David Kupelian is Not A Christian

[This was originally published in 2008.]

At least not according to the way that evangelicals and other orthodox Christians understand the term. Kupelian seems to be in a similar position to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. He calls and understands himself a “Christian” but is not according to the way the orthodox understand the term.

So it’s ironic that WorldNetDaily for whom Kupelian is top editor, but is run by an (I think) orthodox evangelical Christian (Joe Farah) and has a huge audience of Protestant fundamentalists, chooses to run a column by Kupelian on what it means to be a Christian. The column notes that some 80% of Americans profess to be “Christians,” but that only some smaller figure are “real Christians.” Again, it’s ironic that though Protestant fundamentalists would agree that most of those 80% are not “real Christians,” they also wouldn’t consider Kupelian one.

The best evidence I have been able to gather shows Kupelian to be a follower of one Roy Masters. Indeed, every column Kupelian has written that explicates his theology confirms this in my eyes. The problem for those who follow Masters is they seek to convert evangelical Protestants (and Catholics, Jews or whomever they can, but “religious conservatives” are their most sympathetic audience) but when those conservative Christians actually find out about what Masters believes they consider his teachings heretical and cultic. As John Lofton once put it, “Masters is a false prophet and theological fraud.”

So what is it that Masters believes:

1) Arianism: He denies the Trinity, but seems to believe Jesus as a “Divine Son.”
2) Gnosticism: See Masters quote from the Gospel of Thomas here.
3) Sin: Masters claims not to sin. I think salvation to him means getting to a point where humans no longer sin. The above linked video also alludes to this.
4) Meditation: Masters teaches reliance on a New-Age like meditation exercise as essential for salvation. You can listen to it here. It’s actually probably a useful exercise and in this regard is not all that different from what diverse figures such as Deepak Chopra, Sam Harris and George Harrison advise. Masters of course claims his meditation exercise is “different” (he calls it Judeo-Christian meditation), but I don’t see it as any different from the myriad of meditation exercises, most of them associated with New Age and Eastern philosophy. The process or content of his meditation on its surface certainly seems to have nothing to do with the Bible or Judaism or Christianity.

On political matters, Masters is hard right and often sounds like an evangelical Christian, agreeing with their social positions 100%. His dilemma is he targets evangelicals for conversion but must tread carefully in initially exposing them to what he really believes or else he’ll chase them away. Hence on the surface he attempts to sound like an evangelical.

I’ve studied much about religious heretics, most of them prominent Enlightenment figures like John Locke, who faced a similar dilemma: They could be, at worst, executed for their heresy. They thus had to do their best to argue publicly they weren’t heretics, while peddling their heretical ideas. Hence lots of beating around the bush, talking in code, stressing common ground with the orthodox, and otherwise trying to argue for compatibility. For instance, in Locke’s “The Reasonableness of Christianity” the purpose of which was for Locke to articulate what doctrines are central to Christianity, Locke leaves out original sin and the Trinity! When the orthodox confronted Locke for peddling Socinianism (denial of Trinity, belief that Jesus is 100% human, not God at all) all Locke could say was nothing in his book denies the Trinity. And he was right, by simply not discussing the Trinity he could at once not contradict either his heterodox unitarian views or the orthodox Trinitarian positions of the civil authorities. He focused on common ground. Anyone who, after reading Locke’s denial, believes Locke was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian is profoundly naive.

We live in freer times, and Roy Masters isn’t going to be executed for his heterodoxy. But it could ruin his recruitment effort. Human psychology being what it is, I see some remarkable parallels in the ways in which Masters, Kupelian, et al. try to present their ideas and the ways in which the heretics of old likewise did.

