Enduring Sound Doctrine

Sometime ago, Mike Vinson took a stab at schooling his acolytes on apologetics, and more to the point, he attempted to shore up the notion that the bible was not just a book of inspired spiritual revelation, but also a history book; containing factual, informative and historically accurate information that the Christian disciple could "take to the bank" in terms of its accuracy and reliability. 

This position of Mike's is one of the 5 core tenets of Christian Fundamentalism, and is known as "biblical inerrancy." The other 4 are also generally subscribed to by Mike Vinson's IWWB cult and include the literal nature of the biblical account, the virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection and 2nd coming of Christ and lastly, the substitutionary atonement of the death of Christ.

I've covered this before, but the basic premise of inerrancy and biblical literalism is that the bible, in its original form, is without error and can be trusted for not only spiritual and moral guidance, but also historical accuracy.

To listen to Mike's study on this topic, hit this page and click on the "Warwickshire October 6th, 2012" link. The study was titled "Enduring Sound Doctrine" and is in 2 parts, which can be either downloaded, or streamed from the IWWB website.

Essentially, the study boils down to Vinson lamenting the fact that many people have left the IWWB-faith after putting the bible on the chopping block, and testing the internal claims that it makes. These "6 brother" who left he says, all claimed that the bible was a parable, and not actual history, something Vinson cannot accept. 

He also reads emails from a brother called "Frank" who says he no longer takes seriously the claims of the bible, and who likens Jesus to a myth of the same substance as Hercules. Vinson of course, discredits all of this, and says that all of this supposed "falling away" is in truth, evidence of evil spirits sent by God to accomplish this very work! 

Anybody who doesn't hold to the Vinson-approved version of Christianity is of course, according to Mike and his elders, under strong delusion and just another weak and lukewarm babe in Christ with itching ears.

All the same, I know who "Frank" is, and so I emailed him (at the time) regarding this matter, letting him know that Vinson was reading his personal email to the IWWB congregants and using his present position to grandstand upon. Here is a snippet of what Frank said to me in reply:

The old group thing; you're either with the group or against it. Them and us, but if you see things differently, Satan has got you - LOL! Except I realise it ain't so funny when someone is psychologically dependant on being accepted and feels that god must be angry with them because they think differently from the others. 

It really is a mess of dreadful painful confusion and I'm glad through Joseph Campbell and various others (ironically including Mike himself) that I was able to get out of the cave of literalism into the light of a better day.
It's heartening to hear that some people are still thinking for themselves and daring to question and daring to find answers; taking active authority in matters of their own understanding.

Frank seemed unperturbed by Vinson's rhetoric and not at all surprised by the mention of Vinson using his emails to warn others of the dangers of straying from the IWWB faith! Good heavens above, they may even begin to think for themselves! 

All the same, Vinson's attempt at apologetics, and his overt confirmation-bias is evident when listening in to his talk on the historical authenticity of the Jesus character. 

As an example, Vinson says at one point, that: "nobody would die for a lie!" 
Vinson then mentions the early Christian martyrs, and concludes that therefore, the bible is the indisputable truth. Using that logic, we ought to conclude that an Islamic extremist is likewise not "dying for a lie" and that Mohammed and Allah are equally historically true characters that we ought to consider in our search for the truth. 

This "nobody would die for a lie" line is an argument many Christian apologists desperately cling to, in an attempt to convince their followers that Christianity has the truth of the matter. It's been debunked though, and is clearly a logical fallacy. 

Vinson also quotes Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Josephus and many more, all in a vain attempt to convince himself and his disciples that there really was a Jesus of Nazareth who did, and said, everything as described in the biblical account - miracles and all.

If this topic is new to you, and you are unsure about the research on this matter, here are some basic facts to consider: 

Firstly, no secular historian EVER MENTIONS a "Jesus of Nazareth." The honorific or title "Chrestus," (meaning: just, or righteous) or "Christ" (meaning: anointed) is what is referred to, and Christians of course, interpret this to mean Jesus of Nazareth. 

But of course, JON (Jesus of Nazareth) is NEVER MENTIONED by name, merely the honorific of either Chrestus, or Christ. Whatever the case, bear in mind this honorific of Chrestus, or Christ, was also attributed to Caesars, other gods, or messiahs, and the like. 

Secondly, bear in mind that some so-called mentions by secular historians are in truth, acknowledged forgeries. The famous passage by Josephus for example, is a well documented forgery. A Wikipedia entry on this states the following:

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery by fourth-century apologist Eusebius or by others

How can this be known? Is it really a forgery? 

As an example of how research is conducted into this area, scholars look at the writings of early Christian apologists, and see whether they reference texts such as the TF (Testimonium Flavianum). These "sounds of silence" tend to incriminate entries such as the TF as forgeries, being that if they were genuine, early apologists would have eagerly swooped in upon them. This isn't the only way to determine forgeries, but it does say a lot when an early apologist, such as Justin Martyr for example, says nothing of the infamous Josephus passage, even though he was well acquainted with his work. 

Techniques such as this are referred to as "textual criticism" and are carried out on many historical accounts, not just the biblical record. If you're interested in reading more about the TF, and whether or not the passage is authentic, or a forgery click here for an in-depth expose.

Moving on, Vinson (in his apologetic rant), fails to mention several other historical notes regarding Christian, namely the words of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who says that Christians are also worshippers of the god Serapis: 

The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ…

Obviously, Vinson wouldn't want his running-dog disciples getting the idea that history isn't as crystal clear and as black and white on the origins of the god-man Jesus, as he wants them to think! So that particular piece of information, like many others, has been edited out for the (supposed) edification of the body. 

If this topic interests you, take note of the following images, sourced from the aptly titled "Jesus Birther Movement" which demonstrate the grasping and shaky foundation of history upon which the Christian apologist bases his or her faith.

Note: click images to enlarge them.

You can see from the above images that despite the claims of the Christian apologist, the supposed "evidence" is not only separated by decades of silence, but is also riddled with 2nd hand sources (called "hearsay"), and in some cases, authors works have disappeared completely, leaving researchers with no way to verify anything.

