Mike Vinson - Flogging The Ham

Despite Mike Vinson's assertion that only he and his IWWB group preach the truth of the word of God, and that every other group/denomination has "not a single doctrine" correct (direct quote: "Orthodox Christianity is contradiction, every single doctrine they have is a contradiction of the word of God"),the simple facts are that Vinson relies heavily on the core tenets of Christian fundamentalism, and shares many of his deeply held beliefs with tens and hundreds of thousands of Christians, the world over. 

I have recently been following the lunacy that is Answers in Genesis, the apparent brainchild of Christian fundamentalist, and Planet of the Apes look-alike, Ken Ham, also known in some circles as "Canned Ham."

Ham's particular theological chestnut is that the scientific community is wrong about the age of the earth, the origins of man, radio-carbon dating methods, and virtually all other key scientific milestones. 

Ham has even used one of Mike Vinson's "go-to" lines: that the bible is a history book. Here is a screen grab from Ham's heavily populated FaceBook page - 

You see, like Mike Vinson of IWWB, Ham wants to insist that the bible is just as much a history book and a scientific go-to, as it is an inspired spiritual text. So despite Vinson's lame overstate, it's clear that he and brother Ham share many of the same doctrines when it comes to this topic. 

The Wikipedia page on AiG (Answers in Genesis) has this to say about Mr Ham's group:

Answers in Genesis rejects modern scientific consensus on archeology, cosmology, geology, linguistics, palaeontology and evolutionary biology in favor of a worldview which sees the universe, the Earth and life originating about 6,000 years ago. AiG claims their views of origins, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, define what should be considered good science

Like Mike Vinson, Ham wants to insist that Noah really did build a wooden ark, housing all of the "kinds" of animals (a semantic "reach-around" designed to avoid the scientific classification of species) along with teaching that the Genesis creation account is a literal 24-hour "blow by blow" of what actually took place. 

Really though, should the bible should be taken literally, wherever and whenever possible? Is it reasonable to do this? I've often said that if the bible contained stories of 3 headed giants, leprechauns and aliens from outer space, Vinson (along with Ham) would insist you take those things literally as well! 

Science guy Bill Nye recently debated Ham in his "facility" at the Creation Museum. The event was widely televised but I only got around to watching it recently. In my opinion, Nye decidedly destroyed Ham's position by presenting his facts salinity and logically. Ham on the other hand could only trot out a few of his creation science buddies who had PhD's and of course, yes you guessed it - thump the bible. 

I took an audio grab of one particular point Nye was making and remarked to myself that Ham's position and logic is in all points, straight out of the Mike Vinson school of bullshit and mind control. Listen to Nye, he asks: "is it reasonable" to assume the position of Ham and Vinson. Indeed. Is it? Here it is:

Nye also destroyed Ham's argument of a literal Noah's Ark, showing it up for the fairy-tale nonsense that it is:

How does someone like Mike Vinson, or Ken Ham reply to this? 

Neither Ham nor Vinson can seriously answer the arguments of Nye, or those who rely on logic rather than faith to inform their world view. All that Vinson or Ham can do is to simply restate their position, and thump the bible whilst trying to impute motive to their questioner. Ham repeatedly said that science had been hijacked by secular humanism.

Vinson of course goes much further than that by stating that those who are not in his group are under the influence of Satan, blinded to the truths of God, the likes of which will be subservient to him and his dick-leader elders in the so-called millennium.

The sad thing is, both Vinson and Ham are living in a delusory state - both men (and their followers) have suspended rational thought in exchange for belief in a book that archaeology cannot confirm and in which the authors names are not even known.

Ham, (like Mitch "Bitch" Kuhn) also subscribes to the ridiculous notion that Moses authored Genesis, a claim I have both covered and refuted before.

So yes, be assured that when Mike Vinson begins to lament scientific method in favour of his fantastical, masturbatory bible-based world-view, he really is, "flogging the Ham." 

Vinson Revising The Revelation Commentary - Again

EDIT - IWWB elder Steve Crook has made me aware that Mike is not revising the Revelation commentary for the third time around. Please see this post for an update.

I am leaving the rest of the post below untouched as there are still many questions to answer as it pertains to Mike and IWWB having the "one mind" of Jesus Christ, and many points below still stand, and are valid.

_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Despite Mike Vinson's repeated assertion that he and his group of lackeys really do possess the "one mind of Jesus Christ," Vinson has come out and admitted in the most recent bible study (on the spiritual significance of the ass, ironically) that he is going to be revising the Revelation teaching series. 

Quite honestly, I think Mike ought to just throw the towel in here. This is a teaching series that has its foundation in Mike and another brother (Rob Jones) declaring themselves the world over, "sinless," specifically stating: "we no longer commit sin," amongst a world of other one-line head-shakers. 

When he was taken to task on this commentary, Vinson, instead of humbly and contritely admitting he'd made serious errors (read: sinned) turned around, and pointed the finger at his critics, accusing them of jealousy for working with a recent convert. Hilarious. You really can't make this stuff up. If you're so inclined, you can read more about this HERE. 

Note this screen grab, courtesy of "WayBack Machine," internet archive which shows Mike's original Revelation commentary, as it began to appear on his website:

You may click the image to enlarge it, but the opening paragraph states the following:

Rob Jones has spent many hours on the phone with me. Together we have accumulated many of the verses which give the symbols of the book of Revelation their force and meaning. As we can find the time, we will be going through the Unveiling Of Jesus Christ chapter by chapter. Coming to see where the symbols come from and what they mean will give the entire Bible new meaning.The Lord will probably return before we get to chapter 22, but we will just do what we can as we can. This is a never before published approach to this book. I pray that God will give us the opportunity to make this available to all as a witness to "the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Hah! Hilarious stuff really. 

All the same, to my knowledge, this new swing at things will be the THIRD such revision of the hallowed Revelation commentary. His first attempt was in partnership with another brother (Rob Jones, see above) and ended with Mike splitting from a long time associate, L. Ray Smith.

His second revision became a long winded teaching series where at one point, Mike praised the contributions of his associate Rob Jones who helped him pen such nonsense as the following: 

• Yes, that’s right. When Christ is ruling with a rod of iron along with His elect during the millennial reign, he is preparing the rest of the world’s population for utter destruction…

• Yes, Christ is actually saying he will kill his elect with death…

• We, the elect, don’t make friends with those of the world or church because we know that people who do are the enemy of God… 

These one-liners were NEVER publicly repented of but were instead, swept under the carpet as Mike set about playing the victim and trash-talking Ray Smith behind his back while claiming that he was "silent as a lamb" in the face of persecution.

But more to the point, this admission that he now needs to go back and revise the Revelation commentary for the 3rd time, or really, revise anything else, is a direct contradiction of the claim that he and his elders possess the one mind of Jesus Christ. 

If Mike did truly possess the one mind of Christ, and he were truly tapped into the truth to the exclusion of all others, (as he claims!) then there would be absolutely no need to go back and revise anything. After all, if he is receiving the truth from Christ as he has said many times, then how could he possibly be teaching anything in error, or need to go back and realign something he taught previously? 

Alas, Mike has once more revealed himself to be the forked tongue spiritual leader that he always has been. 

Here is Mike's candid admission, along with the transcript underneath:

"Now next week, we're going to start the book of Revelation. This is the end of the series on animals and we're going to start the book of Revelation. And of course thats going to be something that ah, that we started, did sometime back, and we're going to have to redo it because, we just weren't as mature as we needed to be at that time, and the Lord worked all that out. But we see now that this book is entirely a book about Christ, spiritually - not physically. In these past few years we've had a much deeper understanding of what it means to compare spiritual things with spiritual. So when we get started next week, we're going to understand a whole lot more about what everything in this book is…"

So as you can see, Vinson fails his own lofty self-imposed standards. He seems to be ignorant of what he is doing here, to an almost bizarre point. Wilful denial perhaps?

Consider what Mike has said while reading the following, lifted directly off the IWWB website, on a page titled "Is It Really Possible To Be, One In Spirit, With One Mind."
Select phrases that are highlighted, are my own doing.

At a conference in Indianapolis a few years ago, a brother asked me in front of the whole congregation if there is any way to know for certain that he and I were not just as deceived right now, as we were when we thought we knew the Truth, back when we were both in the World Wide Church of God. At first I simply reminded him that we see things now that we did not see or understand back then. I told that brother that what we now see and believe answers many more of our questions and is based upon scripture, whereas what we believed in the WWCG has been proven, in large part, to be totally false. “But we thought it was based on scripture when we were in the WWCG”, was his response. “But it wasn’t was it?” I asked. “Well no, but how can we be sure that what we believe now is not just as wrong, while we think it is right, as what we believed to be right back then?” This exchange went on way too long, as some of you who were there will no doubt agree. I feel sure some of you were probably thinking, “Why is Mike letting this go on so long? Why doesn’t he just tell the brother that it is not possible to prove the Truth to someone who admits he doesn’t know the Truth?” 

Well, I have never claimed to be the quickest mind in the world. I do not claim to be a great debater, nor do I want to or enjoy debating anyone. So what is the answer to that brother’s question? Can we know the Truth for certain?

The Lord finally gave me the Biblical answer to that brother’s question, and I will now share it with you. I asked him a simple question, “What are you saying, Brother? Are you saying that we cannot know for certain that we know the Truth? Is that your point?” I waited until he admitted that he really did not believe that it was possible for any of us to know for certain that what we now believe is any truer than what we thought to be the Truth in the WCG. He actually admitted that he did not believe that it was possible for us to know for certain that we are not just once more being deceived. At that point I told him “O. K. out of your own mouth you will be judged, because Christ has told us this…”

Mike then goes on to quote John 8:32 "you shall know the truth…" as though somehow, that proves and settles his argument. I also had to laugh at the circular and fallacious rhetoric used (apparently) by Mike's lackwit disciples - "why explain the truth to someone who doesn't think we can know it?" Well, wouldn't that be the whole point? To EXPLAIN your position so they may come to see the logic and the rationality of your argument? 
Of course, IWWB aren't dealing in anything provable or testable; rather their forte is speculative claims of the unknown, and unknowable. 

But as we've already seen here today in this one small example, Mike does not "know the truth" because if he truly did, there would be no need to revise his doctrine - EVER. The supposed truth would speak for itself.

So truthfully (yeah, pun there), what have we learned here? I'll tell you what I've taken away from this: it seems that Mike is simply a far more arrogant, and far more wilful denier than he was when he was back in the WWCoG. Rather than learning the life-lessons from the entire scenario of that time in his life, it seems that Mike is doomed to become a parody of Herbert W. Armstrong, just on a much smaller, more condensed scale.

Mitch Kuhn Ignores His Own Teaching

For those not in the know, Mitch Kuhn is what can best be described as the IWWB "2-ic" - 2nd in charge.

I often refer to Mitch as a "hatchet man" because in the scheme of things, Mitch is often designated to forcefully remove someone from the fellowship or, clamp down on a matter of doctrine. Take for example, this particular doctrine, where Mike Vinson plays the role of good cop, and Mitch the unapologetic hard-case who wants to bust your balls doctrinally. In the corporate world, the term "hatchet man" refers to a person tasked with implementing firings of personnel, so it seems fitting to use it with respect to brother Mitch.

He was at one time, hailed as an elder, until I happened to point out to an IWWB acolyte, that an elder, according the scripture, must be the "husband of one wife," not simply a male teacher as Mitch and IWWB asserted for many years. As Mitch is not married, then he simply cannot fall into that category. Here is a screen-grab of Mitch responding to a brother about whether a woman can be an elder. Please note - at the time he posted this, Mitch was considered to be an IWWB "elder" by both himself, and the others within the fellowship, including Mike Vinson.

My message must have made it up the food chain somehow, as Mitch and Mike Vinson have now acknowledged that according to the scripture, Mitch is not an elder.  

What is interesting to observe, is that Mitch, when attempting to teach others about matters pertaining to the scriptures, frequently hangs himself with his own doctrines. I caught Mitch out earlier on in the year, when he was queried about why certain people had their studies taken down from the IWWB website. After all, if truth is truth, who cares who is teaching it right? Mike and Mitch don't want to hear those kinds of arguments and so, must invent reasons why people who have left the fellowship need to have their studies removed as well. Mitch Kuhn stated on his website the following:

Once someone has been put out of the fellowship, or has left of their own accord, we need to take down all of their studies. This is a part of having no company with them and making them ashamed. If we leave the studies up it gives off the appearance that we are still in fellowship. There are no books of the bible written by anyone that we know fell away from the faith

Note Mitch's emphatic overstatement there? "There are NO BOOKS OF THE BIBLE written by ANYONE that we know fell away from the faith." Quite a statement that. Here is a screen-grab of Mitch's deceitful and fallacious argument. Note that you will need to click to enlarge the image:

Well, Mitch has now had to change that because as I pointed out, King Solomon fell away from the faith and is attributed 3 books of the bible. Heck, Mike Vinson even agreed with me on this. I promptly put up a video about this and posted to my FaceBook page. Obviously, this flies in the face of Mitch Kuhn's prior emphatic overstatement. So what to do? Well, move the goal posts of course. What else? Mitch now states: 

There are no books in the New Testament written by anyone that we know fell away from the faith.

You can see that Mitch is just proof-texting his argument to fit his doctrine. He displays no consistency in his rhetoric whatsoever. Mitch doesn't even know who wrote many of the NT books, because quite a few of them are anonymous.
The issue on qualifications for elders was but one, and the fallacious and dishonest proof-texting about authors who fell away from the faith is another. However, here is a far more damning indictment that Mitch has proverbially slain himself with.

On Mitch's website (at one time called Aionios, now TryingTheSpirits), Mitch answers a question from someone identified as "C."

The question is an excellent one, as "C" asks how can one truly know that we have the official "canon" of scripture as set out by the various councils that took place during the early days of the Christian faith. Great question. Shame he is asking the wrong guy!

In attempting to answer this, and by virtue of the fact that he sees himself as a teacher, with the absolute truth on his side, Mitch Kuhn is forced to make a good many assertive statements.

In truth, his "answer" is just another vain attempt as before, to proof-text his personal belief that the 66 books existing today in the western, orthodox version of "the bible," constitute what he calls "the word of God."

But in asserting such a belief, Mitch makes a colossal blunder. Here are Mitch's own words from his reply and I'll show you how Mitch has hung himself shortly:

When you read the books that some people think should be considered scripture, there is a characteristic of those books that makes is clear they do not belong in the scriptures. We first need to establish that it is the SUM of God’s word that reveals the truth. This always involved at least 2 scriptures and prohibits one scripture from explaining itself. These other supposed books of the bible to not fit into the sum of God’s words LACK A SECOND WITNESS

Mitch here says that anything considered "canonical" must by virtue of its inclusion, adhere to the "2nd witness" rule. What one must ask themselves in light of this statement is thus: Are there any stories or incidents recorded in particular "canonical" works there that are NOT attested elsewhere?

Well, Yes. Many in-fact. Mitch here has made the mistake that his spiritual father Mike  Vinson frequently does, that of over-stating his position to the point of stupidity.

Let's examine the claim Mitch makes as it pertains to the gospel of John. Ignoring for the moment that John's gospel isn't even claimed to be authored by the disciple John, and is in-fact anonymous, let's see if it meets Mitch's guidelines.

Here are a list of scriptures and stories/incidents from the gospel of John that are not attested anywhere else in the bible whatsoever. I'd be interested to know how Mitch can qualify his statement while also reading from the gospel of John.