For instance, I have heard Masters say that he does not sin which is absolutely inconsistent with orthodox Christianity. Some reporter apparently interpreted that as Masters saying he is “without sin.” Here is Masters’ response:

The absurd “I am without sin” quote attributed to me, and repeated endlessly by the media, to the best of my knowledge originally came from US magazine. As you can imagine, trying to describe the process of being “born again” to the average reporter is truly a dangerous prospect, especially if one’s reputation will depend on that reporter’s understanding of Christian mystery. I was so outraged by the seemingly intentional betrayal in that story that I sued US magazine. My case was so strong that the famous trial lawyer Melvin Belli took it on contingency. US eventually paid me in an, out-of-court settlement. But the damage that one article did to the Foundation of Human Understanding has been incalculable, because many Christians have believed it, and some have quoted it to others, who, however well-intentioned, spread this untruth to still others. Of course, only Jesus is without sin. To say otherwise is to deny the whole purpose of His coming into a sinful world in need of redemption. Thus, the Bible states that anyone who says he’s without sin is a liar.

Again notice how Masters focuses only on what is compatible with traditional Christianity (that he believes no one but Jesus is “without sin”) but does not address what he really believes that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity, that, at this point in his life (the point of salvation?), he doesn’t sin. And he dresses his beliefs up in orthodox Christian language using terms like being “born again” which to Masters means something entirely different than what it means to evangelicals. Likewise David Kupelian, in the above linked article, uses the same approach:

No, if God wanted to demonstrate His love for us, and at the same time provide us with the perfect, ultimate example of real love for our fellow man, what could be a more perfect expression of love than the willing suffering and death of His Son – Who while dying asked God to forgive His tormentors? The sheer logic and power of it is transcendent. If you’re looking for love in this loveless world, that’s it.

I know some will be offended by this message, as though by even mentioning and holding up the standard Jesus clearly demanded of His followers, I am somehow denying the sufficiency of His substitutionary death for all mankind.

If I have at all misrepresented what Masters or Kupelian believe, I invite them or their spokespeople to email, comment or otherwise clarify and I likewise will correct any errors or misunderstandings.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to David Kupelian is Not A Christian

  1. Kin Wah Tang says:

    I am on this page as a result of responding to my daughter’s suggestion to read comments about David Kupelian on the internet. She made the suggestion because I had given her one of the copies of Kupelian’s book, “How Evil Works” that I had bought to give away. I have no quarrel with his being identified as a “disciple” of the heretical Roy Masters (and, yes, I have no cause to question the Arianism attributed to this man on the basis of what he teaches – I am a retired ordained minister of a mainstream denomination and I retain a keen interest in reading apologetics dealing with false teachings as well as atheism – I have even, one day ago, left a comment on a blog to question the attitude of Stephen Hawking with regard to the origins of the universe). However, without knowing anything of Mr. Kupelian or his columnist work, I was intrigued by the book’s title and, when I examined the table of contents, I was attracted by the range of topics which included these: Understanding Today’s Rampant Narcissism, What’s Behind the Popularity of Paganism, Witchcraft, and New Age Religions (under a Chapter heading:False Gods), Why Militant Atheism is Becoming a Batch of Honor, and more.
    I have not read the book, yet, but I had a quick scan of the Chapter on “False Gods” before buying it and I did not find it heretical. Indeed, there is a statement that describes the kind of “stillness” experience offered by “Eastern and New Age gurus” as counterfeit. Furthermore, the author avers:”Remember this: with false spirituality, despite all the nice talk about God and being at one with the cosmos and all that, there is no repentance.” He denigrates mantra meditations. This leads me to ask one question: If the author really addresses the “destructive forces that are transforming America” (the subtitle of the book), do his questionable credentials(presuming they are, indeed, questionable) as a Christian delegitimize his views? Would it not be worth my while to read them and use them to take an informed stand against the forces? Another question is: Are his statements about New Age counterfeit spirituality intended to be a red herring to entice Trinitatrian Christians from the fold?
    I would love to receive follow-up comments.

  2. Linda Method says:

    As much as Masters denies the ‘without sin’ comment, he did tell Entertainment Tonight in a 1980’s interview when asked pointedly….’I do not sin, no.’ He apparently likes to play word games to confuse the issue and cause accusations to slide off his back. Call him the teflon cult-leader.

  3. Jon Rowe says:

    Actually Linda, I think I understand the context of his not sin comment. I’m not saying I believe Masters doesn’t sin. Rather, he properly cites verses and chapter of scripture teaching salvation means reaching a point where you no longer sin. No-one except Jesus is “without sin”; but the saved get to a point in their when they cease sinning. Whether they don’t actually sin is debatable. But the theory is defensible.