This same page lists 66 prolific and well-known secular authors of the 1st and 2nd century who say not a single word regarding Jesus. How is it then, that as the gospels allege, "his fame spread abroad," when he (Jesus) fails to rate a specific mention within the pages of secular history? 

No secular historian, or an independent source confirms anything regarding Jesus miracles, or the resurrection narrative. Our only source for these, is within the pages of the bible itself. Hmm. Can you say, "how convenient?"

I could go on about the textual claims of historians but I'd like to move on and consider the findings of the sciences - geology, palaeontology, biology and the like. Do these sciences confirm the bible as a reliable, accurate and historically verifiable source? 

In a word, NO. 

A prominent Jewish archaeologist, Israel FInkelstein has written on this topic extensively in his work "The Bible Unearthed" where he contrasts findings in his field with the Old Testament claims. There is also a History Channel documentary about the book, which you can view here. 

In a nutshell, there's zero evidence for a mass exodus out of Egypt, zero evidence for an Israelite dynasty and military kingdom as described in the scriptures, and zero evidence for an Joshua-led military invasion of the promised land.

You can of course, believe the claims of one Ron Wyatt, an archeology amateur who claimed to find Noah's ark, chariot wheels at the bottom of the ocean, the ark of the covenant and, if you can believe it, Jesus blood. 

The Wikipedia entry on Wyatt states the following:

While Wyatt won a devoted following from some fundamentalist Christians, he was not considered credible by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars.

Archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc."

Even "Answers in Genesis" has a page debunking Wyatt's crackpot claims. Well, there goes that one.  

YouTube user "Baud Bits" covers the topic of the bible versus the sciences very well in his video "Solo Scriptura - Not So Much," where at the tail end, he makes this tongue in cheek statement:

[To the Christian literalist] the overwhelming consensus of the modern scientific community across all disciplines are wrong and the book written by a man archaeology can find no evidence for, who had never stepped outside the middle east; was unaware of the existence of the Americas, the Far East or Australia; who could only observe the cosmos with the naked eye; who could see nothing smaller than a grain of sand, who could climb no higher than the nearest mountain; nor dive deeper than their breath allowed; who thought the mind was in the heart and the emotions in the liver; this man had written down everything we need to know about the history of the earth.

Here is the video in question, well worth a moment of your time:

Also, you may wish to consider looking at how the canon of scripture was formed.

A great starting point is the website earlychristianwritings.com

How is it that all of these works can exist, and yet only 27 made the cut into the New Testament? Who decided which were in, and which were out? Which of these books were quoted by early Bishops, or apologists? 

If you believe Mike Vinson and IWWB's explanation, there is no such thing as pseudepigrapha (a fancy word for forgery) and all of the respective names of the biblical books bear the ACTUAL NAMES of those who wrote them. More black and white, open and shut thinking that demonstrates no critical thought or independence. Would a Christian author ever lie? No, that would never happen. Not now and not in the ancient world! 

Matt Dilahunty from the Atheist Experience covers the topic of biblical canonisation extremely well in the series "The History of the Biblical Canon."

Here are parts 1 and 2 (embedded below), but I suggest you listen to all 6 parts, as they are extremely factual and moreover, they represent the common knowledge and understanding among biblical scholars, and researchers on this topic. 

Like many former believers, Matt's path to unbelief began when he sought to educate himself about the foundations of his faith, in a seminary of all places! 

Of course, when you begin to look critically at the bible itself, you may start to see the threads of unbelief sprouting from the corner of your security blanket. You can tuck them away, and pretend everything is OK, or, you can give the thread a pull, and see how far the rabbit hole goes. 

There are many authors who have written about all of this. Three of the most popular on this particular topic would be Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price. 

Both Price and Ehrman are former believers who left the Christian faith when they too examined the underbelly of the biblical claims, and found them wanting.

To conclude this post, I'll let Mike Vinson's words make my points. 
Here is a quick audio grab of the study mentioned at the start of this post:



Did you note Mike's underhanded insult? "He didn't want to find him." Apparently, brother Frank went into his quest for the historical Jesus with his mind already made up? 

Unless Mike is privy to information that historians and biblical researchers are not, there is simply nowhere to find the miracle working, death defying Jesus of the gospels, within the pages of secular history. 

Here are two more audio snippets of Vinson's fundamentalist rhetoric, taken from the same study:






In the first snippet above, IWWB deputy dog Kuhn chimes in at approx. 0:14 and says "where was he looking?" Again, I am unsure of exactly what specialist information Kuhn possesses! As Vinson reads out, Frank says he found evidence for the general movement of Christians and the early church, but not the god-man Jesus of Nazareth. 

Vinson then rants and says "This is a history book!" It really goes without saying, but this kind of hyperbole is reserved for charlatan fundamentalists, almost exclusively!

You may also note that Vinson shows his ignorance by assuming that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the gospels, as the titles of these works imply, when in-fact, they are anonymous, as are many other works in the bible. Again, this just demonstrates Vinson's lack of education about these matters and his over confirmation bias.  

The second clip is Vinson vainly and desperately clutching at straws, where he attempts to defend the legend of Icarus, as well as various figures of speech. SMH: I truly have no words for the witless and vapid pretension of Mike Vinson in this instance. 

Proverbs 18:17 - The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Irrational Bigotry 101

Fundamentalist quasi-Christian Mike Vinson continues to out himself a prime example of an irrational right-wing bigot, via the teaching of his IWWB website.

On the most recent teaching series, the aptly titled "You Shall Not Follow a Multitude To Do Evil," Vinson rails against not only his pet-hate of birthdays and other celebratory acts, but also homosexuality, video-games and a woman's right to dress. 

The recent anti-gay rhetoric of Vinson has been covered before on this blog, and I've also given plenty of air-time to Vinson's plagiarised anti-birthday doctrines that he has lifted wholesale and verbatim from his former spiritual estate, the World Wide Church of God, where at one point, he served in the mail-room of the Pasadena campus. 

None-the-less, reading the latest diatribe from Vinson that is aimed specifically at indoctrinating young children into the IWWB faith, makes me cringe! 

