confronted her on occassion to try to protect the BB. Several have disagreed with the way I have done so.  But I have no personal animosity towards her.  I hate the Evil One and his works...but not this person.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[GDG]

HI frank,
I will do my best to explain where I am coming from on this particular front.  My concern is that, although you have something to say, a valid opinion, it became overshadowed in your choice of how to express it.  At least it did in my little brain.  By all means, if you differ in opinion or feel that you've been wronged by Tom, say so.  But when you throw out words insulting your opponent's manhood or out and out name calling, it makes it difficult to "hear" what you are saying.  The reason I had nothing to say to Tom is that I do not find where he said "frank is a medium."  I can see where you would infer that, and I won't disagree with that, but he did not directly call you a name or insult your gender specific organs.  
So, dear frank, take Tom to task if you feel he has wronged you.  As I said before, debate is "a good thing."  But if you want people to "hear" what you are saying, make sure your words don't take away from what you are saying.

Gay

[frank]

HI frank,
I will do my best to explain where I am coming from on this particular front.  My concern is that, although you have something to say, a valid opinion, it became overshadowed in your choice of how to express it.  At least it did in my little brain.  By all means, if you differ in opinion or feel that you've been wronged by Tom, say so.  But when you throw out words insulting your opponent's manhood or out and out name calling, it makes it difficult to "hear" what you are saying.  The reason I had nothing to say to Tom is that I do not find where he said "frank is a medium."  I can see where you would infer that, and I won't disagree with that, but he did not directly call you a name or insult your gender specific organs.  
So, dear frank, take Tom to task if you feel he has wronged you.  As I said before, debate is "a good thing."  But if you want people to "hear" what you are saying, make sure your words don't take away from what you are saying.

Gay

You're right.  Tom didn't directly call me a medium.  He only inferred that.

Tom, I take you to task for it.  You are wrong, I'm not possibly having a problem with the occult.  I differ in opinion with you.   

I apologize for insulting your manhood.  That was wrong of me.

I can see now that you are only trying to help me, and I will do what I can to free myself from any occult influence that I may be under.

Thank you for your kindness and patience with me.   If you have any other criticisms for me, please feel free to share them.  On my part, I promise not to take them personally, or be offended by them.  Anything you say to me, I will understand as being said out of love and concern.

If I say something to you, please correct me. 

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is a passage of scripture that gives some information about this subject.  It is Ezekiel 13:1-11.  It is too long to quote the whole thing, but those who are interested in this topic should read it.  A few observations:

1. The folks described here are genuine prophets of Israel.

2. They have been prophesying "out of their own imaginations" and "follow their own spirit".

3. This results in "false" visions.  

4. The resulting divinations, (reports as to what God is saying) are lies. 

5. God is therefore, "against" them.  Not the sort of judgement I wish to incur.

This alone is enough to cause me to question what people who say, "God speaks to me" tell me.  I do not for a minute deny the possibility of God speaking to a person.  But just because a thought occurrs to me I do not ascribe it to God, (or Satan).  I have my plausibility filter set to a high level.  I will accept that sort of thing after I apply several tests, such as:

1. The general maturity of the person.

2. The type of personality he/she evidences.

3. What I know of the spiritual stature of the individual.

4. The reputation of the person among other Christians who I know or whose reputation leads me to give weight to their views.

5. How the person's statements accord with the teachings of properly interpreted scripture.

In addition to these things, I do not believe that direct communication from God either was or is God's normal way of dealing with his people.  Verses such as "I will guide you with my eye" do not tell us much.  What does that mean.  I am of the opinion that God's word and God's providence cover the vast majority situations.  The Bible contains many accounts of visions, angels, dreams, etc.  These, however, are special interventions for special purposes.  Not daily Christian practice.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[frank]

Verne,

Actually, I do not know what the source(s) of "Frank's" bizzare postings is/are.  When I encounter things like this, I consider all possibilities.  There are basically three classes of possibilities here:

1. Frank is basing her claims to advanced spirituality on personal reality.
2. Frank has misinterpreted her inner experience to such a degree that she believes that #1 is true, but it in fact is not.
3. Frank is being influenced by "negative" spritual entities.

To my mind, the type of responses that come from Frank would seem to rule out #1.  I don't think that resorting to name calling and personal ridicule is evidence of advanced spriritual stature. 

