On December 6 and 7, 1999, I went to a Delphi forum called "God's Plan for Man" to find out whether or not I wanted to keep it on my "most recently visited list". (Due to the reorganization of Delphi and the fact that you can now only host a forum if you're willing to pay for it, this form seems to have disappeared, which in a way only reinforces my belief that it's a cult.) I was soon a bit skeptical and concerned about what I was reading there, so I posted the following message, which appeared under the thread called "Truly Amazing...". It was given the message number designation 218.1 and was posted on Dec. 7 at 8:45 am. (For those familiar with Delphi, you know you can search a particular forum for a message by message number in case the thread is removed or renamed.) The following is the exact text of the message, spelling and grammatical errors and all.
"I find myself unsure of this site. I've read about the book on it's webpage and I've been reading messages here for the past two days. There is just enough that I agree with that were I not so wary of any one individual saying "I have the key to God's mind", I might actually buy what is being said here. But I AM wary and here's why.
To say that we all must do this, that and the other in order to be saved is so very limiting of God. As a human parent, in my "flawed" condition, I have the ability to unconditionally love my children. To relate to each of them in their own way and on their own terms. Yes, there are general rules: respect others, treat them with dignity, etc. but the rest is very flexible based on their own level of maturity. There is nothing that my kids could do that would cause me to turn them out of my life forever. It might be necessary to separate myself from them for a time should they choose to walk a destructive (to themselves or to others) path, but I would always be there for them should they ever want to come home. How much easier is it going to be for God to do the same thing for all of his children? (And btw, I DON'T believe God is male, I just use that out of habit and ease...its the shortest way to type it).
Yes, I do agree that the lessons in the Bible transcend time. But I don't believe them to be the literal word of God: if that were true, then there would be no discrepancy between the wording used in the various gospels when depicting the same event in Jesus' life. But there are differences in words attributed to Jesus, showing that the events recorded were indeed filtered through personal, human memory and experience. It's why it's so easy to tell when Paul is speaking on the subject of marriage vs. one of the other disciples/apostles. In Genesis, the terms "We" and "our" are used when referring to God-- does this mean there is more than one God? I don't think so. The same is true with the Greek that is generally translated into homosexual in today's Bibles. The term homosexual didn't even exist until the 1800's: the original Greek meant a temple prostitute or someone who kept a young boy (child) for a sexual toy. And yet we're led to believe (or at least those in power in the Christian church would have us believe) that being gay is a choice. The choice is to accept the fact that you're gay or to live the rest of your life in denial, lying to yourself. Don't you think God knows that despite all your attempts at being straight that you really are attracted to the same gender in your heart? What other "sin" denies someone the right to love another?
God speaks to each of us in the manner in which we most need it, in the manner suited to our level of maturity. It is not for any one of us to say "Here is the path" because the paths to God are infinite: there is a different path for every soul and God is leading each of us down our own path.
With Love and Light,"
I had my signature graphic there, but that's not really important. But if you want to, you can have a peek at it.
This is the reply I got...again, it is unedited. As you'll notice, the way this guy talks is a bit confusing. On the forum pages, this is much easier to see. There's a lot of what appears to me to be "non-denial denials" and other fancy wordwork, but maybe I'm just overly suspicious. This message is numbered 218.2 and was posted at 7:29 pm on the same day.
"Love is unconditional, but the truth isn't!
For those who truly don't know there is no accountability! However, there is a fine line between what is right and wrong. Those who know or say they don't know as a convenience have no conscience, but is that possible? In our world today enough is given so that your conscience does know, but is excused by some rational saying there is no sin. People in this world today suggest that unconditional love doesn't care about a condition of right or wrong. Not so, even though God is love He (and I mean He) exacts a justice which must separate good from bad, right from wrong in a perfect way. His love wants the truth to overcome and that the destiny of man.
We can't have it both ways - there is only one way. Please don't defend the errors of today by finding fault in this forum - you'll do yourself a great injustice.