Even though Vinson admits openly that he is engaged in a marriage relationship with a dead Jewish man, and encourages his disciples to take part in a "date-night" with Jesus, he somehow has the ability to partition this doctrine off from his apparent new hate of all things gay.

Firstly, here are some of the statements Vinson has made regarding homosexuals:

A brother just this past week told me his grandson had brought home a paper from his school which his grandson was expected to sign, proclaiming a day of silence for the homosexual life style. His teenage grandson was expected to sign the paper and make it known to the school officials that he was on board with school officials, and [that] he accepts their values as his values. 

It doesn’t seem possible that this is taking place in this country, but that is the trial the Lord has given us (Eph 1:11), and that is what our children are facing. Are you going to teach your children that they ought to conform to society, or will you teach your children that following Christ will cause them to be hated of all men? Will you relinquish your child’s values to the state? If you are willing to do that, then you have forfeited your position of  headship in your home to the principle of your school in direct contradiction to the commandments of God...

Vinson uses his alarmist rhetoric here to scare his readership into thinking there is some kind of "pro-gay" agenda taking place within the schools, and that to take part in this campaign must therefore mean that the participants are on the verge of swinging into a full-fledged homosexual lifestyle themselves. 

As is the case with father Mike, his over-the-top statements are both unfounded and full of religious confirmation-bias. More to the point, he is deliberately mis-leading his readership.

I took the time to look up this "day of silence" for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual + Transgender) community. 

Firstly, I found nothing whatsoever that would indicate that to take part means that you must accept the values of the homosexual community as a personal life-style choice or that taking part, is somehow an acknowledgement of your own rampant, but repressed or latent homosexual desires. Rather, it is a campaign against the bullying of LGBT people within the school community. 

Here is the statement regarding the day of silence from the campaign organiser's website:

The Day of Silence is a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Students from middle school to college take a vow of silence in an effort to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior by illustrating the silencing effect of bullying and harassment on LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT.

What exactly is it that Vinson has an issue with here? Shouldn't he be the one promoting love, and acceptance of others, as his (supposed) "lord and saviour" Jesus Christ did? There was nothing in the statement above that says, or implies, that taking part means you endorse the LGBT as a lifestyle choice for yourself. On the contrary, it is only the the issue of bullying is addressed. 

And as for bullying, would a Christian ever bully someone? No! Never. 

That would be, well… un-Christian wouldn't it and when has a Christian ever behaved in such an un-Christian manner? Sadly, Christians are often the worst bigots and the biggest bullies on this particular topic. A young person struggling with their sexuality should be made to feel like whatever choice they make, they will be accepted and loved, not ridiculed and scorned.

Vinson obviously took the word of his doting acolyte as "gospel truth" and then, read his own imagined bigotry into the narrative, and then after-the-fact, he's presented this as a war on the Christian lifestyle. But in doing so, he is twisting the facts, and lying to his audience. Nothing new there, I suppose. 

You'll also note that Vinson rarely, if ever, provides his audience with outside sources regarding these matters. For instance, where is the link to the LGBT campaign as I demonstrated above? How hard would it have been to copy + paste a link in there so his readership could fact-check him? It's just not there, because to do so would instantly incriminate Vinson as an admitted story-teller. 

Before we continue, here is a picture obtained from FaceBook that shows Mike and some of his doting acolytes enjoying themselves at a bible-conference.

Avoiding the appearance of evil? Note Mike's arms, and the placement thereof.
Hmm. Carrying on.

Vinson makes another profoundly bigoted statement on the same study, where he says the following:

Do not think that  “traditions of men” are the end. Neither think that homosexual rights is the end. I have seen the declaration of the European Union that they intend to teach children the benefits of same sex unions and of masturbation. 

Again, I decide to look up the "declaration of the EU" as it pertains to homosexuality, and masturbation. Firstly, there was a statement from the EU website, regarding the violence against homosexuals in Uganda. Here it is:

The European Union condemns the adoption of the Anti-Homosexuality Act by Uganda on 24 February. The EU fully shares the concerns expressed by the United Nations Secretary-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu.

The EU is firmly committed to the promotion of human rights worldwide and denounces any discriminatory legislation. The EU will review how best to achieve this in Uganda in this changed context. 

The Anti-Homosexuality Act contradicts the international commitments of the Ugandan government to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of all its citizens. The EU calls upon Uganda to ensure equality before the law and non-discrimination in line with its obligations under international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights.

The EU urges the state of Uganda to protect every individual against discrimination or violence and to repeal the Anti-Homosexuality Law.

Again, I am unsure what the issue is here? Is Vinson FOR violence against homosexuals? I have to honestly wonder.

Secondly, there is the following statement on the issue of LGBT rights within the EU from Wikipedia:

The proposed declaration includes a condemnation of violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity that undermine personal integrity and dignity. It also includes condemnation of killings and executions, torture, arbitrary arrest, and deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights on those grounds. 

Once more, I am left puzzled as to what Vinson has taken issue with. Is Vinson's homophobia evidence of his own latent homosexual desires? Possibly. 

Lastly, I found this PDF document, a motion for a European parliament resolution on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Feel free to read the document yourself but essentially, it, like the former links, proscribes policies on gender and sexual equality and acceptance.

For instance, the age group of 12-15 years are to be given information on the following:

Give information about pregnancy (also in same-sex relationships) and infertility 

Give information about gender identity and sexual orientation, including coming-out/homosexuality 

Give information about pleasure, masturbation, orgasm 

Enable teenagers to obtain and use condoms and contraceptives effectively 

Give information about sexual rights as defined by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the World Association for Sexual Health

Yet again, when I read this, I fail to see where the red-flags are. This looks like the basic sex-education 101 that I was taught in high-school. Does Vinson see an issue here? Would he prefer that he and the IWWB jesters be the leading authority on all matters sexual? It would appear so.

There's also this statement, included towards the end:

Help teenagers to develop a change from possible negative feelings, disgust and hatred towards homosexuality to acceptance and celebration of sexual differences

Again, not a celebration of the lifestyle for your own gratification, but of the "differences" themselves. Appreciating that everyone is different is not the same as advocating an adoption of the homosexual lifestyle. Vinson fails - AGAIN!

