Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
EllenRG

Rob Reno posting from other websites

Recommended Posts

Gee miny crickets..

 

I was surprised to see

 

"Ellen Channelling Caligastia" on Rob Reno's post accusing me

of "ad hominum" attacks of him.

 

He is posting HERE web links that have MY name

on them, containing POSTS from another website, altogether, and so i think THAT deserves

either

him producing MY EMAILED PERMISSION or HIM given ONE chance to see his error

and change his ways.

 

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob R. has links to all kinds of crap in his posts. I object, judge!

 

This is not a court of law, but how do we restrain people or train them to restrain themselves? I am about ready in to warn Rob about his verbiage and whining.

 

Remember this one - "the argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained therein."?

 

But, Ellen, some of your posts are difficult to read too, but maybe that's because of your computer. It's very distracting to me to get your message when you use all different fonts and font sizes. But that's just me. I do like plain vanilla.

 

Thank you Ellen, U-rantian, Admin, all, for trying to help make this a better forum. I think we need a new rule about posting links to other UB chat lists. People can refer to another chat list without providing the link. WE are not here to judge a person's guilt or innocence, nor allow someone to make an accusation. We are here to study the Urantia Book!

 

Meredith

 

Gee miny crickets..

 

I was surprised to see

 

"Ellen Channelling Caligastia"

on Rob Reno's post accusing me

of "ad hominum" attacks of him.

 

He is posting HERE web links that have MY name

on them, containing POSTS from another

website, altogether, and so i think THAT deserves

either

him producing MY EMAILED PERMISSION

or HIM given ONE chance to see his error

and change his ways.

 

mod1-Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest U-rantian

Dear all

 

The situation is out of hand and everyone is pulling in their own views an opinions, including me. One thing is clear for me, if the Teaching Mission believers are allowed here, then this forum will never really get to serious study, they are many and they will take over sooner or later as they have done with other websites.

 

It is my personal experience and work of many years, working in the Spanish forum as a moderator, that to keep it clean and focused actions have been taken regardless of what the people think, with that we have attracted to serious and loyal readers and have we kept away those who are not.

 

Thanks

U-rantian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, U-rantian.

I made an executive decision to SUSPEND ... /Rob Davis' account for 100 days.

If the Moderators agree we can change that to DELETE his account permanently. Actually, since the Moderators already have a 3-1 vote on this, his account will be deleted before the 100 days is up. Any suggestions on the announcement:

Why are the moderators removing Rob D from the forum?

 

admin

 

Dear all

 

The situation is out of hand and everyone is pulling in their own views an opinions, including me. One thing is clear for me, if the Teaching Mission believers are allowed here, then this forum will never really get to serious study, they are many and they will take over sooner or later as they have done with other websites.

 

It is my personal experience and work of many years, working in the Spanish forum as a moderator, that to keep it clean and focused actions have been taken regardless of what the people think, with that we have attracted to serious and loyal readers and have we kept away those who are not.

 

Thanks

U-rantian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To cool down. We voted on this before Thanksgiving. It's a delayed action on the part of the moderators.

 

I agree, U-rantian.

I made an executive decision to SUSPEND ... /Rob Davis' account for 100 days.

If the Moderators agree we can change that to DELETE his account permanently. Actually, since the Moderators already have a 3-1 vote on this, his account will be deleted before the 100 days is up. Any suggestions on the announcement:

Why are the moderators removing Rob D from the forum?

 

admin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest U-rantian

Dear all

 

1.- To delete Rob Davis, not to suspend. And if he tries to register again simply delete him. That simple.

2.- To send a message to Rob Reno saying that material regarding the teaching mission is not allowed whatsoever.

3.- No really necessary to give explanations why Rob Davis is being deleted, he is teaching mission and that is enough.

4.- The poor performance of the moderators, taken days and days to agree in a simple matter, (weakness of democracy) and in the meantime things just spiralled out control why because the moderators were waiting for others to vote etc., the matter could have been resolved with the moderators that are present, and if anyone of them complain that they were not taken into account, if they are not present there is not much that we can do. If that person is not present for any reason, then that person must accept the decision of the moderators that were present and voted to take action.