These subjects are deep, needing discernment. You can't package love and say that everyone is loving in the way they act. However, everyone could be! One must understand what love is for it to be unconditional otherwise it is conditional to a limited understanding. Love is not a convenience of the mind, but wants to be.
Peace to you as your pursuit of a deeper meaning of love and its application.
Love in all the right ways - there is no other way!
This forum expresses perfect love for those who know it, and accepts responsibility and accountability for the truth in its application. That is why the line is drawn - it's for the good of those who would otherwise not know.
Thank you for posting - I hope you're not regretful.
Faithfully yours, in His name! Dennis -- THE WORD 2
Edited 12/7/99 8:23:40 PM ET by MICHELLEHORN"
OK, now what Michellehorn was doing editing Dennis's post is beyond me. It appears to me that the two are in "cahoots". Michelle is the one always asking the questions that start off most discussion threads and Dennis is the one who answers them. Michelle is also an unfailing supporter of the "wisdom" and "truth" that Dennis addresses in his book, also called "God's Plan for Man." I do not know the relationship between the two but they appear to be working together to further the cause of Dennis' book.
My response to this, message 218.3, was posted very late that same night and was deleted by Dennis the following morning at about 9:30...cause that's when I got an email from him, which I will also post further down, along with my reply. However, here is what I posted in deleted message 218.3. On this one, I have to say that I copied and saved it before I made a few minor editorial changes and clarified a few points, so this might be slightly different than what was originally posted, but only in minor areas. Nothing to change the general tone or meaning of the message.
"'Love is unconditional, but the truth isn't!'
But you see, unconditional means without conditions. That means that when I die, if I have denied God's very existence my entire life, if I have treated everyone as if they were my personal valet and handmaiden and I squandered away money left and right, and upon my death I meet up with God and realize the error of my ways, I can still repent...and still be "taken to heaven". If you deny that, then there are conditions God has placed on his love-- you have to accept it before you die.
And, whether one wants to admit it or not, truth IS relative. There can be things that appear contradictory but are both (or all) still true. Light is a prime example. Light is both a wave and a particle and yet it is neither a wave nor a particle. Light will bend, and it can be held in by gravity, and yet it has no mass. So it is with truth-- what appears to be contradictory truths can in fact both be true because the GOAL of the truth has not changed. I offer another analogy.
We have a parent who has two children: one is 2 and the other is 16. When she gets ready to leave, she tells the two year old "Don't write on the walls with anything. Don't stick anything in the sockets. Don't let anyone in the house. Don't throw anything around inside the house. Don't hit, kick, bite, or wrestle in the house. Don't answer the phone." Then she leaves the room and comes back a few minutes later to tell the 2 year old she's leaving. As soon as mom is out the door, the phone rings. The 16yo answers it. A few minutes later, the doorbell rings and he lets in one of his friends from school-- one the 2yo doesn't know. He and the friend are joking around and they start hitting each other in mock battle and soon are rolling around on the floor wrestling. Their battle is broken up by the phone ringing, and the 16 yo answers it again, this time writing a message on the memoboard that is hanging on the wall by the phone. Then he brings down his boom box and plugs it into the wall and listens to music as he and the friend toss a football back and forth in the living room. Now as far as the two year old is concerned, the 16yo is going to be in big trouble because he's broken every one of mom's rules. But mom comes home and the 16 yo doesn't get in any trouble and the 2 yo is confused. Why? Because the 2 yo doesn't understand that the GOAL of the rules was not to control their behavior but to keep them safe and to keep the house undamaged. The truth for the 2yo and for the 16 yo are different because they're at different levels of maturity. Yet the "ultimate goal" of those truths is the same: the kids are unhurt and the house is undamaged.
