False Prophet Ronald Weinland

Aaron Robinson replied by email to my Vile Spirits post.  In that post I took him to task for the use of  the vague “they” in reference to the “Weinland haters”, and asked him to name names.  I also asked him to justify characterizing “they” as having vile spirits, when he did no such characterization of Weinland for his spiritual attempts for the physical deaths of “they”.

His reply has the usual rambling wordiness.  I haven’t edited it, except to insert some spaces to separate words and my replies to a few things.  But I have to say that it’s sort of like shooting a dense flock of chickens with a .22. You don’t have to aim well to hit something but after awhile, what’s the point?

The rest of it is below the fold so you can easily ignore it, or open it up if you wish.

Some of my responses are in {} within Aaron’s reply, other responses in their own paragraph.  Aaron starts out:

For your first question, by “they”, I’m referring to the true Weinland haters, which is actually what you quoted as me having stated. The true Weinland haters are the persons whom already believe that Mr. Weinland is a false prophet and spew so much mockery and ridicule towards somebody when maybe just maybe he is a true prophet since many persons still believe that he is, even ones whom have previous deemed him to be a false prophet because of his original time-frame but then changed his mind later-on.

You still are not clear about whether you consider me to be a true Weinland hater.  I asked you to name names, yet you are still being vague.  I expect you consider me to be a true Weinland hater because:

1. I do believe know that Weinland is a false prophet.
2. I do ridicule him and mock him (and I expect that you consider that I “spew so much” of it)
3. “maybe he is a true prophet” is where I draw a line.  According to Deut. 18:20-22, that ship has sailed.

Now, I’m not a prophet of God, nor am I even a member of the Church Of God – PKG, and so you shouldn’t take every single word I say as literally as is possible. When I said that they denounce anything and everything, many times this expression is used when referring to many many things, even if it’s not totally 100% of everything, so I’m not saying that anybody has denounced 100% of him, but thus so far I haven’t really found anything that they have agreed with regarding Mr. Weinland, not even things that Mr. Weinland says which is very clear in the Bible, such as like Jesus Christ having said that no man ascends into Heaven but He whom came down from Heaven. This could so very easily be true since it’s right there plain as day right there in the text of the Bible in all translations, but however, they still denounce it anyhow and most likely refuse to even examine what the Bible says to see if it is indeed true.

So my takeaway from this is that you’re given to hyperbole, that whatever you say might be an exaggeration.  How do we know which of what you say to take literally, and what not?

As far as the theological example, you’ll have to point out where someone criticized Ronnie for that particular belief.

In your next statement, you further take me literally when you say how that it’s amazing that you haven’t taken your 9-mm pistol and tested Weinland’s powers “at all costs”.  {So then I shouldn’t take you literally?  How should I take you?} When I said tearing down Mr. Weinland, I didn’t at all whatsoever say physically harming or killing him. Tearing Mr. Weinland down just means the mocking, the ridiculing, the posting of the various marriage problems (regardless of the anonymity of the people involved) with the members of God’s Church, the posting of their financial troubles (even aside from Mr. Weinland’s court-summons), and most of what they say can be seen as tearing him down, and yes, I’m sure some people do even desire to kill him but don’t know where he lives in order to do so, but obviously I cannot judge anybody and say whom wants to do this because maybe only 1 does, but it’s possible that some do desire this to be the case. {I know there are people who are tempted, there might even be some who would would follow through.  Which is why I haven’t published his address.} When I say at all costs, once yet again people often use this expression to mean that they seem to be doing everything in their power to assassinate his character, his family-members’ characters, even if he is indeed a false prophet. {I’m glad that you admit he’s a false prophet } I said that they are Hell-bent on doing this at any and all costs, but I was using it as an expression and I didn’t literally mean that 100% of every cost was waged against Mr. Weinland, I mean of course this isn’t the case so I thought you would have known what I was meaning. Any at all costs meaning that they are doing it just as if like there is no tomorrow, and using everything they know (once yet again, not literally everything that they know) to use it against Mr. Weinland.  {That’s contradictory.  “They” will do at “all costs” yet not reveal everything they know?  Gee, if they’d do it at “all costs”, then seems that “they” would use everything they knew and make up some more besides. }

So again you admit to hyperbole “at all costs” does not mean “at all costs”.

When it comes to holding up as an example those who support and enable Weinland’s exploitation, while being themselves exploited, I have no apology for the way I’ve presented it.