5.- I am not blind to the fact that Rob Reno started all this, and it is an action that I will personally take, that is to delete and edit further material against the teaching mission if he goes on to do so, what he has presented is enough to set a precedent for the future. That topic will be pinned so that people will know that here we don't want teaching mission.

6.- To those who will argue that love is the solution, sometimes justice has to take precedence over that. When I stopped those bullies in the UAI list, it was not with love that I did that.

 

Now I will take action in the following matters and if anyone is disagreement let me know here in the X-zone.

 

U-rantian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, people, but you ALL have neglected to address THIS title that is about ROB RENO.

 

It was not about any of the stuff you all dragged in. I cannot delete or reprimand Rob Reno as a moderator in this case because i am personally involved.

 

What it IS ABOUT is that we have rules, guidelines, against POSTing stuff from other websites, and the evidence of Rob Reno posting -repeatedly- his website IN HIS POST, NOT ON HIS PROFILE, that HAS MY NAME IN IT WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION should BOTHER YOU, TOO. As should it bother you he posted material from Ubron .

 

There ARE RULES of conduct that have stated that it is a violation of CULTURE, of MANNERS, of PERSONAL TREATMENT, and past UAI LIST rules, to take material from one list and put it on another list WITHOUT CONSENT AND AGREEMENT of the author. Rob Reno moved my UBRON stuff to his website, which would have been OK IF HE EVER BOTHERED TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT THAT.

 

Here is a case of a person thinking that the "ends justify the means" which is, IN ITSELF, the sort of behavior reflecting "time saving measures" that VIOLATE personal honor, integrity, trust. Please, now that i HAVE gotten involved in this discussion, do not simply discard my concerns as if they intrude on your own idea of what matters.

 

Rob Reno objected to my "ad hominum" by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me AND ALL THE REFERENCES ARE FROM UBRON POSTS --- HE IS POSTING MY OLD UBRON POSTS HERE. Don't you people get that? Don't you see the blatent violation of trust this is?

 

Rob Reno caused trouble last year here, don't you remember that?

 

THE REAL TOPPER is that in the UB FORUM POST of Rob Reno's, BELOW, not only did he drag the material from UBRON to make his case, HE WRONGLY ATTRIBUTED MANY OF THESE QUOTES TO THE WRONG PERSON. I, in fact did NOT say everything he says i did. Those words were probably of the person i was quoting to refute. iF you read the original post you will also see that Rob Reno distorts the facts.

 

This whole issue may be too large for you all to tackle, but sooner or later you will all have to, as it will ALWAYS BE in great need of clarification.

 

-mod1Ellen

PS. The issue is: posting material from other websites without the author's permission, or knowledge in this case, PLUS misquoting etc. I suggest Rob Reno should listen to himself, here when he says,"And let no one be fooled, nasty and vicious personal attacks do not constitute evidence, but they do reveal something about the character of those who would resort to "ignoble tactics" of not hesitating to "to employ every sort of false, unfair, and unrighteous mode of attack" (1674.1) upon those with whom they disagree."

ROB RENO'S POST
:

 

QUOTE ("Ellen Gaynor Being Rude")
It appears Rob Reno came out "smelling like a rose" according to reading many of your opinion of his zealotry, but I find him too similar to those who self-righteously conducted the Spanish Inquisition.

 

Martin Luther who instigated the Protestant Reformation began to believe his own infallibility and went on to PERSECUTE/kill PEOPLE WHO WERE OF THE POOR CLASS.

 

He was responsible for mass murder and believed all his "own press". LET'S NOT DO SUCH PERSECUTION, PLEASE!

 

I agree with her reluctance to endorse or support THOSE WHO GENERALIZE "US AND THEM" ; plus I agree with Rick W. who has repeatedly STATED what I also have found to be true over time about "SHEDDING LIGHT with loving TRUTH RATHER THAN OVER COMING WITH POWER OF INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT .
END QUOTE

 

Please forgive me for being a bit sardonic here and noting the irony of how this "… trial [is] proceed[ing] along such unfair and unjust lines." (1815.1) And indeed, it is a trial, but one carried out without evidence. Consider the irony that some on this forum bring ad hominen personal attacks (see definition below), as Ellen does above (and as others have done, and which is a violation of the rules of this forum) rather than addressing the statements I have made, or the issues I have raised, or the principles supported by Urantia Book teachings that I have argued.