There is information there on masturbation, in that it is proposed that children be taught that their sexual organs are pleasurable and enjoyable, not "dirty." 
Early childhood masturbation is something that takes place anyway, and this dossier simply appears to be touching on acknowledging this, and teaching positive acceptance of one's physiology. 

It wouldn't be a long shot to assume that Mike's stance on masturbation would be a resounding "don't do it." Such vain and dilapidated values are exactly what has fuelled sexual ignorance and frustration for many. You simply cannot hope to express to another person what turns you on, if you don't even know the answer to that question yourself.

Given the rhetoric from Vinson, one can only surmise that he would encourage his disciples to go into a marriage as frustrated and ignorant sexual know-nothings who wouldn't know an ass-hole from an elbow. SMH.  

Lastly, on the topic of homosexuality, Vinson grasps foolishly at the notion that homo-sex was behind the fall of great empires! 

If you thought homosexuality would never be approved of by governments, you and I were both wrong. The adversary is not interested in just ‘tolerating’ all this perversion. The adversary will insist that we ‘celebrate’ these godless actions which historically have preceded the downfall of all great nations.

How has Vinson come to this conclusion? Not through research, and historical fact, that's for sure. If Vinson really thinks that 2 men going at it somehow has the power to upset an empires economy, military prowess and overall foreign policy, then he is a truly unstable character. 

This argument is one used by right-wing loons when they attempt to shoehorn their own beliefs into a political or social debate. They universally cite the Roman empire as some kind of proof-text. A cursory glance at the research on this topic cites nothing about homosexuality whatsoever, but instead, has this to say:

Many theories of causality have been explored and most concern the disintegration of political, economic, military, and other social institutions, in tandem with barbarian invasions and usurpers from within the empire...

I have no idea what research Vinson is reading when he references homosexuality as "the downfall of all great nations" but I doubt it's peer reviewed, and I doubt there is anything approaching scholarship that is remotely connected with, or to it. 

Interestingly, many put the rise of Christianity as the beginning of the end of the Roman empire. 18th century historian Edward Gibbon is noted for his hypothesis: 

Gibbon had assigned a major portion of the responsibility for the decay to the influence of Christianity, and is often, though perhaps unjustly, seen as the founding father of the school of monocausal explanation.

If you are interested in researching this topic, you'd be best served by checking out Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Spoiler alert: homosexuality doesn't get a single mention. 

Vinson also rails and rants against women wearing modern fashion styles, somehow equating their dress-sense, with the prospect of them turning out to be prostitutes:

Young girls and our sisters in Christ who are expected, when the fashion dictates, to show cleavage and midriff and to dress as a harlot. If we place no boundaries on our daughters when it comes to following dress fashions, and we let them follow a multitude to do evil and dress like a harlot, then we need not be surprised if they become harlots.

When I left the Mike Vinson preservation society (IWWB) I actually asked Mike if his next step was to instruct the men on the growing of beards, and whether he would like the women to wear full-length skirts, covering their ankles. I never received a reply to that question, and many others. But my point is that it's not so much what Vinson says, but the manner in which he says it; his overstatements that attempt to tie some fashion based choices into a desire to become a harlot defy logic. 

The entire basis of Vinson's latest teaching is one of fortress mentality. He cannot abide the world changing from his cherished white-picket 1950's values, and so, armed with his own imagined version of Christianity, he must rail against society and the change around him.

Rather than accept those who have been outcast, Vinson takes up arms against those who are different and who have chosen not to hide their own sexual reality from the outside world. Instead of a message of love and forgiveness, like all religious zealots Vinson demands conformity to his "truth" before he can accept you. 

Just as you are? God no. Just as Vinson and his personal Jesus want you to be. 

Mike Vinson's Family Values

Vinson's IWWB website recently began a teaching series on marriage, and as a result of this has veered off onto the topic of child-rearing, as part of that series.

As I've covered before, the teaching on marriage has opened the door into the puzzling labyrinth of doctrines that lay beneath Mike's more upfront outward claims. As an example, I have caught Mike out lambasting homosexuals and same-sex unions, and also stating that to fall in love is in reality, "falling in lust" and is therefore to be avoided at all costs for the true disciple.

As expected, the teaching series includes admonitions on such fundamentalist ideals as spanking your child, and references to the "rod of correction," but also, Mike has now come out and stated that a family should be run as a dictatorship, among a world of other head-scratching one-liners.

Even though I knew deep down that Vinson was a dictator par excellence, I am still none-the-less shocked and genuinely surprised when Mike decides to mouth these things openly and, seemingly, without shame or hesitation.

Firstly, let's take a listen to Mike where he explicitly states that a family is not to be a democracy, but rather, needs to be run as a dictatorship:



Here is a transcription of Mike Vinson's words:

"We do not negotiate with our children. Family life is not a democracy. Family life is a dictatorship. Christ should be that dictator, but fathers don't make deals with their children. They don't vote on things. Father's lead. They tell their children what they're going to do, command their children to do it, and they do it…"

As a father of 2 children, I take exception to Vinson's outlandish assertion. I can tell you now, that if I decided to run my family as a dictator, I can be sure that in no time at all, my 2 children would resent me and my wife would in no time, leave me, as she should. 

A relationship to me is a partnership with give and take. Is it a democracy? Hell yes. 
Do I make bargains with my kids? I sure do. It's give and take. It's all about learning to love each other, and get along other DESPITE our differences at times. My kids know that mom and I are the boss, but as they get older, we allow them to take part in the decision making process. We talk things out rationally and sometimes, we won't agree.

Vinson's authoritarian and hierarchical dictatorship style of family has no-doubt resulted in the fruit that he is bearing today, being estranged from several of his family members because he insists on being right about biblical matters and will accept no compromises. It's Mike's way, or the highway.

More to the point, Vinson's dictatorship ideals are precisely what I, and many others have observed within IWWB. Vinson sees himself as the "father" of the fellowship, and in-fact, some time ago, I caught out the doting IWWB elders referring to Mike using this specific honorific. 

Here is a video from my YouTube channel where Vinson is held up as a "father."

