snowychap

And these are your words? Truly Travesser has offended many. He has come to bring a sword, and not peace.

Terry, The lack of disease is to do with your diet not your sinlessness? Why should your walking miracle have been dead more than a year ago? Was this on professional medical advice? If so, are you not confusing the fallibility of humans (i.e. the doctor getting it wrong) with the occurence of a miracle?

At odds surely with your literal interpretation of the bible? I refer to Michael's Diary Nov 19th 2002 : The news anchor stated, that we believed in a "literal" interpretation of the Bible. He was correct in that. Oh and just in case you missed them, a couple of questions :

Terry, thank you for your post. Sorry, not sure who said that who killed whom? To use the spread of technological infrastructure to a place where 70 or so people are going to set up home seems a strange basis for believing someone to be Christ. It also seems that you suffer from the same problems as us lost souls from intermittent service? I gather from Michael's writings/diaries that he found the plot through a real estate agent. Not in itself extraordinary. I don't think I have accused him of being a monster and I simply asked you if you were open to the possibility that you had been lied to. I don't know the truth and that is why I have been asking you questions, why I have spent some time reading what your leader has posted previously on t'internet and what other followers have posted on other threads. I am sorry that your marriage has broken up over all of this, really I am. As far as the reward for a possible lie being pretty satisfying - would your scriptures not indicate that a reward from a false christ be rather satisfying (at least in the interim). Again, I am not saying that Michael IS a false christ, I am saying that I believe him not to be the Messiah. But belief does not equate to truth and therein lies my problem with your assertions. A couple of questions: Does someone contract cancer because of the sins they have committed? Does anyone at Strong City ever suffer from any illness?

I have a quick update for fellow VTers regarding Terry/Wayne/Michael etc. I followed up on my googling of the Travessers and came across a number of sites on which they have posted and also a cached version of the former strong city website which is no longer running. To begin with, I must state that as far as I am concerned Wayne/Michael can believe he is Who or What ever he wishes and that includes the Son of God, The Second Coming or the vessel carrying the Holy Spirit. As long as he is happy and his followers are happy then ok. And it seems that they haved founded some sort of a communal life attempting to bring happiness to their little group. BUT having also seen : their strict belief in certain verses of the bible - e.g. Man shall reap what he sows (paraphrased, I know) meaning that, yes, your misfortune is a direct result of your sins; their use of the bible to justify their opinions and their disregard of it when it may call in to doubt their actions; the glorious idea of instantaneous sinlessness; their opinion that one can only be married to god and the physical manifestation of this in the consummation; that they are the only true Christians and that the only way to heaven for any of you interested in booking a ticket is through Michael/Wayne and his teaching, I am afraid I would have to warn you about being so friendly and interested in what they would have to say to you. I apologise for not posting links but there are two reasons : a) my novice ability on VT means that I am unsure of exactly how to do so (I could have put hyperlinks in but these would be inappropriate for some of the pages - very long/multipage threads,etc.) I have spent a fair amount of time reading through most of this material and in order to get a better view of their situation and opinions, I think it all needs to be digested. I have mentioned some of the fora previously but one that I found that I don't think I did was www.everythingimportant.org and look in the 'jail' section. It is a 7th day adventist discussion forum which seems to have had a few posts from Michael and his followers and a couple of their 'lost' brethren.

Connell, Terry stumbled upon VT by googling last weeks documentary/Stong City and discussions thereon. Also there are a number of fora on which other members of the cult are posting. To name a few: athinkingman; vice magazine; digiguide; everthingimportant.org.

??

Terry, surely, if he is the second coming, he was expecting nothing less than an extreme reaction? Surely he was not expecting everyone to say, "You are Him. We are saved." It would make heaven a bit full and would also negate most of those Revelations prophecies, would it not? It strikes me as slightly bizarre when someone thinks they are fulfilling a prophecy that they are amazed that other people's reactions are as they are foretold in these prophecies. Did God pronounce to Wayne that the spirit Michael which is in him is Messiah? or Did Wayne pronounce to you that the spirit Michael that is in him is Messiah? or Did Michael pronounce himself to be Messiah? The same spirit Michael which you believe is in all of you Christians?

Terry, what I was trying to get across is that people are sometimes taken for a ride and it seems that you believe that this has happened in this very public instance. Could it not be possible that others have/are taking you and your fellow group members for a similar ride? Also, accusations of Michael being a false Christ have not just come about due to Ben Anthony's film either, have they? Haven't they been doing the rounds for some time?