In my next quoted statement, I guess I should have been more clearer, although some of these things I really shouldn’t even have to explain to you but it’s like you’re wanting to corner me so that you can expose the wrongs of what I’m saying. Now, I’m not saying that this is the case with you, but I’m just saying that it seems like it because things that you should know what I mean you’re acting like you have no clue what I’m meaning. The context of what I was saying regarding a spirit of trying to destroy somebody because they don’t agree with them. {Once again, not true.  I disagree with lots of people including members of my own family, I don’t try to “destroy” them.  I have a point of disagreement with just about everyone who’s commented on my blog.   Which of them have I tried to destroy? } I didn’t mean that you and everybody on there is doing this, and I should be more clear to state that I’m not referring to everybody. {So to whom exactly are you referring?} Also, I don’t believe I said that you were abusing Greg’s children, and if I did indeed use that word then I sincerely apologize for this, but I just meant that since his situation is regarding his children, that kind of thing should not be talked about, and not because it exposed whom they are, because you can be as anonymous as you are, but it’s about the respect of the children whom have no say at all whatsoever regarding what is happening with them and their parents. {No, you didn’t use the word “abuse”.  What you said was “Kids are involved in this, so why are we invading their privacy like this, just because he is an elder in a church that claims to be God’s Church ? I don’t think that God would want us to talk about something like this especially since it involves innocent children in this.” In the aggregate, you were accusing me of a form of abuse of the children by criticizing their father for not supporting them.  You accuse me of being too literal about what you say, now you’re doing it to me?  Come on!!!} Now, not paying child-support doesn’t mean that they aren’t good enough to be in God’s Church, or that it show a reputation that is running rampant throughout the ministry. {It shows that he doesn’t meet the criteria given in the Bible for being an elder.}Not even God’s people are perfect in ever single way, and they have faults and flaws of their own, and they do sin, and maybe in due time he will begin paying child-support again, or maybe there is some other reason he is not paying it, like maybe he discovered that the child is not really his child, because maybe it from another man, {wild speculation}I mean, I have no idea, {if you have no idea, then why are you putting ideas out there}and if this isn’t something that they shared with anybody else, than not even your close personal connection that knows them would know about this if this were to be the case for this. But regardless of what their real true situation is, it shouldn’t be blabbed about with any amount of anonymity since kids are involved in this, and it’s not fair to the kids even if they are never exposed for anything because we are talking about their situation that involved them so we shouldn’t we just let them be and let them deal with their own family issues ? {There you go again.  Greg’s situation is well known within PKG in at least his own area.  And what about the puppies and kittens? } If the Church Of God – PKG really truly is God’s Church, {big, Big, BIG “IF”} then this doesn’t mean that those people are not gonna have any personal woes in their live, even the elders or the evengelists, I mean, even they have to go through trials and tribulations in life. {Greg’s trials and tribulations are self-induced, and spilling over onto his children.}Maybe he is repenting of other areas of his life that we have no idea about, which would mean that he’s repenting of his ways., but regardless of this or not though, those personal problems have no bearing on the validity of Mr. Weinland since all people sin, even God’s people sin, and we’re not even talking about the sins of being a false prophet, we’re just very simply talking about the sins that every-day people go through and have to work on to become better people. {Oh, but it does have something to say about Ron since he chose Greg as an elder.  And maintains him as such.} Also, just because Greg does what he does doesn’t make it anymore right for you to blab about his personal sins as if it’s something that can just be recklessly thrown around thinking that God wouldn’t mind you doing this. {I did what I did, affording Greg a certain amount of anonymity.  I stand by it, no apologies to Greg or to you.  As far as what Greg did, it’s a matter of public record.} We still should be treating others just as we desire to be treated, {Greg should be treating his ex-wife and children as they are required to be treated} even if the other person isn’t treating you right, we are to be treating people the right way regardless of how they might be treating you (I’ll be speaking of Mr. Weinland’s comments later-on, just so you know though).