Mitch Kuhn states, at the opening:

"You know how to treat a father, you respect them. They've raised you, he's older than you, he is wiser than you. So if your dad is wrong about something, and you know it, you don't go up there and say "hey dad you're an idiot, you need to quit doing that." No, you go there, and you're respectful… So I'm just trying to pain a picture of the spirit we're supposed to have around who these elders are… Just think about the physical relationships, and that will help paint the picture of how we're supposed to handle these elders..."

Later on, Vinson chimes in and states:

"…it's just as natural as a father teaching his children. Every father, if he's really a father, loves to see his children grow in the grace and knowledge of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ. That's what an elder is wanting to accomplish. That's his goal…"

Laughably, later on in the video, at the end, Mitch Kuhn refers to himself, and the other elders as "incredibly humble." 

So when I refer to Mike Vinson as "father Mike," it's because of statements such as these.

And now, we have Vinson stating emphatically that a family is to be run as a dictatorship.
Small wonder then that Mike behaves in the manner in which he does, seeing that these beliefs are foremost in his mind when it comes to "family" and relationships. How very sad!

I also caught Mike out stating that his children have (in type and shadow) smited him, just as Jesus was beaten by the Roman guards, before his crucifixion.

Again, here is dictator Vinson attempting to shoehorn his life into the pages of the bible:



Vinson's rhetoric here is very typical of the victim-mentality and the persecution complex he wears like a badge of honour. As I have covered many times before, Vinson honestly believes he is hated of all men, and relishes in brow-beating his disciples with this supposed fact. He also uses this phrase ("hated of all men") as an escape clause to get himself off the hook whenever he is taken to task on a matter.

None-the-less, to somehow try and argue that his own children have "smote" him, just as Jesus was, is truly tragic in my books, and only highlights Mike Vinson's emotional immaturity, and his spiritual delusion. 

Lastly, Vinson shows how little of the bible he really knows when he addresses the issue of temper tantrums. Again, here is father Mike speaking to the "little children" of IWWB:



Vinson fails epically when he states: "the scriptures aren't advocating that we kill our children…"

In truth, the scriptures DO state that rebellious children should be killed. Vinson has backed himself into a corner by attempting to lift his family values from the pages of the bible. In Deuteronomy chapter 21, verse 18, we read the following:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Vinson, if he were a purveyor of "truth" would make this known to his acolytes but it seems, he cannot bring himself to even address this, let alone openly air it to those on his study. Instead, he lies to both himself and his listeners by stating that "the scriptures aren't advocating that we kill our children."

Earlier in Deuteronomy (chapter 13), there are instructions for stoning one's entire family, and in Exodus 21, there are instructions for selling off your daughter as a sex-slave. Exodus 21 also states that to beat your own slaves is fine, so long as you don't go so far as to actually kill them! Human slavery is one of the most depraved things I can think of, and yet, the bible not only advocates the practice, but gives instructions as to how far one can go with respect to exacting physical punishment on your human property!

Incredibly, Vinson will say that all of these Old Testament depravities only happened to illustrate key spiritual points, that of course, may now be made known via the grace of IWWB. The deceptive and depraved mindset one must take on to mouth such nonsense defies logic. But then again, this is IWWB we are talking about.

IWWB's Birthday Madness Continues

The anti-birthday teaching over at fringe WWCoG splinter group IWWB seems to be gaining even more momentum, and appears to have become quite the emphasised doctrine, much like "hated of all men" and "after the second admonition… reject." 

This is amazing to observe, as when I was expunged from the group, I was told that I could remain in the fellowship, so long as I kept my mouth shut about birthdays.

Incredibly, I had never bought the topic up for discussion with anyone, at any time, prior to this episode. Instead, it was Mike and his peanut elders who were emphasising the doctrine and making an idol out of birthdays, doing the very thing they accused others of and as a result, engaging in overt hypocrisy.

Moreover, you would think, given the amount of air-time IWWB dedicate to this doctrine, that the bible is explicit about this matter. Of course, IT ISN'T and Mike and his fellow hangers-on must instead shoehorn the doctrine into any verse that sounds remotely like it's a fit. 

A person who left the fellowship shortly before I did, observed that the IWWB anti-birthday doctrine had become the new "sinners prayer" of the fellowship. In other words, just mouth acquiescence to this doctrine, and you're now part of the spiritually elite club.

IWWB poster boy, Mitch Kuhn, stated this overtly in his paper on "How To Wage Spiritual Warfare" where he says the following:

We must do the same and wait until those new among us have withstood persecution from the world. A good indicator is how we handle our physical families which often give us great persecution when we begin to withdraw from the ways of the world.

This is why Days, Months, Times and Years is so important. It is a key way that the Lord manifests what is in our hearts. It is fine for new soldiers to struggle with this initially, but before we lay hands on them, call them a fellow disciple, and send them off to strengthen others, we must see them stand up for the truth and wage war. If they seek conditions of peace, then they are not a part of our mature army yet; they may need more time to grow into that role.

Despite Kuhn's rhetoric, no such instructions are found in the NT scriptures regarding birthdays and there are no such prohibitions placed on new believers regarding this. 

The only thing that the Apostles charged gentile believers with was to abstain from eating blood, from eating animals that had been strangled at death (how would you know?), from sexual immorality, and lastly, from visiting a pagan temple and purchasing meat that had been used in sacrifice to another god. Even then, the last point was later rescinded by Paul as being a matter of conscience. Birthdays are not mentioned in either a positive, not a negative light in a specific manner by any author in the bible anywhere.

This all just illustrates that the anti-birthday doctrine of Mike Vinson and his servile henchmen is yet another that IWWB "read into" the bible, and then project upon their congregants in an authoritative manner.

The most recent propaganda that IWWB have published on this topic comes from dazed and doting acolyte Victor Torres. The so-called "Spiritual Significance of Birthdays" (with footnotes by former Muslim, Mr Ayo!) is, as I have covered before, a completely plagiarised version of what the WWCoG splinter groups have been saying for years. 

Despite the title, I see no "spiritual significance" of anything in the writing. The entire basis and premise of Victor's paper is to compare "physical with physical," which, by the way, happens to be the complete opposite of what Vinson claims he does when approaching the scriptures. 