No, we did not receive any money. Not being paid is not an indication that BBC would put this spin on things. We were under the impression the Brits had a bit of integrety left. We never even imagined it could look like it did. We didn't expect a FOX News style broadcast. Some time ago, Ben Anthony came to us and assured us, based on his previous documentaries, that his style of filming was to let the subjects tell the story rather than have someone spin a story about us. This was something that we could agree to, and he gave us his word that this would be what happened with the film. We’re not talking about some back woods teenage journalist all stoned out of his mind coming and telling us a sales pitch. Ben had a good reputation and we had no reason to believe he would not keep his word. As I stated elsewhere, the film did the work it was intended to do. 2000 years ago, Jesus was made to look like a deplorable rebel. He had witness say he wanted to destroy their sacred Temple. Others said he wanted to overthrow the government. He was made to look like an outlaw before the very people he came to bless. History has repeated itself and Messiah is again made to look like a criminal. Can I infer from this that someone who seemed like an honest and good person came among you and told you something which you had no reason to disbelieve but which turned out to be thoroughly false? And was Ben Anthony not working either for Channel 4 or as an independent? (i.e. not for the BBC) Ok. Can you not allow for the possibility that you may have believed another seemingly honest and good person whose stories might also turn out to be false?

No, we did not receive any money. Not being paid is not an indication that BBC would put this spin on things. We were under the impression the Brits had a bit of integrety left. We never even imagined it could look like it did. We didn't expect a FOX News style broadcast. Some time ago, Ben Anthony came to us and assured us, based on his previous documentaries, that his style of filming was to let the subjects tell the story rather than have someone spin a story about us. This was something that we could agree to, and he gave us his word that this would be what happened with the film. We’re not talking about some back woods teenage journalist all stoned out of his mind coming and telling us a sales pitch. Ben had a good reputation and we had no reason to believe he would not keep his word. As I stated elsewhere, the film did the work it was intended to do. 2000 years ago, Jesus was made to look like a deplorable rebel. He had witness say he wanted to destroy their sacred Temple. Others said he wanted to overthrow the government. He was made to look like an outlaw before the very people he came to bless. History has repeated itself and Messiah is again made to look like a criminal. Can I infer from this that someone who seemed like an honest and good person came among you and told you something which you had no reason to disbelieve but which turned out to be thoroughly false? And was Ben Anthony not working either for Channel 4 or as an independent? (i.e. not for the BBC)

VB, I believe that he hasn't in fact changed his name. Wayne Bent is the physical body and Michael (the Archangel) is the name of the spirit that came into him. I think also that Travesser is the name of the region in New Mexico in which they have set up camp as well as having some connotations about being 'doggedly determined to cross over' (i.e. from this world to the next). He believes that God has therefore given him the name of Michael Travesser. I stand to be corrected, though.

I wouldn’t say that your description above was my motive for coming on. This may explain it better: what would you think if a camera man followed you around for a few days snapping hundreds of shots of you walking around your house and yard. He says he is profiling you because your house is so neat and tidy. You agree that this would be OK to have the pictures published. Knowing that your pics are to be in the paper you start looking around. To your amazement, you find a picture that is actually a splice of two different shots. You can see through the illusion of what the two pictures were. In the first shot, you were walking across you lawn with your shovel in your hand looking for dog dung in your yard. In the second shot, you can see your 8 year old child laying on the grass. The photoshop however, spliced these two shots into one, and made it look like you were ready to smash your child with the shovel. As time goes on, the neighbors are thowing a fit, suggesting that you are a child abuser. Could a man’s motive for taking an add out in the paper be to say, “come now, this is not what happened, these are two different pictures put together in an effort to smear me”? How about this explanation ? You live with someone, set up home and give yourself to them, trusting in them and what they tell you. However a point arises when you realise that this is not for you; you begin to believe that the other is not who they say they are and that what they have been telling you is a mistake. You leave their house and try to explain to others the reasons why you did that. At which point your former partner defends himself by suggesting that you are a liar, morally bereft, devilish and now lost to any salvation. I suppose what I am most worried about is not 'potential paedophilia' because that would be a questionable debate in itself - 15 years and 364 days versus 16 years ? What I am worried about is potential abuse of trust and abuse of power. Unquestioning devotion to something is always a potential playground for abuses (of trust/power). Of course, this will be inconceivable to you, Terry, as you have absolute faith in your leader but to those of us looking on is it not something which we believe might be a concern?