 

Consider the irony of those that bring charges of "McCarthyism," "mass murder," and a "Spanish Inquisition" accusing me of wrong for raising the same questions and issues
(see Ellen's words below), and for noting the
already public evidence
for a serious charge/accusation which they themselves make without a shred of evidence. And the irony is that "McCarthyism" was just that; the bringing of charges/accusations without evidence! And like the many who spoke in their own defense, I too say, "I believe I have the right to see the evidence of that which I have been accused." And let no one be fooled, nasty and vicious personal attacks do not constitute evidence, but they do reveal something about the character of those who would resort to "ignoble tactics" of not hesitating to "to employ every sort of false, unfair, and unrighteous mode of attack" (1674.1) upon those with whom they disagree.

 

As when one misguided and confused reader compared Gabriel's "unceasing exposure of the rebel sophistries" (606.2) of Lucifer and his rebel cohorts as being "inconsistent" in "tone and intent" with "Michael or [our] Father," characterizing Gabriel as the disgruntled elder son in the Prodigal Son and Lucifer as the repentant younger brother (TeaMers have channeled Lucifer, claiming he is now rehabilitated, as are all the rebel midwayers), and Ellen Gaynor responded with the words "I am interested in examining the Lucifer rebellion and have made some attempts to interest others which has had good, but few response. I am not familiar with your approach ie. that there is evident 'the tone of recrimination and a vindictive need to see justice served.' I will be looking back into your previous posts to familiarize myself with your thoughts," (
) so to I think it wise to look back into her words below and examine them in light of her words of personal attack above.

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Ellen Gaynor on Rudeness")
When I learned "Debate" in Highschool, we were taught to be thoroughly prepared for BOTH Pro and Con. We did not know which we would do until we arrived at the Debate.

 

This was in spite of the fact that in the debate the Positive side employed haughty tone, persuasive stance, and humiliating castigation of my presentation... which made me cry, actually.

 

To this day I believe in being as familiar with the "other" side of any position as I can, to be fair, and so I can truly arrive at an honest assessment of the situation.

 

Somewhere in The Urantia Book there is a nod to Original Thought .... It is written, where two or more are gathered in my name, and to me His name is Truth which we arrive at, here, together, so, if we can identify our own rudeness, or politely acknowledge when we've appeared to be or really have been, RUDE, well, ONWARD AND UPWARD! ....

 

Our actions here now effect the world's future, God's children's future. This is our HOME. It is Jesus' HOME, His world. We are duty bound to come to "enlightenment" of the moral and ethical problems of Our Day and Our children's Day and God's Day, i think.

(
)

 

Comment: I, having never taken a course in "debate" (I studied Jesus' way of dealing with unjust and unrighteous individuals who attacked him, and try to do likewise), so I will defer to my friend Ellen who is more experienced in the art of employing "humiliating castigation" and personal attacks with only the notation that Jesus found such tactics "ignoble"; but I must note Ellen, you must have slept though the part of the course that teaches the nature of logical fallacies, the first and most egregious of which is
ad hominem
personal attacks. For you benefit I have posted the definition below.

 

The vulgar and debased use of personal attack is as old as primitive man's use of the club; there is nothing original in it, and it hardly would qualify as "thought," let alone "original thought." They do bear evidence to a mind infected with anger, and lacks the emotional control or moral insight to speak to issues, principles, and values rather than attacking persons. One cannot smell like rose whilst spreading manure; likewise it is a farce to speak of fellowship in Jesus name while giving vent to rude personal attacks one the one hand and speaking of being "duty bound" to honestly face up to the "moral and ethical problems of our day" for the sake of enlightenment.

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Ellen Gaynor on TeaM Threat to Souls")
..."The vocal anti-TeaM minority that holds forth what a threat the Teaching Mission is to the Urantia movement..." Steffani Murray

 

Ellen: No, Steffani, not a threat to the Urantia Movement.

 

A possible threat to the very souls of those who already tend towards needing a "leader" rather than the Father in Them; In Truth as discerned among Father-Indwelt Humans Being w/and on behalf of each other! .... I hear more "Truth" on David Letterman w/a laugh, to boot, than I ever see from all this "channeling." (
)

 

Comment: Jesus tells us those who would be "undershepherds of my Father's flocks must not only be worthy leaders, but you must also feed the flock with good food; you are not true shepherds unless you lead your flocks into green pastures and beside still waters." (1819.2) Many new readers are going to come into this forum seeking just that "good food" and "green pastures [by] still waters." What kind of undershepherd would knowingly remain silent while the thief "breaks into the fold only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy"? If the teachings of TeaM's channel-mediums is "threat to the very souls" of those easily lead astray, how is it then that the teachings which one day threaten to kill souls, today are just harmless matters of "previous religious experience or connections"? Not to mention that I would remind her the rules of this forum forbid the posting of channeled material (implicit or explicit). I am compelled to ask, Which are you Ellen, a hireling or undershepherd? Jesus plainly tells us, they who are "a hireling, when danger arises, will flee and allow the sheep to be scattered and destroyed; but the true shepherd will not flee when the wolf comes; he will protect his flock and, if necessary, lay down his life for his sheep. " (1819.4)

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Ellen Gaynor TeaM and Caligastia")
A Real Person is as good a 'channeler' as I want.

 

About those 'groups' around channelers... One in 1984 convinced me of the iinadequacy of the content, and gave me the idea that the words, if coming from a 'Celestial', had to be along the lines of what we were advised in the Urantia Book, that:

 

since Pentecost no Rebel Celestial could invade a person UNLESS INVITED. For a Rebel, what more fun than to come on in! See what 'monkey-shines' they could make?

 

Subsequent to my objections to another bunch (1994) who were obviously 'capitalizing' on The Urantia Book for their own self- aggrandizement, the latest 'big deal' has been so-called 'opening of the circuits' like they're a switch or something. That endeavor reminds me of the Fundementalist Armegeddon crowd that are doing everything they can to instigate Jesus' coming according to their interpretation of prophesy.

(
)

 

Comment: I have always considered it unfair to charge TeaMers with being in collusion with Caligastia; how can we claim to be mercifully proffering them Jesusonian fairness and make such charges without evidence, which is the very basis of fairness in this mortal sphere. "Evidence, the basis of fairness (justice in harmony with mercy)." (114.4) No mortal has that evidence, and this charge is very, very different than noting that the content and meaning of their message is the same as the rebel sophistry of "unbridled liberty." As
, and say again,

 

"The author of this document explicitly and emphatically rejects
all
claims and/or assertions that TeaMers are somehow in league with Caligastia (the "devil" or aka Satan); there are far more reasonable explanations for the phenomenon of channeling, and it was inevitable that channel-mediums would find the Urantia Book a rich source of characters for populating their so-called channeled messages which are in reality
self-deluded monologues with pseudo-celestial beings
."

 

While in my view there is truth in some of Ellen's statements above, the truth can be spoken plainly without baseless unfair and unjust charges without a shred of evidence. Honest examination does not require such tactics: "True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals." (1641.4)

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Ellen Gaynor on Ruthless Manipulation")
About 10 years ago when I had the opportunity to read quite a few pages of 'continued revelation' according to *abriel of *edona's'melchizadek' via friends who were there.

 

The whole presentation fell far short of the quality of daily posts here on Ubron, just for starters, and then while scrutinizing the theory as presented I percieved the calculated basis of garnering support for, among other quirky intentions, the free access of *abriel to females and the ruthless manipulation of innocents for *abriel's own satisfaction and financial support.

 

The stuff really did have a language that sounded as though from another realm, but thats about the time I figured the realm was more akin to rebel celestials/smart-charismatic
<script>
-interesting-entertaining- sharp-impressive than any voices from God.

 

I suspect these groups have become much more sophisticated since then, especially after hearing the various basis of objection from God Loving people who do and don't EVEN read The Urantia Book!

 

Ruthless manipulation of innocents falls somewhere in the same boat with child rape, in my opinion, and demands the voices of those who are prepared to speak up when they find the fallacies of these leader's philosophies going unchallanged.

 

Beware of false gods, I think. (
)

 

Comment: TeaMers have very recently channeled "Gabriel of Salvington" teaching that "Gabriel of Sedona" (aka Gabriel of Urantia) is a channel of God's truth. They even now
, and have taught such "ruthless manipulation" as the
. Ellen's hunch is correct, they indeed "have become much more sophisticated," after learning how to hide their TeaM affiliations by posting links to the TeaM's Second Revelatory Commission (which claims to be creating the "second volume" of the Urantia Book), a tactic apparently good enough to fool her, yet the teachings are in support of those TeaM channel-mediums (aka Daniel Raphael) who ruthlessly espouse the "Teacher in Error Technique" which is no less than a "ruthless manipulation of innocents" and the credulous which she herself says is a deed that "falls somewhere in the same boat with child rape, in my opinion, and demands the voices of those who are prepared to speak up when they find the fallacies of these leader's philosophies going unchallenged."

 

Van the Steadfast (759) was able to resist the false teachings put forth by Lucifer's rebel sophisties because "Throughout the seven crucial years of the Caligastia rebellion, Van was wholly devoted to the work of ministry to his loyal army of men, midwayers, and angels. The spiritual insight and moral steadfastness which enabled Van to maintain such an unshakable attitude of loyalty to the universe government was the product of clear thinking, wise reasoning, logical judgment, sincere motivation, unselfish purpose, intelligent loyalty, experiential memory, disciplined character, and the unquestioning dedication of his personality to the doing of the will of the Father in Paradise." (756.7) Are we to be any less steadfast in witnessing to the truth of Jesus' and the revelator's teachings in the Urantia Book than Van was in his day? What if Van had decided not to speak up, bur rather chose to remain silent, or worse, made excuses for Lucifer's folly?

 

And "What of Amadon?" What if he had not stood "unmoved?" (762.2) What if he too had refused to speak up, to defend and witness to the truth? If as I hold TeaM's doctrines are the crowning folly and apotheosis of that human "self-assertion" which would "commit the folly of calling that divine which is wholly human (1731)," and for some this could well turn out to be an issue of the very wellbeing of their soul, a battle of minds "fought in terms of life eternal (606.3)," surely I cannot remain a coward and stand by on the seashore and watch a brother or sister who either cannot swim or is just learning to paddle be enticed into deep water by one claiming to walk thereon? How much more value is a person's soul compared to their body drowning? (1430.2)

 

How inconsistent to on the one hand claim that TeaM's teachings endanger souls, and that some TeaMer's "ruthless manipulation" of innocent yet credulous souls for personal gain and self-aggrandizement is akin to pedophiles entering one's home to groom one's children unbeknownst to the very hosts who invite them into their home (i.e., "child rape"), and that this "demands the voices of those who are prepared to speak up when they find the fallacies of these leader's philosophies going unchallenged," and then on the other hand invite in the same and launch "ignoble" personal attacks upon someone who provides the evidence that Rob Davis' link leads to TeaM's Second Revelatory Commission that attempts to usurp the authority of the true revelatory commission and claims to be authoring a "second volume" of the Urantia Book, and then points to the channeled messages of Daniel Raphael as the voice of the "celestial consultants" teaching this so-called "new revelation."

 

<script> <script>
QUOTE ("Ellen Gaynor Love Not Nice")
Love is not necessarily "nice", i think, and I have serious problems with Profiteers in the Temple. (
)

 

Comment: We are told by the revelators, "Unselfish social consciousness must be, at bottom, a religious consciousness; that is, if it is objective; otherwise it is a purely subjective philosophic abstraction and therefore devoid of love. Only a God-knowing individual can love another person as he loves himself." (196.4) Speaking the truth and exposing "profiteers in the temple" is just what Jesus did; indeed, Jesus tells us plainly that neither he nor his Father are "lax, loose, or foolishly indulgent parent
who [are] ever ready to condone sin and forgive recklessness. He cautioned his hearers not mistakenly to apply his illustrations of father and son so as to make it appear that God is like some overindulgent and unwise parents who conspire with the foolish of earth to encompass the moral undoing of their thoughtless children, and who are thereby certainly and directly contributing to the delinquency and early demoralization of their own offspring. Said Jesus: 'My Father does not indulgently condone those acts and practices of his children which are self-destructive and suicidal to all moral growth and spiritual progress. Such sinful practices are an abomination in the sight of God.'" (1653.3)

 

He tells us, "In preaching the gospel of the kingdom, you are simply teaching friendship with God. And this fellowship will appeal alike to men and women in that both will find that which most truly satisfies their characteristic longings and ideals. Tell my children that I am not only tender of their feelings and patient with their frailties, but that I am also ruthless with sin and intolerant of iniquity. I am indeed meek and humble in the presence of my Father, but I am equally and relentlessly inexorable where there is deliberate evildoing and sinful rebellion against the will of my Father in heaven." (1766.5)

 

But Jesus said, "… forget not: We have made no direct attack upon the persons … We have assailed them only by the denunciation of their spiritual disloyalty to the very truths which they profess to teach and safeguard." (1932.1) When one witnesses to the distortion of truth and manipulation of persons by some, we need never resort to "ignoble" personal attack. To denounce their "their spiritual disloyalty to the very truths which they profess to teach and safeguard" is not a personal attack, but a witness to the truth. It is foolish to confuse the two.

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Ellen on Us and Them")
I WANT an ID on UBRON that says RIGHT OUT that I BELIEVE THE URANTIA BOOK is AUTHENTIC!! How about * after our names, UB AUTHENTICATORS? (
)

 

Comment: In my view, the only requirement is that they leave their TeaM proselytizing at the door, and join this forum willing to abide by its rules and engage in a sincere study of the contents of the Urantia Book, not their channeled messages. No need for "US AND THEM" Ids to say "right out I believe the Urantia Book is authentic," for I would hope that honest doubt is welcome on this forum. I would only object to insincere distortion of its contents for the ulterior purpose of proselytizing the teachings of TeaM's channeling cult. That is no more than what the fair and just rules of this site ask for. It is one thing to make clear the difference between the false teachers who come insincerely posing as desiring the "professional study" of the Urantia Book, whilst secretly seeking to proselytize TeaM teachings and direct new readers to their TeaM Secondary Revelatory Commission, and another to require vetting or oaths preliminary to joining this forum. It is enough, and fair, to simply ask them to abide by its rules.

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Ellen on Channeling Caligastia")
Yeah, what are the reasons I/we don't "go for" the channeled stuff?

 

These are some of my reasons:

 

- it is foolish to appeal to "lessor" spiritual sources for guidance than our Father's will, the perfect guide

 

- it is more important to realize and rely on our human family's Father-Indweltness in Michael's Truth, Way and Life, than it is to resort to "lessor" being's advice, particularly if we consider that a goodly number of those beings are much like us, imperfect, and furthermore are not Father-Indwelt

 

- if large proportions of celestial beings were convinced of the validity of Lucifer's Manifesto in the first place, then it should be apparent that they have trouble discerning our Father, and Truth, so... even if they are not ancient participants in the Lucifer Rebellion, there is no reason to suppose...

 

- I have yet to read any purported channeled material that is not a rehash of old info, and plenty that is in direct conflict with my universe understanding. Plus, much of it is obviously designed to enlist support for a cause, person, group, or self-described "mission" calling for money, power, recruits.

 

- we know that although a person can no longer be arbitrarily invaded by a non-human being, those beings can certainly be invited, a typical neccesity in the practice of channeling

 

- in my view, these side-tracking endeavors are siphoning off people, resources, enthusiasm to futile causes, and are evil and sinful. Why?

 

[and on it goes, some valid points, some accusatory that TeaMers are channeling Caligastia ...]

 

I am "running out of steam", here, but thank
... for this thread, which I look at as identification of the nature of error, evil, sin and iniquity and how that relates to our own ability to discern our Father's will in Loving cooperation with each other in Michael's Truth Way and Life, eternally & infinitely, on behalf of the Supreme Being.

(
)
<script>

 

Comment: And you inconsistently disdain "intellectual argument" above, yet loose the ox of your own in another context. This is hypocrisy my friend. Unfair, unjust, and hardly the behavior of one consistent in the application of principles. I note for the record again the unfairness of accusing TeaMers of being in league with Caligastia, a fact no mortal has the evidence upon which to make such a claim.