You said, “Being elders, they are prime examples of Weinland’s effects on his followers.” The problem with this is you have no idea whether or not those elders were already like this before they even came into the Church, so how can you know that they are showing the effects that Mr. Weinland has upon them ? {Then Weinland showed poor judgment ordaining them.} In 1st Timothy 3, it refers to them being found blameless, but this is not being found sinless because this would be a feat that no manner of human-beings could ever hope to accomplish, but except for that of Jesus Christ. Even elders sin, and I believe that Mr. Weinland did indeed have to disfellowship at least one elder from within the past. {What exactly was this elder’s major sin requiring that he be disfellowshipped?  Tell me how his sin compares to failing a basic responsibility as a parent.} Remember how even some in God’s Church in 31 A.D. even went so far as murdering ? Did this make their ministry any less of a part of God’s Church ? Of course not. {OK, now you’re reaching.  Ron attempted to murder me and others.  Who in the heck are YOU talking about?  And excusing their actions?  You’ve got a wide tolerance for murder, Aaron.} Regarding posting them with anonymity, it really does no good to just mask their last name because all somebody has got to do is key-in their first name and Weinland and up popps your site and obviously they would know whom they are by their first name as being an elder, you know what I mean ? I mean, shouldn’t saying that one of the elders going through what he is going through enough than to be posting any part of his name to identify him ?

I never expected that the way I handled it would give them total anonymity.  Obviously a church member could plug in their first name with “Weinland” and get a copy of my post.  The PKG members and elders who regularly read my blog would also know.  I did not expect nor desire that they remain anonymous from the PKG members and all the other elders who read my blog.  But a prospective employer would not attempt such a search (unless they also proselyte that employer about Weinland) and therefore would not find my post about them.  The other material about elders was available to me by searching on the elder’s name alone in various online sources, no need to mix Weinland into the search.  Others including government sources made this material available online linked to their full name, not me.  I just pointed out how it tied in to Weinland’s false teachings and his judgment in whom he chose to be his elders.

Tell me, what was the horrible sin for which the elder was disfellowshipped?

As far as my alleged abuse of Greg’s kids because I point out that he’s not paying the child support he owes, how ludicrous.  And then you go and accuse their mother of committing adultery — you’re the one abusing Greg’s kids by your own standards.  Let me go on the record here as saying that there are zero indications of infidelity on the part of their mother and you’re irresponsible to even speculate about it.

Now, for the meatyest {interesting word, but not one that I’d use to describe what follows here, even the correctly spelled version of the word}part of this posting, regarding Mr. Weinland. Now, remember that I have the view that Mr. Weinland is God’s prophet, and let’s just pretend for just a moment that this is really truly the case. As God’s prophet, Mr. Weinland would have been given the authority from God to say things in harmony with what his job is to be. If part of the job of God’s 2 End-Time prophets and witnesses is to tell people what will happen to them as a result of their actions against them and God’s people, then I would expect nothing less from Mr. Weinland to be doing this. But however, the witness powers to devour their enemies of whom want to harm them, they must be killed in this manner. So thus, if they are harming God’s prophet with words, {I never ever sought Weinland’s death with words}then God’s prophet is to devour them in this manner, meaning with words, meaning that maybe he will say many things further along in time that will spiritually harm them, and this would cause them to lose favour with God, and they will not be spiritual helped to come to the truths of God, and so thus, they will end-up slowly dying from the inside on out from their spiritual and emotional grief, {Wrong again — I was to die speedily, not slowly, per his latest death curse. And I have no spiritual or emotional grief.}and will eventually die because they will be caught-up in what the World is going through and will not be spared from it. Part of this power comes from God guiding it to happen. Now, this might seem harsh for people, but if this is what the Bible says, then this is the power that God’s 2 End-Time Witnesses are given to use, and they will indeed use this power at some point during this period of time. Let’s just say that you were saying those things against God’s people, wouldn’t you expect that this would happen to you if the Bible says this is one of those powers that are given ? Wouldn’t you at least expect that God’s prophet would pronounce this kind of thing since God gives them the power to do so ? {Whether or not he really thinks he is a Witness makes his pronouncements of death curses on his enemies no less vile.}

There was nothing spiritual about the death I was to suffer as a result of Weinland’s exercise of his Witness Powers.  It was to be a physical death, to be suffered from the inside.   And it wasn’t a slow death — he cursed me with a speedy death.  The fact that I’m still blogging away with criticisms and mocking over 15 months after he issued this curse on me is itself proof that he his not who he says he is.

And let’s not pretend that Ronnie boy is a true prophet of God.  Prove it first and then we’ll talk about what he is and is not entitled to do.  There’s not one shred of proof that he is, and lots and lots of proof that he isn’t a true prophet of God.