But all the same, take a listen to the ravings of the IWWB faithful as they attempt to shore up this doctrine. 

To kick it off, here is Father Vinson doing his utmost by "reading into" the scriptures, his anti-birthday doctrine by saying that if you're celebrating birthdays, you're spiritually dead:



Vinson pulls his arguments (if you can even call it that) from Jesus words in Luke 9:60, where Jesus allegedly tells a man who first wanted to bury his dad before he followed him to: "let the dead bury their own dead." But apparently, this is really about birthdays? 

The mental lunacy and desperate cherry picking here is off the charts!

Here is another IWWB minion, "Steve," who seems happy to get in on the act as well:



In a case of extreme irony, Steve starts out by saying that birthdays are wrong because you are elevating someone. These simple-minded retainers have again placed the nook around their own necks because as I have covered before, the testimonials on IWWB elevate Mike Vinson above all others. 

So apparently, it's OK to elevate Father Mike 24-7, 365 days of the year, but not a family member for a single day out of the year. Makes total sense! Not. 

Here is another; take a listen to IWWB disciple "Victor" who pulls the guts of his argument from what is not in the bible, (referred to as the "argument from silence") a fallacious and deceptive way of making a point that does not stand up to scrutiny, and something I have caught Mike Vinson out doing in the past.



The argument from silence is a clear fallacy, and as stated on the Wiki page linked to above: "... arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies."

And again, you hear the class-based system that IWWB employ: "the people in Babylon."
This is IWWB-speak for anyone who is a part of any group that is not IWWB. They see themselves as the spiritual elite, God's chosen, and anyone else is simply deceived and following Satan, whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

Lastly, we have another IWWB running dog, "Wendy" who struck me as being particularly self righteous as she tries to imply that birthdays, or anything else not endorsed by IWWB is an excuse for "drunken orgies" of all things. 




Wendy states: 

I look at all of 'em, they're all drunken orgies, it doesn't matter what titles they want to give to them…

Ah… really? Drunken orgies? I've been to a lot of birthdays in my time, but cannot honestly say that a single one has turned into a drunken orgy. 

All we see here is defamatory rhetoric, which is about all that Mike and his sycophants have up their sleeves. They use arguments from silence (a documented fallacy), borrow verbatim from other WWCoG splinter groups, (ahem - known as plagiarising!) and when all else fails, resort to the defamatory spin we see above. 

And more to the point, it seems they simply cannot stop talking about birthdays! Now why is that? One does indeed wonder.

This doctrine has attained gold-level status in IWWB and one would be forgiven for thinking that the pages of the NT writings must be filled with anti-birthday sentiment. After all, Mike and his butt-hurt birthday misers claim to have the "one mind" of Jesus Christ. He also states that he never "goes above that which is written."

And further, as outlined above, Kuhn and Vinson use the anti-b'day doctrine as a kind of initiation rite within IWWB to determine if a potential lackey is suitable fodder for the fellowship. In my opinion, it's a case of seeing how far someone will "bend over" in order to checklist their level of controllability. Mike and Mitch want the simple minded in their fellowship, and certainly don't want to attract those who can think and reason for themselves.   

Saint Eve's Stone-Wall of Silence

As I expected, IWWB elder Steve Crook (Saint Eve…) could not finish what he started when he made comment on the post about Vinson revising his Revelation commentary. 

His excuse was that I did not immediately publish his second reply, which came as I was typing up my extensive rebuttal to his comment. I asked Steve, in personal email correspondence to properly respond to my rebuttal, but as expected, Steve likes to set his own rules and standards, and if others don't adhere to them immediately, and in the manner in which he demands, he throws up the stonewall of silence and declares the matter "done." 

Here are Steve's own words about the matter:

Firstly, you haven't posted my response to your response, so there is simply nothing more for me to respond to. As has been shown to be the pattern with you, you pick and choose what you will and simply distort information as you determine to do so. So be it, but I will have no part in that seeing as you call that "honest discussion".

For the sake of transparency, here is what I asked Steve Crook to specifically address when (and if) he replied properly to my rebuttal. In my opinion, Steve refused to engage with me because he was caught out and wasn't able to address anything. His only real option is to tuck tail and run, and take cover behind his stonewall of silence.

• Where are the "outright lies" on the blog you accuse me of? Please let me know so I can remove them.

I asked Steve this because this phrase was used in the opening line. As yet, I have received no clarification on what the outright lies are so, I cannot review this information and if need be, remove them.

• You claim Mike "publicly repented" of the original Revelation commentary. But how is it that Mike said in 2011 and then again in 2012 that "sin no longer has dominion" over him? This catch-phrase was littered throughout the original Revelation commentary, as I point out (Chap. 11 and 12 for example). So it appears that Mike did not truly repent. Please respond to this.

This is the true "turd in the punchbowl" as it regards Mike's claimed "repentance." As yet, I have received no explanation about these matters.

• You say I "take things out of context" when as demonstrated, this is the entire premise of IWWB's teachings. To take a biblical phrase written in one language at a particular point in time, in many cases by an unknown or anonymous author, and then you try and line it up with another written hundreds of years later, in a different language by another unknown author. Is this not the very definition of "out of context?"

As I said to Steve, If I do "take you out of context" then what would be the problem with that, seeing as it is practiced by IWWB? Steve claims to have "the truth" so again, I fail to see a problem with this. But all the same, Steve has failed to respond to this.

• You accuse me of smearing someone's name when as demonstrated, Mike and his elders routinely do this on bible-studies. I have the emails where Mike calls people who have left "hangers on" and I have also posted YouTube video of Mike referring to his sons as rebellious, vessels of dishonour and other such derogatory terms. I have been the victim of character assassination via IWWB, as have many others. Please respond to this.

This is well documented. I have caught Vinson doing this time and time again. In an email conversation, when asked about using ad-hominem attacks, his basic reply was "so be it," and he then said he felt he was calling a spade a spade. 

• I admit to using an alias but on that note, how can you explain Mike advising this alias to ditch the marriage in favour of following the doctrines of Mike Vinson? Ouch Steven! Can you possibly wriggle your way out of this? Please at least make an attempt.