I also don't believe that it is an effort at conversion. I actually see it as self-righteous and self-congratulatory. 'Hey, we've have found the light and the one true path. Don't follow us if you don't want to but if you don't you are damned, without morals and lost.' As for the dire consequences, it would seem that way though I believe the documentary was only screened last week and Mr Bent and his followers have been at the defence of their community on t'internet for longer than that. I posit that they have been 'earnestly seeking commentary on the net for Wayne' in order to slander those who have left their community and to tell us that they are right and we are wrong.

It seems then that your reason for actively searching out discussions about Strong City was defensive. Indeed as a result of a bit of googling of my own it seems that - IF indeed you are a member of that little group in New Mexico and those others such as Timothy, Joy, Mesha et al are also your neighbours in Strong City - you have been on a very large, defensive media offensive. I refer to other fora such as digiguide, vice magazine, athinkingman, etc. I assume you are Terry Czapiewski?

Terry, I am not a christian though I attended schools where Divinity (yes divinity not RE) was a compulsory subject. At school,I also attended chapel very regularly (again compulsory). I would certainly allow for the possibility that some parts of the bible had foundations in historical events but I question anything that asserts itself as the one definitive truth. That is why I am genuinely happy that you have found your peace in this world (I was not being facetious when I said this earlier) BUT take umbrage at you attempting to convince me that your unshakeable belief is the truth. In your mind it is but in anyone's mind truth is only opinion. Where I am coming from is that until everyone questions things over and over and over again and stops just accepting what other people tell them (be it from God, the Messiah, government, received wisdom, etc.), the world will not struggle to become a better place - it won't become one. And I did question in my own mind the programme about your group when I was watching it in the same way that when I sat through the news screening of Colin Powell's speech to the UN about Iraq I questioned the veracity of his opinions and the conjectures he had been given to promulgate.

Terry, I don't think that anyone is 'vilifying' him because he is too credible quite the opposite. Though I would also not say that I am vilifying him. I have read with more interest your last few posts about your opinion of the world around you and have to say that a lot of your points are very valid. I happen to agree that the world is not the most wonderful and delightful of places but swapping a lack of freedom in what you would term the outside world for the lack of freedom in your world does not appear to be a step up. It appears to me that your morality and decision making is still inflicted upon you from an outside source - just God? rather than peers/governments.

No, of course I am not the site administrator. I have not posted very much on the site though I have been lurking for quite some time. Though the duration of my membership should have no bearing on my opinions of your responses. You are, indeed, correct about the timeline but having gone back and looked at your initial post, I am interested that you didn't say straight out that you were a member of 'this little group' and declared the position from which you were speaking. I would say that 'The Art of Deception' could equally have been applied to your post. You started with 'I saw this film the other day, but I observed it from a slightly different angle.' Very good. I think it may have been more proper for you to have been more honest and obvious about who you are and what your agenda is/was when you only joined this site in order to repudiate arguments put forward in a tv programme. Your methods are of the invidious nature that comes with the territory methinks and are certainly no better if at all different from those of the film maker with whose product you have taken issue. I apologise to moderators and others on this site if this is seen as poster and not post but this is beginning to get my goat. As you say that you have responded to questions, could you have a go at mine about the Man City game, please. If Michael needs some underage girls with whom to lie 'skin to skin' in order to facilitate the influence it would make for a novel method of corruption within the game? Oh and lastly - it is Sir and faithfully NOT sincerely.

No, Terry. I was interested to see what other Aston Villa fans who use this site thought about the programme. I did not expect it to be hijacked as part of a propaganda offensive by the Messiah's spin doctor. You have given me a fair bit to laugh about with your insane japery but as with all madcap humour it becomes tiresome quite quickly. Of course, if I am indeed mistaken and you, Wayne et al do have influence, then if you bring some of it to bear on the game against Man City on saturday, that would be good. :roll:

It sounds as though you have found some sort of a peace, Terry. :evil: Well, lucky you. I hope you enjoy it. Now - Please, please, please, will you stop disturbing mine. UTV.

I have also seen a slightly more well-observed example of this phenomena. It was a young student in Tianamen square stood in front of a tank. Could he not have been the Messiah? Well, Terry, you bods must be going ten to the dozen all hours god/ the messiah/ michael :winkold: sends if you're responding to all and any discussions over this program on the net. I have no doubt that the film maker gave his own bias to the film but you can't say you're unbiased, can you? Frankly, I would have preferred five minutes of you being interviewed and coming out with the Lazarus/ miracles malarkey - would have LMAO. I'm not sure shagging your son's wife (several times) comes top of the list of many people's moral code.