Posted on 12/20/2013 1:03:07 AM PST by Stingray
Several months ago someone sent me a copy of a book: 2008 God’s Final Witness, by Ronald Weinland. It was suggested to me that perhaps I should challenge Mr. Weinland to debate me. As I scanned the book, I decided that the best response overall was to allow time to respond to Mr. Weinland, and my thinking has been vindicated.
You see, Mr. Weinland claims that, “When this book is published at the end of summer of 2006, there will be a maximum of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time in human history” (p. 244). Mr. Weinland is (was) so absolutely positive of his predictions that he actually claimed to be one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, “I am God’s end-time witness and spokesman” (p. 111). So, here we are in 2012, nothing, absolutely nothing that Mr. Weinland-- God's final witness!!-- predicted has come true.
(Excerpt) Read more at eschatology.org ...
There is no way this can be a caucus thread. The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists. In a caucus thread none of that can happen.
I don't think you want to be claiming Ronald Weinland. Google him. Armstrongism spin-off. Eschatological quirks are the least of the problem.
I didn't see anything in the linked article about anyone other than him.
In a caucus thread none of that can happen.
Except when it does.
“Let’s keep each other in our prayers”
Agreed. :)
The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists.”
I wasn’t aware that calling someone out who claimed to be one of the two witnesses in Revelation, yet whose predictions for the soon return of Christ, was disparaging them.
If he is wrong, that makes him a false prophet. The point of this caucus will be to explain why all such prophets and predictions are false, so that people won’t be duped by such charlatans again. If your point in being here is to defend such blatantly false prophets and teachers such as the one noted in the link, this probably wouldn’t be the best place for you.
Let’s try this reply again, as I had typed it on my mobile phone and it didn’t come out right.
You: “The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists.”
I wasn’t aware that calling someone out who claimed to be one of the two witnesses in Revelation, yet whose predictions for the soon return of Christ were completely wrong, was disparaging them.
If he is wrong, that makes him a false prophet. The point of this caucus will be to explain why all such prophets and predictions are false, so that people won’t be duped by such charlatans again. If your point in being here is to defend such blatantly false prophets and teachers, this probably wouldn’t be the best place for you.
No I don’t. But caucus threads are not supposed to talk about those of opposing views. While I also don’t agree with Catholics, Mormon’s and many others I wouldn’t agree with a caucus thread that didn’t allow them to refute comments made about them. Would you for instance think a caucus thread that disparaged Calvinists was ok with you?
You probably weren’t aware that caucus threads don’t mention any other beliefs other than the one the caucus is supposedly for.
“You probably weren’t aware that caucus threads don’t mention any other beliefs other than the one the caucus is supposedly for.”
This isn’t a caucus thread. It’s a request for a caucus thread. There’s a difference.
It won’t become a caucus thread because caucus thread decorum has not been even remotely observed. Doing so would require half the replies be deleted.
No I don’t. But caucus threads are not supposed to talk about those of opposing views. While I also don’t agree with Catholics, Mormon’s and many others I wouldn’t agree with a caucus thread that didn’t allow them to refute comments made about them. Would you for instance think a caucus thread that disparaged Calvinists was ok with you?
I've got no problem with the caucus system. I observe it. I report abuse when I see it. Sometimes the moderator agrees, sometimes not.
Just some FRiendly advice. A caucus is for like minded folks (see Catholic caucus articles). Which means for your full prederist view, only those who are full prederists should be posting and discussing full prederist material. Which means pre-mil folks can observe but not debate what you are posting. Which also means a particular caucus cannot post something baiting an opposing view to come in and respond.
For example, the Roman Catholics post an article on the veneration of Mary and make it caucus. A Prot cannot come on and tell them they are worshipping and not venerating.
I think your intent is inform people who disagree with you or people who do not have firm beliefs on the matter. That is fine but that is not what I understand a caucus is about. You should, by my understanding of the rules, be discussing full prederist issues with fellow full prederists. When you make a thread a caucus you in effect light a ring of fire around your world and only those inside the circle can comment.
If a Roman Catholic would attempt to post a caucus thread named “Luther was a demon”, I am sure the RM would remove that thread or turn it into an open thread.
So by coming out and saying you were going to expose the pre-mil view as a fraud, you automatically should lose the protection of the ‘caucus’ status.
Unless it is your intent to proselytize your position. If that is the case I don’t know what fits honestly.
I think his point is, in a caucus you can discuss your views with others of your view but once you start comparing your views with others, the protection of the caucus should be lifted.
For example, perhaps instead of trying to refute every other theory out there, you can use your caucus to actually present your view. Which I see as a nagging problem for full prederists because they only react to other views and never fully present their view for others to examine. Perhaps having a caucus where you actually present your views in detail and as stand alone would work.
Well I guess the barn door is already open. Normally use the PM function to contact the moderator to get permission before posting the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.