Dr. Cartwright was an alias I invented, to see whether Mike would go so far as advising adherence to his doctrines over a person's marriage. As expected, Vinson waxed on about the need to be "hated of all men" and if that meant seeing the marriage dissipate in favour of staying true to IWWB's doctrines, then so be it. 

Steve can't hope to reply to this because there is simply no way out of such a hole.

• You did, in your second reply, make comment about the secretive nature of some posts, as to how they are password protected. I respect that. However, you then made what I feel are false statements about the mailing list. Many people have been disappeared from that list like a fart in the wind because they asked questions. Please address this clearly in your rebuttal!

So out of the 6 points, in Steve's second reply (which came as I was responding in-depth to his first comment), he merely touched on half of point 6, and totally ignored the rest.

I did not publish Steve's second reply because I wanted him, in the spirit of honest debate, to take the time to reply honestly and exhaustively to my rebuttal. That he chose not to do this, speaks volumes about Steve as a "truth seeker." 

The methodology of Steve as an IWWB elder is to immediately publish a second reply that touches on all of half of one point, and when it is not published as per his demand, he then throws up the stonewall of silence.

I closed my email to Steve Crook by stating: 

Again Steven, I look forward to your exhaustive rebuttal which, be assured, will be posted in full without editing.

As yet, Steve has ignored all further correspondence. I emailed him again, telling him that if he was ever in town, I would be happy to catch up and that my door is always open for dialogue. Here are my words:

If you at least had the intellectual honesty to admit mistakes and openly dialogue with your critics, then I would have no case here. But your refusal to admit mistakes, to move the goal posts every which way and to hide behind silence only incriminates you Steve! Anyway mate, I am always happy to engage with you, the door is open anytime.

Again, Steve refused to reply! That to me, says it all. 

The Crooked Serpent

On the most recent blog post about Vinson revising his Revelation commentary, I happened to receive a comment from IWWB elder, webmaster and son in the Vinson-faith Steven Crook.

Steve pointed out that the audio I had lifted off the IWWB site, and made the post about, was in-fact, from 2008. More to the point, it was not, as I had wrongly assumed, Mike admitting that he was going to be revising the Revelation commentary for the third time around. 

Instead, as a result of the redesign of the IWWB website, this was a repost of a much earlier teaching. Mike's audio, in its correct context, was him stating that he would be revising the Revelation commentary for the second time around, after the debacle of the "we no longer sin…" original.

This still leaves the question of whether Mike and his doting acolytes truly possess the "one mind of Jesus Christ" as they claim they do, being that Mike still admitted to having to revise the commentary at all.

However, unlike Mike and his elders, if I am in the wrong, I'll happily admit it and own my mistake, taking responsibility for it. Perhaps, as Mike has said, this shows that I am a true man of God?

But anyway, the point of this blog post is to reply in-depth to brother Crooks comment. IWWB elder Steve Crook's comments are in red, with my comments and rebuttal under each specific paragraph, as it applies.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

I see you are still posting outright lies. Well, you have gotten a bit confused again so please correct this misleading information.

Steve attempts from the start to insinuate that the entire premise of this blog, and my YouTube channel is based in "outright lies." In almost all cases, I simply allow Mike and his elders to incriminate themselves, with their own words, which they do frequently, and apparently, without even realising this fact. 

That I then choose to point out the fallacies, half-truths and double-standards that are applied by Mike and co is really the point of this blog. Again, I am not exactly sure what "outright lies" Crook is referring to. 

To my knowledge, no "outright lies" have been made on this blog and if they are, I will happily retract them with an apology. If Steve believes there are "outright lies" posted, he need only inform me of them.

The article that was recently posted and of which you reference was posted with an audio that was made in June of 2008. There were no study notes available for this audio, so they were transcribed from that audio and recently posted. The old Is, Was and Will Be site has been redone with the latest website technologies running it, and as we are correcting things we find, this article also needed to have study notes, so they were recently posted.

Yes, understood Steve. My mistake. No arguments there. I will not attempt to hide behind a veil of "I was not yet mature enough, but the Lord worked it all out" or some such bible-based clap-trap. I have posted this amendment above and will also make an amendment on the original blog post. Again, if I am in error, I see no problem with admitting it as such.

The series on "animals in scripture" was during the same time frame from which Mike publically repented of a teaching he had proclaimed and then was admonished by others to not be accurate. Mike took this information and repented but you claim he didn't. That lie is just as false as this mis-leading blog.

You claim Mike "publicly repented?" Indeed, I remember Mike's repentance, and I was suckered into his play-act of being persecuted by Ray Smith for apparently, being jealous of Mike working with Rob Jones. 

Mike's "repentance" (as I recall, he referred to it explicitly as a "mistake," and not a sin) all had to do with the "we no longer commit sin" phrase but as I have covered here on this blog prior, when and where did Mike repent of all of the other things within that commentary? 

Here are a few choice lines from that same Revelation commentary, which were repeated by Mike in late 2011, and then again in 2012. Firstly, here are the lines from the commentary in question:

Chap. 11 - Sin no longer has dominion over us.  Sin and the past are no longer a part of us now that we are in Christ and have Christ in us.  

Chap. 12 - Once we have overcome our flesh and our adversary, it is done because we are then in the image of Christ. It is that which purges us from the power of sin and is what makes us no longer under the dominion of sin. 

These phrases "sin no longer has dominion over us…" were a part of the framework of the commentary, used to buttress the notion that Mike and Rob "no longer commit sin…" among all of the other ridiculous things that were stated as supposed fact in that commentary.

Steve, you claim that Mike repented of this? What are you basing this on? I ask that truthfully. I have captured audio of Mike re-stating these claims in 2011 and 2012, here they are:

Steve - how can you honestly explain these statements? Oh, I am sure that you will come up with some roundabout, spiritualised half-truth but to anyone looking objectively at Vinson and his group, these statements speak volumes about Mike's so-called "repentance."

Had you honestly looked at this "latest" post, you would have noticed that it went with the same series of like articles on “animals in scripture,” which was completed some time ago. As is the case with this ENTIRE blog site, you take things out of context and repeatedly look for things of which you can attempt to smear a person’s name of whom you disagree with.