So it is with all of us on earth. Those who ascribe to a very rigid set of scriptural rules are like the 2yo: they don't have the spiritual maturity to make responsible decisions, so those decisions are made for them by their pastors and elders of their faith. But as one spiritually matures, one is free to make their own choices as long as the goal is the same: ie, to fulfill the two greatest commandments: to love God with all our heart, soul, body and spirit and to love our neighbors as we love God. It is easy for the 16 year old to understand why the 2 yo would need such rules, but the 16 yo would balk at being forced to live by those rules. The 2yo on the other hand, has difficulty reconciling the differences in the rules and feels that the 16 yo is violating them, when in truth, he's fulfilling the "GOAL" of the rules. But simply because the 16 yo is more mature does not make them a better person or more valuable than the 2 yo. To the mother, she couldn't pick one over the other. So it is with God: we are all his children, he gives us rules that appear to contradict each other but in reality are not contradictions when looked at with respect to the goal of the rules. Simply because one is more mature spiritually doesn't make one more valuable to God. He loves us all equally and unconditionally.
You may have God's plan for YOU and for those who choose to agree with you. But you most certainly don't have God's plan for everyone. To say you do is arrogant in the highest degree because you are saying that you, in your human form, have grasped the unknowable mind of God and understand it in its entirety. When I have questions of faith, which are no more than just my faith growing and expanding, I turn to God and I ask for his help. (And again, I'm using him/his/he/God just from habit and out of ease.) I will most certainly trust what he tells me rather than what you or any other human being tells me. You may tell me it is from the devil (who I don't believe in) because it doesn't agree with what YOU think is the right way. But the 2 yo would have said the 16 yo did all kinds of things wrong...and he didn't. Not one thing wrong. So I'm going to take the truth my parent tells me and not the truth that you or any other human being tells me. I have a direct line of communication to God-- as we all do. And if we listen to our hearts we will hear God speaking to us. Instead too many of us choose to listen to someone else's version of what God has said.
I'm also a bit amazed that no one has taken you to task for your choice of monikers in this forum. The Word made flesh is Jesus...and you call yourself "The Word 2"....are you implying that you are the second Jesus? That you are the student that has come to fulfill the second coming? It certainly sounds that way...and that sounds a whole lot to me like a cult. And just to be on the safe side, I'm going to copy this entire message and save it on my own computer in case it gets deleted, as I kind of suspect it will....
With Love and Light,"
And I again had my signature file.
The next morning, I received the following email from Dennis. I have copied it in its entirety, and I post it here for you to see so that perhaps you can make up your mind a bit easier.
"Subject: This is not a dumping ground
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 09:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: theword2@The-WordofGod.org
To: rainbow@sgi.net
The following message was sent to you by THEWORD2 while at http://www.delphi.com/GODsPlanForMan on Delphi Forums:
Your visits with us have been brief, but what you post is self-serving. While you profess the truth and an understanding of unconditional love, but your attribute of love in one way - that is contrary to what love is. Obviously you haven't yet come to find it within yourself - what a shame.
This is not a dumping ground for the broken, but it is a place where a positive exchange can find a meaning. Your negative attitude should be obvious now, but just in case it wasn't before I've now told you.
There are many places on the Internet where you can post your kind of junk and argue to your hearts content. This is not one of the places. I've taken the liberty to allow you to continue to review our site, but you no longer have the privilege to post.
I'm sure this won't make your day any happier, but that's your problem. What is going on within your person needs to be examined, and for your good, but it does not need to find a resting place here. It's rejected because of the source which motivates you it's not love for it's negative.
Peace to you in any way that you may find it - I wish you well.
PS Should you wish to dialogue in a positive and rational manner feel free to email me at theword2@the-wordofGod.org"
I emailed the following response to Dennis. Again, it's quoted in its entirety, errors and all. I have had to make a minor editorial adjustment here...When I quoted Dennis' response, it appeard in the brackets used in HTML and so I edited it, replacing those "arrowheads" with inner quotation marks.
"Subject: Re: This is not a dumping ground
theword2@The-WordofGod.org wrote:
'Your visits with us have been brief, but what you post is self-serving.'