Now, regarding hypocrisy, Mr. Weinland did not attempt to kill you, as he didn’t make a physical threat against your life, although yes, he did say that his mockers will die from within, but this is not because he DESIRES them to die, but because he is in tandem with God’s purpose and plan, and God gives them this power for a reason. {but God didn’t give him this power, obviously, since I’m still alive}even if Mr. Weinland were a false prophet and some other prophet ends up being God’s real true prophet, wouldn’t you wanna be saying the very same thing about him when the true prophet pronounces death from within for their mocking and ridiculing and words against God’s people ? If you wouldn’t be against it then, then you shouldn’t be against this now because this is indeed part of the job of God’s 2 End-Time Witnesses, to devour their enemies whom try to harm them, whether it is physically or spiritually harm them. If they use word against them, them they will use words back against them. {Now that’s pure nonsense.  I have never issued a death curse on Weinland, or called for his death in any manner.} If Mr, Weinland really truly is God’s prophet, then you aren’t messing with God’s people, you are messing with God.{But since Weinland truly is a false prophet, then I am not messing with God.}

Weinland did make a threat that I would die physically.  And yes, he wanted me to die.  Whether the death was to be imposed by physical means or spiritual means is besides the point as far as this discussion.  If he truly believes that he is a Witness, then his death curse was morally attempted murder, even though it wasn’t legally so under the law of the land.  In his own mind, he attempted to kill me.  That is unless he doesn’t really believe that he’s a Revelation 11 Witness.   The issue is his motive, not the efficacy of his death attempt.

Regarding the splinter Church Of God groups, Mr. Weinland did not have a death attempt against the ministry of those churches, and the way you sound is like he made a physical threat, when he was only saying what God wants for those people whom treat God’s people badly, and that this comes from God. {Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! He pronounced the curse on the first 5 ministers to die as proof that he is God’s prophet} If the 2nd Trumpet was blown back in July 2008, would you still be feeling the same way that Mr. Weinland is wrong in making threats against the lives of those whom badly treat God’s people ? {But the 2nd trumpet didn’t blow.  So I don’t have to play mind games figuring out what I’d be thinking if only if.}Whomever are God’s prophetes and witnesses would be pronouncing the very same things which Mr. Weinland pronounced because the Bible very clearly states that they will have this power, and for good reason also. This is what I mean when I say that the people whom are firmly against Mr. Weinland have their objectivity clouded because most of them seem to disbelieve whatever it is that Mr. Weinland is saying, even if it’s something that is very clearly stated within the very pages of the Bible. I’m not saying that you should be taking an on-the-fence position or anything like this, but can you try eing objective with things that are said ? I mean, if he were a real true prophet, then wouldn’t you expect him to be prounouncing those things then ? Even if he is a false prophet, if he genuinely believes in his heart that he is God’s prophet, then shouldn’t you still be expecting him to prounce what he has been pronouncing ?

Weinland’s attempted murder of competing CoG ministry is just the same as his attempted murder of me.  Morally it was a murder attempt, just not legally so.  I’ve already objectively put to bed whether he’s a true prophet, he’s failed the Duet. 18:20-22 tests numerous times.  The issue is his motive and state of mind when he made his death attempt, not the efficacy of his death attempt.

One of the reasons why I feel that many people and possibly even yourself have his vendetta against anything and everything related to Armstrongism is because in your About portion of your blogg, you say how it’s difficult to pay Mr. Armstrong back since he is long dead. This sounds very much like a vendetta against the teachings of Mr. Armstrong, regardless of anything that happens with Mr. Weinland. I mean, if the 2nd Trumpet was blown in July 2008, would you have felt that this villified Mr. Armstrong since Mr. Weinland would have been correct, or would it have been some kind of massive coincidence and Mr. Armstrong was still a very bad man ? I just don’t see that you would be treating this any differently even if Mr. Weinland’s original time-frame did indeed come to pass. I can only imagine how very difficult it is for you to have been in Mr. Armstrong’s ministry and to have felt that he was a liar since his teachings didn’t seem to happen as he stated, I mean, I can totally understand this, but with this it’s then very difficult to be able to objectively view this situation. I mean, what if Mr. Armstrong really truly believed that he was God’s apostle and not just trying to milk the tithings of God’s people ? If he really truly was God’s apostle commissioned to spread the gospel into the World as a witness unto all nations before the end would come, then wouldn’t that require an incredible amount of wealth to be able to live that kind of life to be travelling all over the World and to be internationally recognized and respected ? Wouldn’t God have to mold and fashion his life so as to have him become a wealthy man ? Even though he lived lavishly, this doesn’t mean that he stole tithes from the church. Now, maybe he did, but all we can go on is the words of a few of the leaders in the ministry whom probably were against Mr. Weinland anyhow since they desired to have a massive change in the church, so of course they would probably then spread all kinds of lies about him. Isn’t this possible that this is what Mr. Armstrong’s enemies would do in order to discredit him, or are all claims always true against a person just because some of the leaders and members said so ? I’m not saying whether or not he’s innocent or guilty, but how can we know unless we actually saw it happening ? It’s just like those claims of sexual abuse by Mr. Armstrong, I mean, have they ever been unequivocally proven beyond a shadow of any doubt in thier minds ?