 

QUOTE ("Ellen on Second Volume of UB")
At this point I've not yet finished reading the entire text of your post. I had to say, right off, that I very much disagree with your [Rob Besser's] statement that The URANTIA Book:

 

"...will need, in a few years, a new English translation..."

 

You, Ron Bessor, say there is need for a: "...new publication for Urantia."

 

I believe we need to be emphasizing our need for correct practical information to be used for everyday decisions, and actively supporting those who work hard and protecting those who are prosecuted for bringing us that correct information.

 

I, for one, will read your words with an eye/ear for Truth as readily as any UB reader unless you consistently profess error and attribute it to reading the URANTIA book or some guy's say-so.

(
)

 

Comment: I have given incontrovertible evidence that the link that Rob Davis posted in his personal profile leads directly to TeaM's Second Revelatory Commission, and that it leads directly to Daniel Raphael's channeled messages, which leads directly to the evidence of TeaM's false teachers who "ruthlessly manipulate" their less fortunate credulous fellows. The very purpose of the Second Revelatory Commission (sponsored by Rob Davis and Ron Besser) is to write the so-called "second volume, "update," and advanced "new revelatory" text of the Urantia Book. You clearly found it important enough to speak out and refute this (as you did above as well), yet you would now invite them in and hold that Rob Davis should be allowed to post links to that which you characterize as "error … attributed to the .. the Urantia Book."

 

And for witnessing to this same fact and truth, you engage in "ignoble" personal attacks. Truly, the shame lies therein.

 

You should know Ellen, that if you are going to spread manure in the garden, it only makes the roses grow stronger, and wining about the smell given your ample ad hominem manure above is hardly seemly. To engage in ad hominem arguments is to scrap the bottom of the barrel, and when one scraps the bottom of the barrel, one is liable to get splinters under their finger tips.

 

Ellen, your words are full of anger that boarders on "hate." While I have witnessed to the false teachings of Rob Davis and his insincere attempt proselytize TeaM upon this site, I am not angry with him, nor do I hate him. Neither have any of his critics expressed hate, and if honestly believe anyone has "spoken evil" (1979.4) than "bear witness against the evil," but to do so requires you cite their exact words (i.e., evidence), otherwise you are no different than Annas' unjust steward, for if they have "spoken the truth, why, then, should you smite" them with "ignoble" ad hominem personal attacks?

 

You do well to not hate the sinner, but you error in that only God can "love the sinner and hate the sin," because "such a statement is true philosophically, but God is a transcendent personality, and persons can only love and hate other persons." And that is why we as humans, who are not transcendent personalities, must take great care to hold our tongue from bearing false witness, and only witness to evil deeds both spoken and done based only upon evidence and refrain from all attacks upon their persons.

 

* * *

 

<script>
QUOTE ("Definition of Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)")
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
:

 

Definition:

 

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

 

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

 

(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

 

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

 

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

 

Examples:

 

(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just

 

following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)

 

(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about

 

taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

 

(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

 

(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

 

Proof:

 

Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

 

References:

 

Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80
<script>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, would anyone care to put together a warning for Rob Reno?

I simply don't have the time.

 

admin

 

Excuse me, people, but you ALL have neglected to address THIS title that is about ROB RENO.

 

It was not about any of the stuff you all dragged in. I cannot delete or reprimand Rob Reno as a moderator in this case because i am personally involved.

 

What it IS ABOUT is that we have rules, guidelines, against POSTing stuff from other websites, and the evidence of Rob Reno posting -repeatedly- his website IN HIS POST, NOT ON HIS PROFILE, that HAS MY NAME IN IT WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION should BOTHER YOU, TOO. As should it bother you he posted material from Ubron .

 

There ARE RULES of conduct that have stated that it is a violation of CULTURE, of MANNERS, of PERSONAL TREATMENT, and past UAI LIST rules, to take material from one list and put it on another list WITHOUT CONSENT AND AGREEMENT of the author. Rob Reno moved my UBRON stuff to his website, which would have been OK IF HE EVER BOTHERED TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT THAT.