  4. Jon Rowe says:

    KWT: Yes as I understand Masters & Kupelian, they consciously repudiate and attempt to distinguish their “biblical” or “Judeo-Christian” meditation from the Eastern and New Age, what they term as “counterfeit.” Whether their meditation exercise really is “biblical” and not “Eastern or New Age” I’ll leave others to determine for themselves. As to the heresy, no they don’t play up their non-Trinitarianism too much because they want to scare off orthodox Trinitarian Christians whom they want to convert. But if you read carefully you’ll see Kupelian explicitly admits to not being an “orthodox Christian” in his new book.

  5. Jon Rowe says:

    Linda: I enjoy your videos. I personally don’t agree with the right wing social conservatism and strict moralism that Masters teaches when it comes to food and sex. The “World Net Daily” worldview is pretty anathema to me. I also don’t agree with his view of women. However the ONE THING I have no problem with is his meditation exercise. Though I’m not sure if it, in principle, is any different from the other meditation exercises (i.e., the “bad” “Eastern” and “New Age” ones) which are generally speaking very good for your mental health and well being. Being still, clearing your head, calming down, not getting too caught up in worldly people, places or things; these are the key to a happy life. I just don’t like the DOGMA that many religious meditators then sell to their disciples. (What Michael Schermer refers to as “Woo woo.”)

  6. Linda Method says:

    Perhaps if the term ‘sin’ were to be defined, we could come to an understanding of whether or not anyone ever gets to the point where they do not sin. I always thought Masters taught as long as you respond emotionally to anything, you are sinning. Personally, I don’t believe that is possible for a human to become devoid of emotion….because if he did he would also lose his humanity, in my opinion. It seems to me Masters has his own definition of sin that has nothing to do with what the Bible says about the subject. Example: Masters equates sex which he defines as ‘death becoming life’ with sin….in other words as long as a human being is sexual, he is sinful. Somebody show me where it says that in the Bible. We could discuss that subject endlessly. What I’d like to ask you, Jon, is have you ever practiced Masters’ meditation yourself? I’d like to know why you think that it is not a problem….unless of course that is too personal of a question for me to ask you, in which case please don’t feel any need to reply to it….or perhaps we’re getting off the subject of your original post?

  7. Jon Rowe says:

    I agree in that I’m not sure if it’s possible for any human to get to that “point” — “not sinning” or not “emotionally reacting” — that folks like Masters say they have achieved (maybe they have achieved it, I don’t know?). I don’t understand Masters to say “don’t feel emotion”; rather certain kinds of emotions. In particular, stress oriented reactions — fight/flight, anger/fear, irritation/guilt. And I agree with him that these emotions are counter productive and in the ideal should be transcended (though, again, I’m just not sure if it’s possible to actually transcend them completely, like he claims).

    Likewise with sex, I understand Masters teaches you ought “emotionally detach” from sex (which should only take place in a heterosexual marriage) and all other “sensual” things (food, entertainment).

    As I noted above, I agree with the emotional detachment part of his teachings, but not the religious dogma. With sex (and other things) they start to get really weird and say demon spirits are involved when you get too “attached” or “addicted.”

    I think the demon thing is more metaphorical than literal (as they teach it). If you study how psychological addictions develop in the brain, you see the brain wires, in a Pavlovian sense to give the chemical dopamine rewards to various external things — food, sex, any people, places, things. And then if those things disappear suffering ensues. Detachment and learning to enjoy things without being emotional attached to them mitigates the suffering when loss — those THINGS leaving — inevitably occurs. Certain folks — the more emotionally sensitive, easily hurt types — are more prone to psychological addictions and having their world fall apart when certain external things — a relationship, a parent, a spouse, a pet, a job, a thing like a car, or whatever — disappears.

    I think Masters’ teachings can be useful in the same way that New Age and Eastern teachings are useful in alleviating the suffering that inevitably occurs when external, worldy things go, as they inevitably will if you live long enough.

    I have practiced Masters’ meditation, and TM, and various kinds of meditation and found that they are all good. Anything that calms you down and brings you into the present, makes you less obsessive compulsive, less attached to external things is good, valuable, and useful. Meditation/mindfulness are, I have come to believe, the key to life.

  8. Linda Method says:

    I do differ with you in that I DO have a problem with Masters’ meditation ‘exercise,’ although I acknowledge that not everyone has the bad reaction to it that I did and others I know had. At no point did the meditation ever make me more aware, calmer, or better equipped to deal with life. Instead it made me fearful and paranoid. I became afraid of life….afraid of showing emotion…afraid of feeling anything…..afraid of enjoying myself. It put me in an awful state of mind….fearful to continue meditation but terrified of stopping, as per the warning on the meditation package that says if you start to meditate and then quit you will be in an even worse state; you’ll enter an psycho-spiritual no-man’s land in which you probably will never find your way back. Perhaps someone would say…well you shouldn’t have taken it so seriously. I can counter that with…in the early 80’s when I first heard of Roy, that was the way he promoted it. Take it seriously or forget it!!! Don’t put your hand to the plow and then turn back or you’re unworthy of the kingdom of heaven. A lot of things that Masters teaches are backed up by Biblical scripture, which is the only reason I even opened up my mind to his teachings.

    The problem I have with the meditation is the fact that Roy dances around actually admitting that his meditation is very trance-like, it does NOT foster a more aware state of mind…..rather a state of mind in which you just THINK you’re more aware and in control. If the objective of doing the practice was simply to calm the mind and step back from the swirl of thoughts, I wouldn’t have a beef with it. Maybe he’s changed the exercise from what it was originally, the one I practiced which was contained on audio cassettes and the original 6 LP record set. I was very disciplined about it and thought I was supposed to listen to the entire recording from beginning to end before I began to practice it on my own without the tapes or LP. What it consisted of then was the simple exercise in the beginning, followed by further instructions to deepen awareness…..followed by a long long long long dissertation of Roy droning on and on about ‘principles that protect the meditative state.’ He gets the listener into an open and vulnerable suggestive state of mind….then he continues to put his thoughts, his observations, his philosophy into the person’s head……near the end of the exercise he instructs the listener that ‘If you have done this meditation properly you won’t remember what I have said..’ which is nothing more than a post-hypnotic suggestion to insure that the meditator doesn’t remember the programming he received while in trance. That’s my opinion. I suspect he took out that suggestion at the end of the meditation as it appears on the CD he promotes today, he was pretty upset about me revealing that on ‘Town Meeting’ way back in the day.

    Today I don’t have to practice any sort of exercise to accomplish an aware and objective calm state of mind. I have my own custom ‘method’…hence my name Linda Method…. Personally I am not against any form of meditation practice….as long as it doesn’t take over a person’s own thinking process and sets them on a path to a place where they are no longer in control of their own mind.

  9. Jon Rowe says:

    “If the objective of doing the practice was simply to calm the mind and step back from the swirl of thoughts,…” That’s the objective I have when I meditate. I think I’m similar to you in the sense that I have my own method. I’ve also studied TM and the one thing that was off putting about it was I was told that I couldn’t reveal my mantra to anyone or it would affect its power. Well I did reveal my mantra because I don’t believe in that dogma. I never took Masters too seriously as a Truth teacher. Rather I’m just looking to get something useful out of him. I’m probably more attuned to Eckart Tollie or the various Zen Buddhist teachers than Masters. I am interested in how what we may think of as “Eastern” or “New Age” ideas ALSO exist in Western sources like Christian mysticism and, I have found, Roman stoicism.

  10. Linda Method says:

    Well that’s cool. You’re very discriminating about what works for you. I agree….there’s no ‘one size fits all’ One and Only path out there. If anyone says their way is THE way…of if anyone instructs you not to question them….that’s when you part company. One reason I respect Paul of the Bible so much — he welcomed people to criticize and challenge him….conversely one reason I disdain Roy is that he shrinks from anyone challenging him by screening calls from listeners so that no one critical of him can show up on his radio show.

  11. alex says:

    Linda, the meditation will seem like it makes things worse at first, but it’s only revealing what has always been there. It’s supposed to be ugly! Everyone spends their entire lives escaping from the ugliness that the meditation reveals to us. If you’re not ready to face this ugliness, you will have a very negative experience. The answer is not to defame Roy Masters; the answer is to pray to God that you become willing to face that side of you that is ruining your life-we all have this side by the way.
    Just because many of us are not ready to face that side doesn’t mean that Roy Masters is a cult leader or that he is a false Christian. It just means we have a lot of people that don’t want to face anything unpleasant. It’s that simple. The “meditation” is an unfortunate word to describe what Masters is teaching. It should be described as the proper way to pray or connect with God. Meditation sounds to new age, but Masters starting using this term before it became associated with Eastern Mediation which is the antithesis of true prayer.
    Look, no one wants to be told they don’t have what they think they have concerning salvation and the right interpretation of Christianity; yet this is the case with the watered down Christian Church today. They cannot stand a man like Roy Masters because he actually has something to offer other than religious platitudes and rockn’ contemporary music sessions. The bottom line is: the current church tells us how great we are and that God loves us just the way we are; Masters tells us that God loves us, but not the way we are. We need to connect with God in order to allow true change to occur. That’s it. Roy is just the messenger. He doesn’t want your praise; he just wants to share what God has revealed to him. Take it or leave it.

  12. alex says:

    Oh, and David Kupelian is most definitely a Christian. In fact, we need more Christians like him in America.

  13. Jon Rowe says:


    Thanks for your comment. As I noted in the comments I don’t have a problem with the meditation and I agree with Masters and Kupelian that being calm and still and overcoming the emotionally reactive self is “key” to well being. I do have some issues with their religious conservatism. AND, orthodox Trinitarian Christians note that if you deny the Trinity, which they do, that makes them heretics and not “real Christians” (not unlike Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses).

  14. Linda Method says:

    Thanks Alex for your comments. I’ve heard it all before, everything you said. You assume that I had a bad reaction to the meditation because I didn’t want to see my own ‘ugliness’ — standard response from people who think Roy Master’s meditation is a one-way path to God and that anyone who doesn’t like it just isn’t an honest seeker of true Christianity. I detect that you have a good spirit about you, though, so please don’t take anything that I say as a personal attack — it is not meant to be. What I don’t like about Roy’s meditation — and there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with the word meditation — what I don’t like about it is that it does NOT do what Roy says it does. Roy is a spiritual fraud and his meditation is hypnotic and deceptive, not onlyin my opinion but also in the professional opinion of cult experts who have studied him. As for ugliness, I know myself and my own ‘ugliness’ very well inside and out and I don’t need an artificial technique to show it to me nor have I ever been afraid to look at myself honestly. My ‘bad reaction’ to the meditation was because my mind reacts adversely when something attempts to take control away from me and my spirit is not compatible with deception and the kind of spiritual sleight-of-hand tricks Masters plays on (and preys on) people.

    Another assumption you make that is not at all fair is that all churches and every Christian who doesn’t like Roy is following a ‘watered down’ version of Christianity and they can’t tolerate Roy’s teachings because he reveals everybody’s ‘ugliness.’ True Bible-based Christianity that I’ve experienced before and after my experience with Roy focused on spiritual repentance being a pre-requisite for salvation. In other words, it is an unfair representation to say that the ‘current church tells everyone how great they are’ and that ‘God loves you just as you are’ without requiring not only repentance but also a turning away from sin. You are merely repeating what Roy says on the matter without really checking it out for yourself. Jesus Himself said it — in the last days many false prophets will arise and lead many astray…..and in the opinion of every student of Christianity that I know, Masters is a false prophet sent to tickle the ears of anyone who won’t take time to study and show himself approved, to rightly divide the word of truth, to check and see if Masters’ teachings actually line up with Biblical Christianity. Everyone I know who follows Roy knows very little of what the Bible actually teaches, because they assume that Roy is the final authority on spirituality and the Bible is just incidental other than being useful for taking quotes out of context in order to support Roy’s agenda — such as ‘Be Still And Know’ — a favorite scripture that Roy uses to make people think his meditation is Biblical. It’s really laughable because if you look that passage up it has nothing whatsoever to do with meditation.