I reject your assertion that a messenger from God has to be a wealthy man.  As far as Herbert Armstrong’s sexual abuse of his daughter, while this has not been proven in a criminal court, there is enough to prove it in my mind.  The fact that such an accusation could be mentioned in an Associated Press article without a libel suit resulting, the article quoting an attorney who stated this without a resulting slander suit speaks volumes.

My “vendetta” is against the false prophecy, not so much against the false teachings.  As far as my objectivity, wrong.  Also, you are in no position to criticize my objectivity.  I have no apology for the quality of my objectivity.  As far as what I would have done in the hypothetical situation in which somehow Weinland really was a true prophet of God, I’ve already stated what my response would have been in this post.

So then, the only other thing would be Mr. Armstrong’s teachings being iffy in the minds of many of the members. To this, I ask isn’t it very well possible that God is working with his End-Time servants in a manner that was one of allowing them to believe that things were happening very very soon because of all of what was happening in this World during that timeing ? If I were God’s apostle, and I was given the commission which Mr. Armstrong was given, {no commission was given, he presumed it}and if I knew that eventually World War was to break-out, I would have said just precisely what Mr. Armstrong said by saying that it seemed that the end was very very near and was soon-coming, because that was the feeling he had because of the events happening in the World, I mean, World War II was erupting onto the scene, and then the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc. He felt that the time had come and wasn’t afraid to state it as so. Just as God’s apostles back in the times of Jesus Christ had told what they themselves were feeling with what was happening all around them. They thought that Jesus Christ was soon-coming because the temple was destroyed in the year 70 A.D. Did that make them false apostles because they stated that the end was near and God’s Kingdom was very near at hand because of what the World was going through back at that time ? {Cite references.} We should use those very same lessons and apply them to current times as well, because if you were in the place of Mr. Armstrong and you saw all of this stuff erupting onto the World scene and you knew that World War was eventually coming during this End-Time, how do you know that you wouldn’t be feeling that the end was near and wouldn’t be afraid to state those beliefs as such ? I mean, don’t you think that God’s people back during the times of the 12 apostles had to severely up-root their lives even much more so than during the times of Mr. Armstrong because of the incredibly oppressive Roman government ? Didn’t they up-root and plan their lives around what God’s servants were saying seemed to be the case, even if it turned-out to be very different than what was said ?

Herbie never was given any such commission by God.  He presumptuously claimed it for himself.  I refer you again to Deut 18:20-22.  Herbie claimed to speak for God, he prophesied, the prophesies failed.   Therefore, False Prophet Herbert Armstrong.  Case closed.

If God allowed this to occurr back then, then wouldn’t it be just as feasible that God would be allowing his servants to believe what seemed to be the case until God’s timing would arrive to correct them and put the truth in front of them through revelation. Sometimes God’s servants believe that truth is known due to devine revelation but then later-on it turns-out that it was just their own mind’s understanding of those things until God corrects what they are believing and allows them to see the real truth of those things ? Many people have a very difficult time believing that God could be working in this manner, but they just pin most of what Mr. Armstrong says as being something that would have to be 100% correct in order to be God’s servant and so thus God’s Church. Hasn’t God’s Church been wrong in much of their history, even back during the times of Christ ? I mean, John wrote to 7 churches in Asia because they were not doing the right things and weren’t teaching all of the right things. The Bible and the subsequent history of God’s Church very clearly shows that this body of Christ is never 100% perfect and sometimes is very wrong, but God does eventually offer them correction onto the right path of truth.