Firstly, yes, I acknowledge that I jumped the gun on Mike making a third revision of his hallowed Revelation commentary. Again, no argument there.

But for your second point, you claim that I am taking things out of context, and also, smearing a person's name? 

This notion, of taking matters out of context, is laughable! Especially when one considers your group's use of scripture, and how you attempt to "spiritualise" your way out of every historical or contradictory error it makes. 

Seriously, let's take a look at Jesus alleged words that "this generation would not pass away" (Matthew 24:34) until everything he had said come to fruition. 

Mike's and your own "work-around" for this glaring and obvious fail, is to say that all of this is spiritual, and that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, when he said it. If one takes this to a logical conclusion, (and if your interpretation is true), then Jesus was lying to his listeners, or deliberately deceiving them. To deceive someone makes you a deceiver - does it not?

This work-around that you use, is the same used by the infamous Harold Camping, who, when shown up for the fruit-cake that he was, finally came out and said his (Jesus') return was "spiritual." Just like IWWB, Camping set up a moveable goal post and then pointed his readers/listeners towards this, because to take anything on face value, instantly discredits the bible as a reliable text. 

To further show how it is that you accomplish this deception, here is what Mike stated when asked specifically about this verse:

If you know what and where is heaven then this all makes perfect spiritual sense, because it all happens “in heaven”, within the hearts and minds of every man in every generation, who is given to understand that what he reads will indeed happen in “this generation” which is reading these words, and “understanding what he reads.“ Read What and Where is Heaven? on iswasandwillbe.com

Again, Mike points the reader to his own writings for "the truth" of the matter. He cannot provide a plausible, historically accurate response to the readers question, because there isn't one! Instead, he must play semantics and try and interpolate his own answer into the supposed "hidden" meaning of the scripture. 

But, apparently, it is I who take things out of context? Sure thing Steve.

As for the accusation that I smear a person's name, I think it's incredibly hypocritical of you to make that claim Steve. I have captured Mike bashing Billy Graham and the Pope, claiming they apparently want Jesus killed, IWWB vice-president Mitch Kuhn backstabbing a former member for searching out the truth apart from IWWB, and perhaps most damning of all, Mike railing against his own family members for not believing as he does, referring to them as being in rebellion, and agreeing with another acolyte that they are "vessels of dishonour."

You hide behind false names and fake characters of which you create whole fake lives out of, in order to try and infiltrate a FREE-to-JOIN email mailing list. This mailing list group consists of like-minded, yes, LIKE-MINDED believers in Jesus Christ, yet you think we should encourage the thinking you express on this blog.

Yes Steve, I have created several alias, in order to catch out Mike at his own game. 
One was a "Dr. Cartwright," and in this alias, I wrote to Mike and stated that my marriage was in trouble because of my adherence to his doctrine on "days, months, times and years." In fact, I stated to Mike that my fictional wife Peggy had left me because I wouldn't take part in Easter. 

Mike's counsel to Dr. Cartwright was to let the marriage go in favour of following the teaching of Mike Vinson. That, to me, and to any rational person, speaks volumes about your little cult-group Steve. That you would elevate the teaching of Mike above a person's marriage is reprehensible, and yet, this is precisely what took place. What God has joined, let not man separate appears to be yet another scripture that IWWB unknowingly discredit, and hang themselves with.  

But all the same, thanks for the heads up. I think I will probably publish the Dr. Cartwright letters at some point. Stay tuned!

Re "like-minded" believers, that is simply another way of spinning your groups promotion of what is actually termed "group think." Group think is very typical of cult-groups. 

The Wikipedia article on group think (link above) states the following: 

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking... 

This group adherence, and the loss of independent thinking is precisely what I was subjected to while I was in IWWB. To think for oneself is to be seen as being outside the "one mind" of Jesus Christ, which yourself and Mike claim to possess. 

You have created a blog dedicated just to “exposing” another site and a man for things YOU don’t believe in and of which you distort the information you find. Anyone can read on their own by visiting http://www.iswasandwillbe.com and we hide NOTHING. We hold PUCLIC bible studies each day of the week in various formats and everything is in the open in that regard.

Yes, this blog exposes IWWB for all to see. No argument there. 

You say that you hide "NOTHING." Sorry Steve, but this assertion of yours is false. 

Here are several screen grabs which show that IWWB have certain information that is only available to membership, in a secret society type fashion:

Again, given this, I would have to question the boldness of your statement: "we hide NOTHING." 

Your mailing list is subject to approval, and my alias Dr. Cartwright was removed from off of this mailing list for asking basic questions, as was another brother, John near Boston. 
The only explanation Vinson gave for removing my alias was the following: "your questions demonstrate that you are not one of us." The cult-esque overtones of Mike's statement appear to be obvious to all but yourself, and others within the confines of IWWB.

There was no 2nd admonition, or anything of that nature as Vinson frequently claims he does with every soul in his fellowship. Vinson got around this by saying "he (Dr. Cartwright) was never in our fellowship, just on the mailing list…" Ahem… How very convenient!

You are disgruntled and obviously have an agenda, but before you post things about another site to “EXPOSE” things you don’t understand, please consider telling the truth and doing a little research before you post such nonsense. Sincerely, Steven Crook

Note that Steven refuses to bless me, his spiritual enemy, as Jesus instructs him to do? The best he can muster is "sincerely." Weak. And again, we see the poor attempt of imputing motive in an effort to character assassinate me and dispel anything of value on this blog. 

In a moment of double-speak, Steve wants me to "consider telling the truth." Ironically Steve, that is the purpose of this entire blog. To tell the truth about Mike and his IWWB cult-group to any and all who will take the time to evaluate the information I present.

And apparently I "don't understand." Despite being in the Mike Vinson circle of trust for approx. 6 years, I really don't get how it works! Makes perfect sense.

Of course. It's much easier for Steve to say this, rather than admit that I've seen the fatal flaws in IWWB and have chosen a path that is truly free. Free from group-think, free from a former  WWCoG man and his bizarre doctrines, and free from a magic book that purports to hold all of the answers to life's questions. 

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.