 

Here is a case of a person thinking that the "ends justify the means" which is, IN ITSELF, the sort of behavior reflecting "time saving measures" that VIOLATE personal honor, integrity, trust. Please, now that i HAVE gotten involved in this discussion, do not simply discard my concerns as if they intrude on your own idea of what matters.

 

Rob Reno objected to my "ad hominum" by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me AND ALL THE REFERENCES ARE FROM UBRON POSTS --- HE IS POSTING MY OLD UBRON POSTS HERE. Don't you people get that? Don't you see the blatent violation of trust this is?

 

Rob Reno caused trouble last year here, don't you remember that?

 

THE REAL TOPPER is that in the UB FORUM POST of Rob Reno's, BELOW, not only did he drag the material from UBRON to make his case, HE WRONGLY ATTRIBUTED MANY OF THESE QUOTES TO THE WRONG PERSON. I, in fact did NOT say everything he says i did. Those words were probably of the person i was quoting to refute. iF you read the original post you will also see that Rob Reno distorts the facts.

 

This whole issue may be too large for you all to tackle, but sooner or later you will all have to, as it will ALWAYS BE in great need of clarification.

 

-mod1Ellen

PS. The issue is: posting material from other websites without the author's permission, or knowledge in this case, PLUS misquoting etc. I suggest Rob Reno should listen to himself, here when he says,"And let no one be fooled, nasty and vicious personal attacks do not constitute evidence, but they do reveal something about the character of those who would resort to "ignoble tactics" of not hesitating to "to employ every sort of false, unfair, and unrighteous mode of attack" (1674.1) upon those with whom they disagree."

ROB RENO'S POST
:

 

<script>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, would anyone care to put together a warning for Rob Reno?

I simply don't have the time.

 

admin

 

I will send a PM to Rob R and Ellen is going to write it for me, if she has time. I hope. Before I have to go back to work.

 

Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mod4

Dear Ellen

 

I am sorry that you are in that situation. And indeed that is a problem what Rob Reno did regarding your posts. But as I see you brought that yourself, you have dealt with Rob Reno before so you should have used that benefit of hindsight when dealing with those types of personalities, he usually replies long and stuffed matters that usually make things worse. Your post in that thread were not tactful that even myself felt compelled to reply.

 

It is in your right to send him a warning, but I do hope you will be tactful otherwise another tension will arise from that between Rob Reno and moderator1/or moderators. I have already personally send a message to him warning about Rob Reno and Ellen. And I have clearly stated what will be done if those tensions arise again.

 

I do hope you will understand why I am saying this, and I hope you will let it go and let our Father do his will, if we keep interfering then the Father's will gets more complicated.

 

Regards

M04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mod 4 for you PM to Rob R. today:

 

Dear Rob

 

It is much appreciated your participation in this forum. However things are out of control and the situation is without north.

 

I do require of you to let it go, and let these matters to our Father's will. You posted material against the Teaching Mission and this will be kept so that many will read it and be informed but no more about this matter will be allowed. If you or anyone starts topics regarding Teaching Mission or in response to continue wars of opinion, e.g. Ellen and yourself that will be removed.

 

I hope you will understand this and help us to put order in this forum.

Yours

 

I will send a PM to Rob R and Ellen is going to write it for me, if she has time. I hope. Before I have to go back to work.

 

Meredith

 

Needless to say, Ellen and I did not write one today, since you had already handled it. I don't have the self-confidence to take on the other problem poster: robert. I would like to try to figure out a way to neutralize his peculiar venom. What gets his underwear into such a twist?

 

Meredith

 

PS - I will be away from the computer for a week. Back, possibly, on Dec. 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest U-rantian

Hello Meredith

 

One step at the time. Robert is a especial case, personally I like him, even though sometimes makes me really mad. I think he is angry about something but I believe he belongs to here, he is one of us, even though he doesn't accept that yet. With this one I side with kindness and love perhaps one day we will break through that hard heart that he has. Somehow I know that he needs us and I hope he will be around for a while, otherwise who else will hear his/my rants.

 

Christmas is coming I hope all of you will be with your family and take a rest, and see if the new year is not that bumpy.

 

Regards

U-rantian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...