As far as God allowing this to happen, I refer you to Matthew 24:11 “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.”  Your argument is ludicrous.  Like saying that we should believe the testimony of a professional, say a doctor, because he is incompetent.

I very honestly have to discount any and every church out there that absolutely refuses to believe anythng differently than what they have always believed, because that is telling me that they don’t believe that Satan has deceived the whole World, and they somehow feel that they are immune to Satan’s deceptions. The hallmark of God’s Church is that they are willing to accept revelation of truth from God, and not stubbornly refuse to change their beliefs if greater understanding of the Bible leads them to those changes. Satan has caused the truth to be lost in the church many a times, but that hasn’t stopped God’s Church from being God’s Church. Even aside from Satan, sometimes God’s Church just teaches the wrong things sometimes, and might say things are happening in the World because of the events that are occurring all around them, but did this stop God’s servants from serving God and His Church ? For the most part, probably not. If we are going to judge God’s servants as to wether or not they are even God’s servants in the very first place, then let us put ourselves in the shoes of God’s servants that are written about all over the Bible. I understand that you have ill feelings about Mr. Amstrong because of what you see as him lying regarding prophecy, but is there not any other way to view this ? {NO!!!! Armstrong ruined many lives with his lies and greed.}Couldn’t Mr. Armstrong have been doing what God’s servants did over the past 2,000 years of history by God’s people planning their lives around events they thought were coming to pass during various periods of history ? {Armstrong did what other lying exploiting false prophets have done throughout history.}What makes Mr. Armstrong expressing his feelings of what he felt was soon-coming any bit different than God’s servants from the past ? We can’t just make this different for Mr. Armstrong because we’re upset that we had to up-root our lives over things that Mr. Armstrong stated.

You make a bunch of vague references to supposed misdeeds of supposed servants of God in the past.  Name names, cite specific examples.  But even so, the misdeeds of some do not excuse the misdeeds of others.  If you’re speeding through a school zone endangering the lives of children, are you justified in doing so because other have also violated the law?

No, no other way to view Herbert Armstrong.  I refer you again to Deut 18:20-22 and Matthew 24:11.

I mean, if those people refused to have a sense of humility to be able to see the possibility that Mr. Armstrong is not false because things didn’t occur just exactly as was believed to be the case, but rather that Mr. Armstrong is still a human-being that has expressed himself as a human-being as to what was happening in the World, and did relate it to Bible prophecy because things seemed to be coming into fruition all over the place. The history of God’s Church shows that sometimes God’s Church will believe things that are incorrect until God gives His revelation of truth to his servants. Did God say that his servants should apologize to God’s people for up-rooting their lives based upon what they believed to be true and was living their faith by what they thought was true ? No, because they should have no need to apologize for havig faith in Jesus Christ to believe what they believed, just as so long as they are willing to accept correction when revealed by God to His people, otherwise, they run the danger of them being cut-off from the flow of God’s Holy Spirit.

If a “sense of humility” is required to ignore Deut. 18:20-22 and Matthew 24:11 and all the evidence of Herbie’s false prophethood, then I’m glad that I’m not that “humble”.  God didn’t say that “his servants” should merely apologize for false prophecy, he said they should be put to death.

Mr. Weinland never said that all phases of this 5th Thunder would be manifested before the 2nd Trumpet blows. The book “2008 – God’s Final Witness” doesn’t say that all phases of this 5 Thunder run in tandem with each other, because maybe it’s more sequencial, and they will most likely either be dying just before the 2nd Trumpet blows, or
after, or maybe this is what occurs during the 5 months of tormenting.

Weinland did say that the first 5 of the first phase of the fifth thunder would die to prove him to be a prophet of God, and he said it would happen soon.  It didn’t happen soon, in fact it didn’t happen at all.  The time for “soon” is long gone.

Since we both agree that being vile is doing that that are morally wrong,I do believe that it’s morally wrong for many of Weinland’s critics to be talking in the manner in which they are. Now, regarding Mr. Weinland himself though, if he is indeed God’s prophet, then I would expect him to pronounce things against his mockers because this is what the Bible talks about. Furthermore, you say that Mr. Weinland is the one whom is making the death threats and is seeking to kill you, but however, Mr. Weinland even stated that he and God do not desire to see that happennd that the one one that they are offered is repentence, so it’s not like he is saying, “I want you dead and out of this World because of your mocking.” I would expect ANY prophet of God to speak how Mr. Weinland has spoken regarded his mockers because the Bible even says that those whom seek to do him harm (such as like by the words from their mouth), they must be killed in this manner, meaning with words. If you genuinely feel that Mr. Weinland should not be giving threats of being killed through lack of repentence, then hopefully you would feel the same exact way about whomever God’s prophet really truly is, if it’s indeed not Mr. Weinland.

Tell you what.  Check back with me if a true prophet ever shows up on the scene.  ‘Til then, I’m not holding my breath.

You pointed-out in your “Ron’s Total Resolve” posting how it’s totally amazing how that it’s been 11 Weeks since Ron cursed you to die from the inside {11 weeks then, but now it’s 66 weeks}, but you have to understand that Mr. Weinland even said that the hope is through repentence, which means that you and everybody else has been offered repentence, which means the actually dying from the inside isn’t supposed to happen instantaneously after he pronounces it, but yes, if they don’t repent by the time them the major tribulation begins raising it’s ugly head, then those mockers will probably die earlyer-on during that time. {What nonsense.  That is NOT what he said when the death curse was issued.} Mr. Weinland did state that a spirit and attitude of repentence is being offered so that they won’t receive what was pronounced against them, and it will be speedily once it begins, but it’s hasn’t yet begun, and God has been offering his mercy by giving even his mockers more time for repentence. {More nonsense.}You said that Mr. Weinland attempted to kill you, but all he did was give a warning to his mockers that they will be dealt with in a specific manner that agrees with God’s will if they don’t seek the repentence of changing, so it wasn’t like he said I am going to kill you mockers for the things you have said, because that would have been a threat against your life. What you’re saying would be like Mr. Weinland stating that God will kill those whom mock and ridicule God’s people, so you had better be carefull not to cross God and His people because otherwise your life could be in danger from death. This is something that the Bible very clearly talks about, but it would be like saying that this constitutues a direct death threat against your life. Well, you can choose to see it this way, but if what the Bible says is true, then I trust that God is promises His word to be true and that God’s prophets will up-hold God’s Word, and if you take God’s Word (which Mr. Weinland is up-holding) as death-threating you, then I cannot say anything more to help you understand. {I well understand the situation.  Weinland is a false prophet, so his death curses are as worthless as his prophecies.} I’m sure that most of the mockers of God’s prophets from in the Bible felt death-threated when those very same threats were pronounced upon many persons, so are you also against the fact that God and His servants have done the very same thing which Mr. Weinland is doing ?

Tell me, when have God and His servants done what Weinland is doing.  Which is lying.  You should be very afraid, Aaron, for calling God a liar.

Also, you talk about how lavishly Mr. Weinland lives, and the taking a cruise as being proof of his character. But I mean, God commands His people to tithe their wages of their labours, and that money must be used for God’s purposes to help the Church. {Weinland asked for so much more than tithes, he asked for their life savings.}Does this mean that Mr. Weinland has to deplete much of his own personal money so that God’s people don’t have to help out at all whatsoever ?  {Yes, it does.  He asked his members to do that, so he should as well, the hypocrite.}This would run the risk of them growing complacent and lethargic and then growing feelings of not needing to give their tithes to the Church.  {What utter nonsense.}How do you know that Mr. Weinland doesn’t give his 10% tithe of his wealth to the Church funds ? {So what if he does?  Since the church finances are totally under his control, he just increases his salary to make up for it.  Besides which, we’re talking about a looot more than tithes.} I’m sure that the rest of the Church’s funds alone could take care of all of what Mr. Weinland was doing to help the Church, and neither could only Mr. Weinland’s funds. {Gee, you’re sure now?   How about an accounting of all the church funds and how they’re spent, since you’re so sure.  You haven’t a clue.} Isn’t it very well possible that Mr. Weinland tithes just like the rest of God’s people tithe ? {Again, as I’ve pointed out before, so what?}Even if Mr. Weinland donated an extra 10% to God’s Church and helped-out the needy, 70% of his wealth would still be retained. God doesn’t say that we need to strip all of our wealth away, {Weinland asked his members to do that}I mean that wealth could be used to support what he is doing, along with the tithing from God’s people whom God requires them to tithe, so they are obligated to help with their fair share, and Mr. Weinland is obligated as well. If Mr. Weinland even only had 50% of his wealth, he could still spend some of his wealth on taking a cruise if that is what they choose to do, and plus, if he is God’s prophet, then I would expect it to be important that he visits those areas of the past and where future events will be occuring. Does it absolutely have to be the case that Mr. Weinland is not using much of his wealth in order to help-out God’s Church ? Do you know for a fact that Mr. Weinland doesn’t donate to charities or help people in need of trouble ? {Yes, I do know that.  Weinland has spoken out against those who would donate to charity instead of his church, which is the same thing as his pocket.}Maybe he doesn’t, but do you know that he doesn’t ? {Yes, I DO know that he doesn’t.}

