rjw63 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Whats with all the sex? Can I join? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlitobrigante Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Of course im not saying its immoral fair play to him, i wouldnt complain either (although ive seen a few pics of these birds he's had and think id need alot of beers before hand). but its not exactly consistant with what we know about the original messiah is it. this man is the re-incarnation of jesus in your eyes or isnt he? and the point is he isnt exactly acting 'jesus like' by shagging everything he can get his hands on is he? think of all the money he could save on booze aswell if he can turn water into wine?? convince him to turn water into jack daniels and dammit ill join your group too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryCzap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Yes, snowychap, you have summed it up fairly well, except for one thing. It was originally a gent named Eddie Stafford who originally approached us, who later was listed as the producer when the credits rolled. Early in the project Ben came into the picture and was basically in charge after that. When they spoke to us in the beginning, Eddie said it was through BBC though it aired on C4. I don't know all the inner workings with their companies however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Did you (as a group) receive any money for doing the documentary Terry? If not then I'm struggling to see why you'd agree to do it as it was pretty inevitable that you'd be spun out as some nutjob cult so I can't see what you'd otherwise gain from it. 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) Yes, snowychap, you have summed it up fairly well, except for one thing. It was originally a gent named Eddie Stafford who originally approached us, who later was listed as the producer when the credits rolled. Early in the project Ben came into the picture and was basically in charge after that. When they spoke to us in the beginning, Eddie said it was through BBC though it aired on C4. I don't know all the inner workings with their companies however. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryCzap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 If any sane man saw the way in which the information was filmed, verses the way it was portrayed, they could not agree with you. There was no honest mistake involved. The biggest flag was the supposed "prediction" that the world would end on Oct. 31, which then got changed to December 15. These were not accidental events considering no prediction was ever made about any day the world would end. The entire thought was ficticious. This was part of their tag line. But it never happened. It may look like a small matter to some people, but it was about as small as WMD stockpiles in Iraq. This film was to have been the announcement to the world that the Christ had returned, wherein, the film was definitely made to say that Michael was a false Christ, and the effects are listed all over the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryCzap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 It is very true that as soon as Michael was pronounced the Messaih in 2000, there were those who said he was false christ. This is a bit broader, bigger, grander exposure, like many millions of times greater. The resulst were death threats. Bodily mutilation threats, and this is just the tip of iceberg. Would you like to have a C4 smear campaign ran against you? It did its work. Only those who have the heart of God will be able to recognize the Seed, and it is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connell Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 what are you going to do now? i'm not bothered how you choose to live your life. it's your choice. just think it gets a little more complex when the issue of children is raised regarding them growing up and spending their lives in a certain place and that's all they know. can they really make an informed choice? fair enough, theyre probably better looked after than some other children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryCzap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Dear snowychap, I am now thoroughly convinced that Wayne Bent is a monster. Bear with me on this as I am writing down my revelations. Its going to take a little while, as it is very deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connell Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 how did you find this place? are others in your community talking to other boards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Dear snowychap, I am now thoroughly convinced that Wayne Bent is a monster. Bear with me on this as I am writing down my revelations. Its going to take a little while, as it is very deep. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 how did you find this place? are others in your community talking to other boards? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connell Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 just read through the whole thread. very interesting. dont worry about my previous posts. again, fair play. i agree with your ethos of opression by the state. i think he will talk about wayne bent being a monster as it was the man before he became michael travesser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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. firstly i ought to tell you, i am not a seventh day adventist, i am interested in researching wayne bent \ michael. i am a bible believing christian and baptised in the holy spirit. i believe in the trinity and i know God through the holy spirit. i would describe my faith as being independent to any denomination, but a cross between Baptists and Methodists of the Protestant order. as i was watching the programme i felt repulsed by what i saw. my spirit did not agree. my sister watching it with me also a bible believing christian and baptised in the holy spirit felt the same, and called michael the anti christ. to me michael looked like a rapist and a paedophile who felt he was acting in Gods will. in the film they showed a young girl who was removed at force by the police and her parents. michael answered the interviewers questions and told him how the young girls came to him after hearing a message about how its good to be naked before the Lord. these girls became naked before michael, believing him to the lord. they said that michael asked if he could hold them. he became naked too and held them. they described that he held them and they felt that they were being held by god. the interviewer asked michael whether he knew the law about sexual relations with a minor and he said, jeff probably does. jeff refused to get into a argument about the law on the camera. michael also spoke about why he had sex with the two women. he told how God came to him and forced him onto the floor and made him do actions that are similar to sexual motions. he then felt that God was telling him to have sex with these two women. jeff appeared to hang his head in shame while this conversation was going on and refused to look at the camera. the womens husbands were then spoken to. they were told to direct their anger towards God. michael allegedly told them that he didnt want to do it but God was making him. when asked if it just happened the once, michael countered asking do you only have sex once in a marriage. no one would say why the girl left, but eventually it was intimated that it was because of the naked thing that happened. michael was shown holding hands with the young people. it showed michael \ wayne's wife in it. she was upset by what had happened. it grieved me that these people would believe michael. he actually announced that he was half man and half divinity. i couldnt see any love in his eyes. my other questions are; how big is this camp? how many people live on this camp? are they allowed off the camp for a day? is anyone allowed to question michael? do they read the bible? how much contact do you have with michael? the video mentioned that michael had put everyone through hell for 7 years. what does this mean? thanks for answering. i just want to better understand this, because i know there is only so much that can be shown in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 20, 2007 Moderator Share Posted December 20, 2007 Terry, I didn't see the program but I have read this thread with great interest and whatever your motives in initially coming on to the site I thank you for taking the time to answer so many questions and for tolerating some of the posts. I have a few questions I would like to ask but I'm unsure if your still posting/visiting the site. One of my questions would be what is your view of Scientology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 their strict belief in certain verses of the bible - e.g. Man shall reap what he shows (paraphrased, I know) meaning that, yes, your misfortune is a direct result of your sins;Only half as whacky as glenn hoddle then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 I hope you lot havent scared him away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 20, 2007 Administrator Share Posted December 20, 2007 He might be sleeping! I think he was on the net through the night yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts