Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Am I compromising? Bowing down to criticism? At odds with the church?

This is what a fellow Christian (or I assume that he is) said about me with regards to a VIDEO I made about a year ago whereby I stated some of my agreements with Jehovah's Witnesses. If you go to the comment section of this video, you will see a YouTube user who carries the name SERVICE PROCESS. Because I take criticism very seriously (especially from a fellow brother in the Lord), I wanted to address his attempt to correct me here.

Mike. I think you are on dangerous ground here.
I don't feel from what you are saying that you have actually done your homework.

Though everyone is entitled to think what they want about how much homework I have done, I would like to point out that I spent over two years in personal study with the Jehovah's Witnesses as well as attend meetings throughout that time period. In addition, I have interacted with countless JW's on the internet since that time. However, I would ask that the reader look at the work that i've produced in relation to JW's to see if it comes from someone who has done his homework.

I think you are wholly misleading the church here. Because you are talking to the Christian Church at large.
I don't know if you are bowing down to a bit of Critisism or if you are Liberal !!

Is it really misleading to give credit where credit is due? Is it really wrong to tell someone where they are actually correct in their theology? Anyone who is even remotely familiar with my videos and blogs know that I am extremely critical of the beliefs and practices of JW's. So what is ServiceProcess really speaking of here?

But either way, you are at odds with the Christian Church with some of your views.

This is a very bold accusation my friend. If this statement isn't backed up, then I really hope you will retract it.

The Witnesses emphasize the name Jehovah as God's name when it isn't. No one knows Gods name.

This is an interesting claim. But it doesn't answer any questions. Since we don't know with one hundred percent certainty how the Hebrews pronounced the Tetragrammaton, then what is ServiceProcess suggesting we put in place of it where it appears over six thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Is he actually suggesting that "LORD" is a proper rendering? What about other Hebrew names? If we weren't sure about how some other Hebrew names were produced, would it justify substituting a title in its place? Or would it be more proper to transliterate it the best that one can? What is interesting here is that there are countless protestant scholars who, for centuries, had no problem in using "Jehovah" as the English transliteration of the divine name. Read Calvin's institutes. Its all over the place. Read Warfield's work on the Trinity; all over the place. Obviously, it is controversial as to what is the most proper way to retain the Tetragrammaton in our translations. In my opinion, using the English equivalents "YHWH" would be the best, as it leaves the reader to decide for himself how to pronounce it. But one thing is for sure: "LORD" is not in any way, a proper way to translate or pronounce the Tetragrammaton at all. And if I remember correctly, i've even heard James White echo this very view.

They have restored it in the new testament alright; and changed the meanings of many of the passages in the process; they have also put the name in the new testament where it wasn't before. Over 270 times.

Objective : To take the focus away from Jesus;
Instigated by : Satan

Is that what you think we Christians should do ?
You really really need to retract on this one my friend.

Where ServiceProcess gets the idea that I am endorsing the New World Translation in inserting the Divine Name in the Christian Scriptures is beyond me. In fact, if my fellow brother here had taken a few seconds to look, he would have noticed that I have made several videos criticizing the NWT for doing this very thing! Obviously, we all can come up with our reasons for why the NWT is wrong and what their motive for this practice is, but at this point it is irrelevant since I never addressed this aspect in the first place.

Jehovah's Kingdom. Mike, Jesus talked more about Hell actually, should we talk alot about that ?

Of course we should talk a lot about hell as well as all the other things that Jesus taught. So is my brother suggesting that I shouldn't emphasize God's Kingdom when I proclaim the gospel? And if my memory serves correctly, what is the first thing Jesus preached? Hell, or God's Kingdom?

However, let me be clear in stating that I don't believe the JW's are correct in their understanding of the Kingdom of God, as it is heavily linked to 1914, which I obviously reject. Thus, I would explain to a JW something along these lines; "You are correct in that you are emphasizing God's Kingdom in your preaching work, but let me show you where I think you are off on some of its details." Am I doing something wrong here?

it might be printed on there, it doesn't mean they talk alot about it. They Don't.
Jesus's focus was on love for God and Man.

On the contrary, JW's do talk a lot about hell. In fact, I can't remember the last time I had a JW at my door where we didn't discuss hell. Also, there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy in what ServiceProcess said here and what he said a sentence or two previous. "Jesus talked more about hell actually" vs. "Jesus' focus was on love for God and man." So which is it?

The JW's do focus on this in their shunning and theocratic warfare (lying) practices.

Yep, good advice for the Christian Church at large.

Where in the Scriptures is there a precedence for rebuking a fellow Christian using sarcasm?

NWT Interlinear. Mike. Seriously. The JW bible is not the Christian Bible, please don't recommend it to us Christians. (No wonder all the JW's enjoyed this presentation).

I stand by my claim; the Kingdom Interlinear is a helpful resource to have. In fact, I can't tell you how many ex-JW's came to saving faith in Jesus Christ by guessed it, the Kingdom Interlinear! Yes, the resource contains the NWT on the right margin, but that is one thing that makes this resource so valuable! Any student of the Bible can compare the literal Greek with the NWT or any translation of their choosing. Furthermore, I don't think I am alone in suggesting that the KIT may very well be the most valuable resource one can have in witnessing to JW's.

Listen. The JW Bible says there are 2 Gods. Jesus is A God, and Jehovah is a God.
That is absolutely not Christianity ... its .... well ... its.... Pagan.


seriously. Don't bow down to pressure from me or them, but do do your homework Mark.

Notice that, in my video, I wasn't commending the NWT, but the KIT. I would never recommend the NWT for Christians to read; not necessarily because I believe it is a bad translation, but because it was not done by a trained committee who are scholars in the original languages. In fact, I wouldn't recommend any Bible that was not done in this regard!

JW Bible Dictionary ! Insight on the Scriptures!.
In your next video could you please provide positive points on Voodoo !!

You are playing with fire my friend.

Thayer's Greek lexicon is a very popular and timely resource that has been used by evangelicals for a very long time. Personally, I have found this to be a very valuable lexicon that I think every Christian should have on their bookshelf. Do I endorse everything that Thayer would say in his lexicon? Of course not. Is Thayer a Christian? No, unless you consider Unitarians to be Christians. And what about other lexicons and Bible dictionaries? BDAG? HALOT? Are these Greek and Hebrew lexicons produced by evangelical protestants? If not, then should we not be telling practically all seminaries to quit admonishing their students to use these resources?

This is something that we need to be careful of; throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even the most rank heretic is capable of doing good research, even though we may not always accept their conclusions. Bart Ehrman is a good example of this. Dr. Ehrman is a brilliant scholar who has done some very good research. But obviously, I don't agree with all of Ehrman's conclusions. The same goes with the Insight books. Is there good research in some Watchtower publications? Of course! Do I agree with all of the conclusions? Of course not! Like with any book I read, I do so with discernment.

The bible doesn't say to commend the false prophet does it.
Christianity isn't happy with falsety within you know.
The JW denies Jesus Christ as the only name given by which we must be saved.
There is no salvation in it.

I fully agree that there is no salvation in the WT system, for the reason you mention here as well as their denial of justification apart from works (Romans 4:5). But again, is it wrong to look at a publication produced by an unbeliever and say, "wow, this is some really good research!" I simply don't see what's wrong with that.

In conclusion, I want to thank ServiceProcess for seeking to correct me on these matters, though I can't find myself agreeing with much of what he said. But I will say that I will continue to prayerfully consider these issues as I approach them in the future in hopes that I bring glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.


Mark Hunter said...

I'm guessing that ServiceProcess is a former JW and may have JW family members who shun him and choose the poison served up by the Governing Body rather than the waters of life from our Lord.

As a former JW myself, I recognise how raw we can feel about any defence of JWs, particularly from Christians. ex-JWs do throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the Governing Body, rejecting everything they teach even if it may be edifying. For example, I think some of the JW teachings on the paradise earth are easier to understand than the usual Christian depictions of heaven. However, not all ex-JWs would entertain the notion that the Governing Body may actually be close to the truth.

I've previously found it hard when Christians agree or take a soft stance on some JW teachings or practices. All ex-JWs are victims of spiritual abuse and sometimes that abuse creates in us a hardness that perhaps ServiceProcess is displaying.

Mike Felker said...

Thanks for your comment Mark. To be honest, even as one who has never been a JW, it was hard to agree with anything the JW's believed. The reason being, all my Christian life, they were described as a "cult." And so, no matter what issue it was, I felt like I had to disagree with them. But after a while, for some reason, I began to ask myself, "even if this is a false religion, does this mean they have everything wrong?"

I think we tend to do the very thing we accuse JW's of not doing; following the truth wherever it may lead. As horrid as the doctrine of hell might be to a JW, if its the truth, then we should accept it. Same thing with a doctrine like paradise earth (which i've come to accept, though I don't accept their two-class system). If its the truth, then we should accept it.

ServiceProcess said...



Firstly I would like to apologise if I have offended you, and I do mean that. You seem a thoroughly decent person, who inlight of these criticisms still managed to leave me a nice response.
In addition I do appreciate that you are out on the frontline there.
I can be ‘a bit abrasive’ with my comments; and I appreciate with hindsite that it’s not forceably a positive and helpful approach in initializing dialog. It is however highly expressive of how I feel. Nevertheless; I do appreciate the good work that you are doing and have done; so, again I wholeheartedly apologise for offending you if that has been the case.

With that said and meant; I still standby the essence of my criticism; and am greatful for this opportunity to respond in full.


WTBTS - Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Jehovah Witness Organisation.


Like yourself I have spent some years studying the Jehovah Witness organisation, including
Attendance at Kingdom Halls, home visits and Conference attendances.
I spent 30+ years as a Seventh Day Adventist (Born into), until I took the time to read the bible alone; and discovered the truth of Adventism which lead to a study of Witnesism (being simular cults).


Let me set the scene.
Any youtube audience consists of ... a broad spectrum of persons, primarily the younger computer literate. I would like you to place yourself in that of a young, impressionable person who is either undecided; or unsure about religion; and so thus is impressionable.
Infact; let’s be more realistic and go the whole hog. Let’s include all Christians who are not grounded in Christianity; so they believe the bits they know; but aren’t deep rooted (not a good state but probably the most common).

OK, let’s make one more assumption.
Every one of your audience will receive between 1 and 3 visits from the Jehovah Witnesses this year.
Although we are assuming that at a personal level; for america it is statistically correct.

ServiceProcess said...


Your video states it is a response to criticism from Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In opening; you state that Jehovah Witnesses are complaining that you only say negative things about them and that ‘These are things I think are great about Jehovah Witnesses’.

OK; analogy. Assuming I had cancer down my left side.
Would I speak negatively about it do you think ?.
Is there anything positive about it ?.

But if someone complained about my negative attitude toward this cancer (and it’s a fitting analogy) then what could I say about it in a positive light ? ... Nothing.
It does have pseudo-positive traits however (for a cancer).

It’s an efficient killer.
It has rapid growth rate.
It Corrupts everything in it’s path.
It works against it’s host without compromise.
It can be very difficult if not impossible to eliminate.
It often results in the death of the host.

If you are the cancer; the above is a list of positive traits. Efficient, fast, unspairing etc.
But if you’re someone that the cancer could potentially infect/affect; then those are negative traits;
And indeed there are no positives.

In very many ways the WTBTS are like a cancer.

But where I think you have possibly ‘fallen short’ is that the Criticism has come from ‘people’, and you are a nice person; and I think you have overlooked the fact that they naively represent an anti-Christian Cult. I believe you have empathised with ‘people’ and have overlooked the Demonic Organisation that they represent.

I’m not exaggerating there; when I paint the WTBTS as a Demonic Anti-Christian Cult.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isaiah 9:6 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Colossians 1:15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation.

Without getting into a bible study;

Isaiah says that Christ is ‘The Mighty God’.
Paul says that Christ is God (in visible form)
John says That the pre-carnate Christ was God.
John says; Jesus is God; and whosoever denies that Jesus is the Christ; he is antichrist.
And again ... Isaiah has defined ‘The Christ’ for us.

In short the WTBTS denies Jesus Christ; and following on the bible is clear ...
No Christ ... No Salvation.
In addition to this; the WTBTS opposes almost every Orthodox Christian belief.
The Trinity, Jesus Christ as the son of God, The Cross, bodily resurection,
The second coming, The Holy Spirit. Etc.

The initial danger however is that they call themselves Christians.
So ... to the un-initiated; they are just another branch of Christianity; but are special because they respect the name !.

The Joke is over once you are in.
Read the reams of testamonies regarding ex- Jehovah Witnesses, it seems noone had an ‘easy time of it’ getting out.

ServiceProcess said...


Quote [Mike]‘ These are things I think are great about JW’s’

1. The Watchtower and Jehovah Witness Emphasis on God’s Name.

Quote [Mike] ‘ And they are correct, that the name Jehovah, or even the YHWH as portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures; should be in our hebrew translations, there’s absolutely no reason to put LORD in there because that’s not a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. So I think they are absolutely right that our bible shouldn’t say LORD and we should commend the Jehovah Witnesses for putting the Divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s one thing I think is great, and we as Christians should implement.’

The quoted opening statement is factually incorrect.

In the Hebrew Scriptures (refered to by Christians as the New Testament) none of the 5,000 New Testament manuscripts contain any form of the Hebrew יהוה (Tetragrammaton).
What we do find is kyrios (KYPIOC "lord") and theos (ΘEOC "God") normally known as nomina sacra (sacred names).

The Jehovah Witnesses had it factually; actually and absolutely wrong, because they had an objective which couldn’t include an accurate translation.

Mikes statement then; commending the witnesses and reprimanding the Christians was/is absolutely incorrect and misleading and seems to portray a lack of awareness.

It may not be the correct forum for a full explanation of why the WTBTS replaced the name LORD with the name Jehovah, but it’s important to have some understanding of the seriousness of the error.

The New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it.
So what does the WTBTS of Jehovah Witnesses have to say about this.

no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God's name in full.’ (The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, Watchtower booklet)

The New World Translation is claimed by Jehovah Witnesses to be the most accurate translation of the original manuscripts to date; however ;

Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon wrote “the scholarly Christian community has rendered its verdict on the NWT: such a translation must not be trusted to accurately convey God’s Word because of its unrelenting biases in translation".

Reviewing the New World Translation
Dr. Bruce Metzger wrote ‘The introduction of the word ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament text, in spite of much ingenuity in an argument filled with a considerable amount of irrelevant material , is a plain piece of special pleading.’

Scholar H. H. Rowley says of the translation “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated”.

I BELIEVE THE MOST IMPORTANT effect of inserting the Tetragrammaton into the New Testament is in regard to understanding the Nature of God.
Jesus name in Hebrew is Yahoshua, meaning ‘Yah is Salvation’ and a number of scriptures that referred to YHWH in the Old Testament were quoted in reference to Jesus in the New Testament, such as when Romans 10:13 applies Joel 2:30 to Jesus.
These scriptures, when translated accurately are important indicators of the oneness of the Father and the Son. This is difficult to detect in the New World Translation of the Bible.
When a person reads the scriptures as originally written; it can be understood what prompted the understanding of the Trinity and the great importance we need to put on our relationship with Jesus.

Once the spurious addition of the word Jehovah is removed from the New Testament it is very clear that Jesus is the name borne witness to.

ServiceProcess said...


Quote [Mike] Is it really misleading to give credit where credit is due? Is it really wrong to tell someone where they are actually correct in their theology?.

The answer to your questions is No .. it is not wrong on both counts.
Unfortunately the question presents a logical fallacy as I have shown that the premisis of the argument is false. Ie. It is not wrong to give credit where credit is due. In this instance however; credit is not due.

Quote [Mike] ‘Is it really wrong to tell someone where they are actually correct in their theology ?.’

Christianity is not a matter of isolated truths.

The Muslims claim to worship the same God as the Jews.
The Muslims acknowledge all of the Old testament Patriarchs.
The Muslims acknowledge Jesus.

Is there any salvation in Islam ? The bible says No.
Should we then acknowledge the correct theological areas of Islam ?. No.
It is not for Christ, it is AntiChrist, therefore as the bible says; there is no salvation and no good in it.

Haitian Voodoo (Spelt Vodou)
Believes in a supreme god called ‘The good god’.
Believers pray to their god.
The religion upholds a strong moral ethos.
Haitian Voodoo is an amalgemation of Paganism and Roman Catholicism.

Is there any salvation in Voodoo ?. The bible says No.
Should we acknowledge the correct theological areas of voodoo (Catholicism for instance) ?. No.
It’s not Christian, therefore AntiChrist and there is no salvation in it.

Of them, the bible says they are Anti Christ, and thus; there is no salvation in them.
The real difference between the Jehovah Witnesses, Islam and Haitian Voodoo, is that Islam and Haitian Voodoo don’t pretend to be Christian.
The end result of the three is the same. No salvation.

We have to appreciate that Christianity is not a compromise.
The ‘Throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ analogy; as useful as it is, cannot apply to Christianity.

The book of Galatians is about no compromise.
The Galatians had accepted the truth of the Gospel from Apostle Paul, but later had been mislead by Jewish Christians to circumcision and abiding by the law of moses.
It all looks good. All the practices are in the bible, but what did Apostle Paul think of it ?
Apostle Paul told them they had fallen from Grace.
What is it to fall from Grace ?.
Grace is the means by which we are saved through Jesus Christ.
He was telling them that there was no salvation in it.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Galatians 5:9

It has to be noted and accepted that christianity is aggressively exclusive.
Chrisianity defines only one way to salvation; and damns anything else.

ServiceProcess said...


As the name implies, the Jehovah Witnesses predominant focus is on preaching about Jehovah whilst the true message of the New Testament was to Witnesses of Jesus.
The inordinate emphasis of the WTBTS on the name Jehovah detracts from the constant New Testament message of the Christ.
Even when quoting scriptures such as Acts 4 the WTBTS manages to deflect attention from Jesus to Jehovah.

It was my intention to respond to all 7 points cited by yourself in your video.
However, as you can see; this text simply covers 1 point; which I do not feel could be covered to any lesser degree. However in view of my initial criticisms, I would be willing to cover any of the additional points were that requested.

In Closing. Jehovah Witnesses do not represent Christ, and are not Christian.
The bible identifies them as Anti-Christ.
The clearly ordained responsibility of the Church is to discredit them; not to compliment them.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we
must be saved.

Acts 4:12


Mike Felker said...

Why would you think that by "Hebrew Scriptures" I, or anyone else, would be referring to the New Testament??

ServiceProcess said...

Ha Ha Ha, is that all you got from those entries !.
You did take it personally didn’t you Mike.


You’ve advocated that real Christians should take a page out of the Watchtower
Book, and copy them; because they have it right.

Clearly they don’t have it right Mike.

Jehovah IS NOT God’s name, neither in the Old Testament
Or the New Testament. It’s a false Name, constructed from the YHWH and the Hebrew word
For Lord (Adonia) by a German monk, then it was Anglicized by changing the ‘Y’ for a ‘J’ as the Germans pronounce ‘J’ as a ‘Y’. As in the German for yes is spelt ‘Ja’ but is pronounced ‘Yaa’.
The English then changed it by pronouncing it ‘Ja’ as it was spelt.

So it’s a false name removed about 99 times from the half a name they had in the first place.

To advocate otherwise IS at odds to the church.

The Christian Church at large recognised this and so called God ‘God’ and ‘Lord’.
The Christian Church has already asked the Question ‘Why would God have us scratch around for a name he erased.’. If God didn’t put it in the bible; why should you.

Why would you advocate the church at large follow a false Anti-Christian cult, down a false road to implement a false name ?. Is that what you class as Christian Apologetics ?.

Your job isn’t to advocate policy, Apologetics ... in defence of ... defend, not side with.

What sort of inconsistent message are you sending out to the readers at large Mike.
‘You agree with some of the Watchtower’, well what does that mean.

Would Jesus agree with some of the Watchtower Mike ?, do you think ?.

Again, you appear to be a thoroughly nice person...

but you can’t take honest criticism at all.
In your video you were clearly wrong on all points.
Recommending JW bible books as good for reference material, when in fact there at 100’s of good
Real Christian books that would have done the job without any hint of falsity.

Advocating material from an Anti-Christian Cult as good Christian Study material can’t be all that sensible. Cult publications as Christian Study material. Can you hear what you’re saying.

As I said previous, following your statements to their logical conclusion; you should be citing things you like about Islam and Haitian Voodoo, I note no response to that.