On the contrary, I'm not attempting to convert anyone to my way of thinking, unlike you and your book. I'm simply telling you what I believe. I didn't expect you to allow me to post because it might cause ppl to think for themselves rather than to listen to you and to buy your book. Talk about self-serving. When any voice of dissention is not allowed to speak freely, then you are operating NOT from love but from personal and selfish purposed. As you said, unconditional love has no fear. If you do not fear what I say, then there is no need to silence me. You must surely realize that negativity cannot affect us unless we allow it to do so.
'While you profess the truth and an understanding of unconditional love, but your attribute of love in one way - that is contrary to what love is.'
And you use of the English language is so full of circuitous language that it is often difficult to decipher exacty what you are saying. Which I'm sure is exactly the way you want it. More confusion means that the average Joe isn't going to be able to understand what you're really saying, but you're saying it with such conviction that they think that it really must be true.
'Obviously you haven't yet come to find it within yourself - what a shame.'
What I obviously haven't found within myself is YOUR idea of what Love is nor do I ascribe to YOUR beliefs regarding God. And as I said, why should I? I will believe in what God tells me and not in what some human tells me.
'This is not a dumping ground for the broken, but it is a place where a positive exchange can find a meaning. Your negative attitude should be obvious now, but just in case it wasn't before
I've now told you.'
It is negative because I dared to disagree. It is negative because what I speak might alert others to your cultish activities. You, Dennis, THEWORD2, setting yourself up as the next "messiah" and having your little stooge-- Michelle-- ask you questions that make you look like some all-knowing, all-perfect person, poised to take over where Jesus left off.
'There are many places on the Internet where you can post your kind of junk and argue to your hearts content. This is not one of the places. I've taken the liberty to allow you to continue
to review our site, but you no longer have the privilege to post.'
I no longer need to post. I have ways to alert others to the cultish activities in your forum and I will do so. One need not silence opposition unless they fear it-- but you have that covered nicely too with your argument that those who debate are only denying that they're coming from a selfish path but unable/unwilling to admit it. You have your bases covered, I'll grant you that. But hopefully, few will fall pray to your message-- otherwise we'll end up with another Waco or Heaven's Gate tragedy.
'I'm sure this won't make your day any happier, but that's your problem.'
Such a loving attitude from one who professes to operate from the
highest degree of love at all times. Actually, it DID make my day
happier because by silencing me, you confirmed what my intuition told me about you: that you are nothing but a self-aggrandizing prophet of your own personal power religion. There is just enough truth in what you say to make those who are searching for the Truth decide that maybe you have something here.
'What is going on within your person needs to be examined, and for your good, but it does not need to find a resting place here. It's rejected because of the source which motivates you it's
not love for it's negative.'
What is going on inside of me is constantly being examined and refined and hopefully made better. The source that motivates me IS Love...Love for all creation and the desire to prevent someone from being taken advantage of by someone who professes to know the ultimate truth.
'Peace to you in any way that you may find it - I wish you well.'
I have found my peace in exposing ppl like you.
'PS Should you wish to dialogue in a positive and rational manner feel free to email me at theword2@the-wordofGod.org'
There was nothing irrational about my dialogue in your forum. If by rational you mean logical and orderly. Of course, if my rational you mean that I agree with every word you say, then you're right, I'm irrational and I expect to remain so. I take no man's word over what God says to me.
I hope you realize that you will be held responsible for every action you take in this lifetime. Intention is no excuse.
Love and Light,
So what is it? As I said to Dennis, if there is no reason to fear me, then why silence me? If you look at the forum messages, you will see post after post deleted. No telling what was in them. Does this guy have a message from God? Or is he starting/continuing what appears to me to be a cult: talk of love, no one but the "author" is right, a sense of "I'm the annointed one" (as shown in his choice of nicknames), enough "truth" to make it all seem plausible, strict guidelines that only he has the right interpretation for.....These are all marks of a cult. Whether it's gone from a purely cyberfollowing or on to an actual following in real life is something I have not yet ascertained.
You know my personal opinion. What is yours?
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 09:55:40 -0500
From: Shelly Rollison
Organization: Rainbow's End Press
To: theword2@The-WordofGod.org
References: 1
Rainbowlady"