• Prologue (1:1-18)
• "Signs," beginning with the Wedding at Cana (2:1-12)
• Dialogue with Nicodemus (2:23–3:21)
• Jesus and/or his Disciples Baptize People (3:22-26; 4:1-2)
• Samaritan Woman at the Well (4:1-42)
• Jesus Heals a Sick Man at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-18)
• New Details at the Feeding of the 5000 (6:1b, 3-6, 8-9, 12b, 14-15)
• Bread of Life Discourse (6:22-65)
• Woman caught in Adultery (7:53–8:11) - note: this was added later.
• Jesus Gives Sight to a Man Born Blind (9:1-41)
• Jesus Raises Lazarus from the Dead (11:1-44)
• Jesus Washes the Disciples' Feet (13:1-20)
• "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved" (13:23-25; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:7, 20-24; cf. 18:15-16?)
• Last Supper Discourses, incl. "Paraclete" & "Vine and Branches" (13:31–16:33)
• Great Prayer of Jesus (17:1-26)
• New Details at the Trial before Pilate (18:28–19:16)
• New Details at the Crucifixion (19:20-24, 26-28, 30-37, 39)
• First Resurrection Appearance to Mary Magdalene alone (20:11-18; cf. Matt 28:9)
• Resurrection Appearance to Thomas (20:24-29)
• Another Resurrection Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias/Galilee; Dialogue between Jesus & Peter (21:1-25; cf. Luke 5:1-11)
• First and Second Endings to John's Gospel (20:30-31; 21:24-25)

Here are incidents/stories/events that LACK A 2ND WITNESS so according to Mitch, this gospel has excluded itself from the canon of scripture. 

Of course, don't bother trying to raise this with Mike Vinson or Mitch Kuhn. These men tout themselves as teachers who are "easily entreat-able" but when push comes to shove, they have a denomination to maintain and specific doctrines that in their minds, are untouchable.   

Elsewhere, Mitch answers another question about biblical inerrancy and makes so many blunders in his logic, it would require a whole new blog to explain them. Here is but a sample of what Mitch says:

When there is an alleged discrepancy we only have to come up with a plausible explanation, then the alleged contradiction loses its force.

A "plausible" explanation? The problem with this approach is that Mitch is now writing his own version of the gospel stories by positing a "plausible" explanation for discrepancies. The sky is the limit with that kind of reasoning and who is to say whether Mitch is right or not? Oh of course, Mitch says he's right so that settles it. Literally anything can pass as a plausible explanation, the question ought to be, why is there a discrepancy in the first instance?

The gospels are history books...

Ah, no they are not Mitch. Sorry. Not a single independent attestation exists to confirm any of the miracles of Christ, even though, this was quite a well attested and literate time period.

Mount of transfiguration: Matthew and Mark say that it was six days. Luke says ABOUT eight days. Luke qualifies eight days with “about”, so this accounts for the difference.

This "accounts for" the difference? Huh? He was 2 days out but because he used the word "about" it's OK? Well I guess that settles it huh?

We have to assume that they do not contradict and are accurate unless we have absolute evidence that they are in disagreement. As you can see from my response there is a plausible explanation for every supposed contradiction you pointed out.

Mitch wants "absolute evidence" to the contrary. He is setting the bar impossibly high because he has a belief system to defend. The truth doesn't factor into this because, Mitch and Mike and the rest of IWWB aren't interested in the truth, they are all about their own wacky doctrines that they selectively lift out of the bible.

The problem is, it is near impossible to prove a negative. It would be like me asking you to prove with "absolute evidence" that faery's and leprechauns don't really exist. Could you do it, absolutely? I doubt it. All you could point out is that lack of physical evidence and the contradictory accounts of stories about these characters, and then rely on your opponents sound reasoning to conclude that perhaps, such beings are purely fictional in nature, and not "real." 

Or what if I told you I was visited by aliens 10 years ago and spent time in their spacecraft. You might say, "prove it." Using Mitch's logic, I would say to you - "prove with absolute evidence that I didn't." Obviously, that is impossible to do.
However, one thing remains - the onus of proof lies with the one making the claim. Mitch, and other dishonest "magical thinkers" like to swing the burden of proof back around onto their critics. In the real world, this won't work, you'll be laughed out the door.

But in the confines of IWWB, anything goes.