I’m not here to beat you over the head because you’ve gotten something seriously wrong.
We have all been there.
I was just here to make you aware that you had gotten something seriously wrong.

I could understand someone making it even more public; if ... they could be honest about the criticism that’s aimed at them. But from your response I think you are struggling heavily in that area
And so it doesn’t seem logical to have taken it here.

Mike Felker said...

No, that was not all I got from your entries. But I had a simple question that I don't believe you answered, so i'll ask again:

You made the statement:

In the Hebrew Scriptures (refered to by Christians as the New Testament) none of the 5,000 New Testament manuscripts contain any form of the Hebrew יהוה (Tetragrammaton).
What we do find is kyrios (KYPIOC "lord") and theos (ΘEOC "God") normally known as nomina sacra (sacred names).

And so I ask:

What Christian or Bible scholar would ever refer to the New Testament as the "Hebrew Scriptures?"

ServiceProcess said...


Is that the most important point you got from the entries that you present it first ?.
That’s unfortunate, but let me answer your question.
I’m a Christian, and for 30+ years I have used the terminology Old and New testament when refering to the bible. I know what the Jehovah witnesses use, but it’s not for me.
In reference to the passage that you cite, I meant Greek scriptures Mike.
But you knew that.
I’ve no doubt that you would like to line the spelling mistakes up next.

Again, that’s it, you think about saving face first. Forget the real issues.

OK. Listen. I’m not your keeper. You don’t have to explain yourself to me, and I’ll put it to you
Again that it was a bad idea to transfer this to your blog.

You seem nice enough Mike.
I would suggest we leave it there.

Mike Felker said...

Yes, I did know that. And the whole reason I brought it up is because I found it noteworthy that, after fully explaining in the blog that I am only in agreement with the insertion of the divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Christian Scriptures, you went ahead and offered up the strawman anyway. Otherwise, why would you have spent the time in explaining what I already agreed with; namely, that there is no textual basis on which our NT translations should insert the divine name? Such tells me that you either didn't read the blog or didn't read it carefully enough.

And if this was a bad idea to transfer this to my blog, what would you suggest otherwise? Use the comment section in YouTube where there are word limits? Actually, I would have much preferred that you make a video response and make this as public as you can. I've had my fair share of "rebukes" from fellow Christians who seek to "set me straight" on various matters, but 99.9 percent of these are from those who do so from behind a keyboard.

I take what I do very seriously, which is why I have no problem in displaying my name and my face. But when it comes to those who seek to "rebuke" me, I hardly ever get the same in return. Thus, I don't always take these sorts of "rebukes" seriously. And in my experience, people are much different in person than they are behind a keyboard.

All of this to say that I thank you for offering up your two cents, to which I have and will prayerfully consider. But if you really want to make a difference, and really do see me as a danger to the church or whatever, then allow your actions to follow your words in making this public.

ServiceProcess said...

Thanks for your reply Mike.

Again, for you; this is a face saving exercise, and that saddens me.
I appreciate you pseudo-intelectualizing the argument; focusing on a technicality.
Which demonstrates your need to ‘save face’ and more importantly
The little importance that you attach to the primary issue, which inturn
brings into question what is it exactly that the Apologetic Front puts to the front.

I still maintain that it was a bad Idea to transfer this to your blog.
Your actions and words demonstrate that you have taken it personally (your words);
Which essentially means you’ve taken it badly; and not constructively.
Again; that is evident in the way that you have taken the time to defend yourself
And have failed to address the real issues.

There has been no advantage to progressing this here. You havn’t addressed anything.
I would have read it and personally thought about it; prayed on it; maybe discussed it
With friends; and left it at that.

Mike; You said (Quote)

I take what I do very seriously, which is why I have no problem in displaying my name and my face. But when it comes to those who seek to "rebuke" me, I hardly ever get the same in return. Thus, I don't always take these sorts of "rebukes" seriously. And in my experience, people are much different in person than they are behind a keyboard.

Me ... Me ... Me ...

It’s an ill judged statement and possibly immature.
You are in essence saying that if I showed my identity there would be an increased chance of you
Taking my criticisms seriously ! ... are you serious ?!.