I posted the quotes for three purposes.  First, I wanted to show that highly qualified experts who are Christians recognize that evil people frequently profess a high degree of piety.  Second, I wanted to point out that the type of "Deeper Life" or "Keswick" teaching that she advocates can easily lead one into New Age'ish and mediumistic practices.  Finally I wanted to alert "Frank" and other readers of this board that she could very possibly have a problem with being more open to the occult than she realizes.  I did not expect her to thank me for it.  But then one never knows what will develop in the future.

But...she "heard" what I said, and it will not disappear from her memory. 

Finally Verne, thanks for the admonition, it is wisdom.  However, I am not angry at "Frank".  I have confronted her on occassion to try to protect the BB. Several have disagreed with the way I have done so.  But I have no personal animosity towards her.  I hate the Evil One and his works...but not this person.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I have been considering something lately. I've given it alot of thought.

I wonder what it does to a man's ego and self esteem, when he goes to college and graduates about 40 years later than he should have?

Take Tom for instance.  I don't mean to directly come right out and say he has some serious issues about admitting error, listening to others, or acting as if he has superior knowledge.  I'm just suggesting that some people in his situation do those things, and it's a possibility he needs to consider.

He heard this, not only from me, but from others, and it should stick in his memory.  I don't expect he'll like it, or thank me for it.

I wonder if a person such as the one I described above, like Tom, but not in direct reference to Tom, would try to change the subject, and go off on tangents in order to avoid admitting they are wrong?

Could it be that this sort of person has had a lack of courage for quite a long time, and needs to feel like leader, even in such a small capacity as this BB?  Does a person like Tom--- but not in direct reference to Tom---have an inflated view of themselves and their educational achievements?

I make an indirect statement that people like Tom suffer with self doubt and inferiority complex, making them pretend to be smarter than they are, which is why they tend to teach everyone all the time.

People like Tom, although only referred to indirectly, have a hard time admitting they are wrong, and an even harder time apologizing when they hurt someone.  That's wrong.

I base my opinions on the following:  (borrowed from Tom, so they are legit)

1. The general maturity of the person.---Tom is mature.

2. The type of personality he/she evidences.---he evidences a personality that is arrogant, condescending and unentreatable

3. What I know of the spiritual stature of the individual.----He let George boss him around and slander him for years, and he didn't fight back.  He jumped on Brent's coattails, and stood by while Brent did all the work and took all the blame.  Now, Tom has weasled himself into this vast kingdom of AB.

4. The reputation of the person among other Christians who I know or whose reputation leads me to give weight to their views.----Plenty of people on this board think he's arrogant, etc.

5. How the person's statements accord with the teachings of properly interpreted scripture.----He says crazy things, and when called on them, he sidesteps and changes the subject.

I am not coming out and saying, "Tom is an arrogant blowhard."   All of the above statements are in line with they wisdom he used in addressing me.  They are indirect statements, which can be said without regard to their effect on anyone.  I think I am getting the hang of these rules.


Blessings,

frank

[mmarple]

Hi Gay,

Better yet, pretend that someone called you a whore, or an adulteress.......The whore part is past history that doesn't have to do directly with Tom, but I bring it up to show how I've been treated here in the past.

Why did you come back to this BB, frankie?

You say you were mistreated here in the past, you quote the posts here only to mock them on your own website, and you have a running commentary on your own website referring to the activities of this one, always in a negative, mocking mood.

You seem to be bothered by Tom's presence here, so again, why are you here?

[Oscar]

Frank/Ruth/Sondra

I have let you reply to my posts.  You have done so in your characteristic manner.  I hope you feel better.

Now that you have had your say, please refrain from insulting and demeaning the posters on this board. 

In addition, please refrain from starting quarrels and stirring up trouble here.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

[2ram]

Frank/Ruth/Sondra

I have let you reply to my posts.  You have done so in your characteristic manner.  I hope you feel better.

Now that you have had your say, please refrain from insulting and demeaning the posters on this board. 

In addition, please refrain from starting quarrels and stirring up trouble here.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

Another jaw dropping experience presented by Thomas Maddux.

Are you sure your are reading the same BB as I am, Tom??

frank does not need me to speak up on her behalf, but I will. 

frank's spirituality is not in question here Tom, but I do question yours.

Marcia

P.S.
Ms. Marple, for the record, I am also bothered by Tom's presence here.
Marcia