Aaron, it’s clear to me that you have not listened to as many of Weinland’s sermons as I have.  Go and listen to the following sermons:

• “God’s Mercy” July 29, 2006
• “Total Resolve” Oct 4, 2007
• “What Has Changed”, parts 1 & 2, Oct 27 and Nov 3, 2007
• “April 17th”, May 3, 2008
• “Ordinations & Baptisms Pt 2″ Jan 9, 2010

Maybe Mr. Weinland is doing his part required by God and even above and beyond that but you would never know it unless you were right there side-by-side with him watching what he does. Other ex-members just simply saying that he is greedy and is just milking off of the tithes of God’s people is just hear-say. {You know what, Aaron?  I’ll take their “hear-say” above your random rambling speculations any day.  They’ve been there, you haven’t}.  All of those things that are said against Mr. Weinland (aside from his prophecies) haven’t yet been proven, in terms of how his character is. Most people assume that billionaires are the most greedy persons on the planet but yet so many of them heavily donate to charities. Living a lavish life does not speak about somebody’s characters. Yes, it’s true that the bulk of God’s people have lived poor lives because they are meeker and humbler because of it, but if God’s apostles and prophets are given huge jobs to do,wouldn’t that require a life a wealth to accomplish ? I mean, the tithes of just only hundreds of people’s salaries wouldn’t be enough to travel all over the World either preaching the gospel into the World as a witness unto all nations or providing help to scattered areas of God’s Church, so thus, I would expect this commission to be accomplished with somebody whom is kinda of wealthy, but not so very wealthy like a billionaire. I know people whom make quite a bit of money and are the most kind and generous people you could ever meet in your life, so living with wealth does not make somebody greedy and un-able to be God’s servant.

Weinland teaches that people should not donate to charity.  Instead they should give their funds to Ron to promote his books.

You paint it like Ron is independently wealthy, that his wealth has nothing to do with the Church of God PKG.  Such nonsense.  Ron grew up in modest circumstances.  His wealth came from the pockets of tithe-and-offering slaves, nowhere else.

Do not view that I haven’t responded to each and every one of you points as an indication that I don’t have a valid response.  It only indicated that I found responding to your points tiresome.  You’ve rambled on and on, with speculation after speculation.

On the other hand, you really did not respond to the two brief points I raised.  You still haven’t justified Weinland’s vile spirit in his murder attempts, albeit spiritual they were still murder attempts for the physical deaths of myself and others.

And you’re still not clear on who exactly “they” are.  Well, it’s clear that I am part of “they”.  But who exactly are the others of “they”, the Weinland haters.  Come on, name names.

We also have this pair of statements to consider.  On Jan 26 you said:

What is good about the 2012 timing is that we don’t even have to wait until 2012, because the collapse of the government of the United States should be recognized as being very much incredibly imminent by the ending of the year of 2010 or the beginning of the year of 2011. If nothing at all whatsoever occurs by then, then Mr. Weinland will have been a false prophet, but I do believe with every fiber of my being that Mr. Weinland is one of God’s prophets for this End-Time. Now, only time will tell, and no, I will not be extending any time-lines, and should Mr. Weinland come out sometime during the year of 2010 with a 3rd time-line that causes Jesus Christ to be returning even later than the day of Pentecost 2012, then I will immediately deem Mr. Weinland to be a false prophet.

Yet the other day you said:

At the very least, we should not just automatically discount Mr. Weinland until the end of Spring season of 2011,

Only two months later, and you’re extending the deadline by almost 6 months into late June of 2011.  This time next year, you’ll be giving Ron yet more time, whether he’s sticking to this timeline or switching to a new one.

Aaron, if you choose to respond here, be brief and to the point.  No rambling speculations.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 1st, 2010 at 16:36 and is filed under Personal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.