Mike; don’t judge what I say; on how pretty I am; and the number of letters in my name.


You don’t need to stare at a picture of me whilst you’re responding do you !.

You thank me for offering up my two cents (I think there’s a put down in that somewhere !)
which you will prayerfully consider.

That’s exactly why it was a pointless exercise putting it up on this blog when you are not
Going to respond here, but you’ll privately and prayerfully consider it !.

Last but not least.

I have a career Mike; where I develop and design software for secure applications.
I’m not on facebook, myspace, bla bla bla, none of those social networking things.
It would not be to my advantage to be plastered on the net; from a career perspective.

So you can’t make the assumption that you make about identity.


Mike Felker said...

There is another reason why I have decided to take you less seriously than the reasons I have already mentioned: your theological/historical arguments. You are way off on some of these points and you need to retract them. And in a future blog article, which I hope to put out soon, i'll show precisely why.

If you plan on rebuking a fellow brother in the way that you have, you need to have your ducks in a row, rather than burning vast fields of strawmen like you already have done.

And I do this not out of arguing for the sake of arguing, but for the sake of truth to which I hope and pray that our Lord will be glorified through its proclamation.

As to your other claims, I feel as though you have put my in a lose-lose situation whereby there would be nothing I could say that would, at the very least, grant us some common ground with one another. Therefore, I am going to address the factual issues to which if you are able to humbly admit that you were wrong on, perhaps we can move on to discuss the main issues. But if you are done with the discussion, that's your choice. Either way, i'm going to write the new blog.

ServiceProcess said...


Thanks again for your reply.

I know that when I start laughing uncontrollably ... the game is up !.
I am laughing uncontrollably !.

You are a bit of a moving target my friend.
Now you have some other reasons to take me less seriously ?.
What were the initial reasons ?. Oh yes, Primarily the matter of my identity !.

You seem to want to find reasons not to take me seriously ... almost ..
As if you didn’t want to take what I’ve said seriously ?! MMmmm.

You can’t ask me to retract and tell me something is wrong that you haven’t cited, who is setting up
Straw men now ?.

You talk of truth Mike. But for you I think it comes a close second...
... to yourself, to face ... to pride.

Yet another entry where you can’t address the actual issue.
And again, if not then why bring this here ?.
Oh ... sorry, yet another question you can’t answer !.
If you look at the whole blog....
In all this ...
What issues have you addressed ....
What has it achieved ....
What issues were you going to address...

I’m not rebuking you Mike, No.
I just drew your attention to the fact that you were telling Christians at large
The things that we could learn from the Jehovah Witnesses, and you were suggesting
Witness Study material that would / could benefit Christians.

And that is neither Christian nor sensible.

Mike, You said...

"Is it really misleading to give credit where credit is due? Is it really wrong to tell someone where they are actually correct in their theology?"

Again. 2 years study or not, that statement doesn’t show an understanding of Gods advised approach to the Anti-Christ.

I’m not disputing the good work you may have done.
But you are doing alot of bad, in saying what you’re saying.
Here, see what you think of this quote (this is you conversing with a JW, but your comments here)

Quote [Mike] ...

"I could care less what "Christendom" believes about these things.
I probably have just as many negative things to say about Christendom as your organization does. So, I have no intention in defending "Christendom.""

"...Where did I say that I wasn't a part of it? I just stated that I have plenty of criticisms of Christendom, which is why I don't care to defend it."


The Jehovah Witnesses have more negative things to say about Christendom than anyone else, and if you are on par or just behind... ?
Ontop of that you have so many criticisms of Christendom that you don’t care to defend it ?.
You are talking to a Pseudo-Christian audience who define Christendom as all Christians excepting JW’s, and you tell them that ?.

And you don’t want anyone to criticise you ?!!!

And you don’t think your doing anything wrong. ?!!!



Well ...

I’m shocked ...

and I’m done.

Mike Felker said...

My response is going to deal with your views on the divine name and how this practically shatters any credibility that you may have in my view. When I get a chance, i'll respond in a new blog post. Whether you read it, respond to it, or never talk to me again; that's all fine. It will give me a chance to explain my views further in hopes that someone will benefit from it as well as show my reasons for not taking your comments too seriously as you are quite ignorant on this issue.