    As far as Kupelian — he’s just one of Roy’s flunkies and any Christian worth his salt of the earth will adjudicate him NOT a Christian in any sense of the world — in my opinion.

  15. Scott says:

    The most you can say about Roy’s meditation is that it didn’t work for you, but you conclude that in absolute terms, it does not do what he says it does. That is no different from the previous commenter’s assertion that all Christian churches today are watered-down. No doubt he hasn’t looked into the beliefs of enough churches to make such an assertion, and I strongly suspect that niether have you looked into the results of enough practioners of Roy’s meditation to conclude that it absolutely does not do what he claims.

  16. Linda Method says:

    Hi Scott — Actually, I have seen the entire gamut of responses to Roy’s meditation, and there’s quite a range. Not only did the meditation ‘not work’ for me, it ended being a very destructive thing in my life and the lives of my brother, several friends, and many many people who have contacted me over the years. There are many walking wounded out there who have been hurt directly by Roy’s meditation, most of them hide their wounds and don’t seek help because of Roy’s admonition which they believed, that psychiatrists and psychologists are useless and that no one understands the human psyche more than him. There are people who tried the meditation and quickly got bored with it and didn’t get any noticeable benefits, there are also people who tried the meditation for a while, got some token benefits from it yet don’t continue to practice it. At the end of this range are the people who tried it, liked it and found it helped them and continue to use it for the benefits they feel it gives them. Believe me, Scott, I’ve heard it all, OK? What I don’t want to do is ignore the people who made an honest effort toward the meditation practice and ended up getting injured by it. I’m here to rattle cages and bring awareness to the fact that Roy’s meditation is not all it’s crapped up to be — OOPS!!! I mean….not all that it’s cracked up to be. In fact, sometimes it cracks people up — literally.

  17. Scott says:

    That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with anyone championing those who feel they have been hurt. Your reply is still very different from the previous one where you flatly said it does not work, period. Good luck with your endeavors.

  18. Levon says:

    Thank you for a great post Jon and all does who have responded to the post. I myself are still searching for the “truth” and for a while did use Roy’s mediation technique. I must say that Roy not only teaches meditation but he also talks a lot about letting go of anger and learning to forgive people who wrong us and also seeing reality as it is instead of letting our negative emotions get in the way of seeing reality.
    I did see some benefit in being objective to your thoughts which helps you see your mistakes if you are inclined to do so or are not running away from facing your dark side. But having said all this I stopped from meditating and starting doubting if this is the way to find God. I am still searching and trying to understand Christianity and what role if any meditation, as Roy teaches plays in helping our spiritual growth
    Here are some questions I am still struggle to understand. Any suggestion or comments are appreciated. Can you communicate to God by only meditating? Can a person meditate without the desire to know truth and still find truth? Is meditation the only means of facing our dark side and finding God or do we also need the Bible and reasoning?

  19. Linda Method says:

    Hello Levon — thanks for asking such good questions. I was once in exactly the same place you are right now. What I did was decide that even if the meditation wasn’t right for me, I still kept the good principles that Roy taught that I agreed with — forgiveness of others….letting go of anger….not returning evil for evil…..seeking understanding instead of judging people, etc. Becoming objective to your thoughts is really very simple and you just don’t need an elaborate set of instructions in order to do it. Roy’s meditation may be effective for some people in this regard, but to me it seems artificial to try and follow someone else’s directions to do something that is such an individual thing — not to mention for me it was detrimental. You may actually find that the fact you did the meditation for a while is enough for you to just do it on your own — not Roy’s meditation but your own style of it (if you want). Just for the purpose you want to do it for, such as just becoming objective toward your thoughts, as a calming technique etc….not for any religious purpose if you don’t want to use it that way. I haven’t done the practice in over 25 years but I still find it easy to just pull back…just step back in my mind and gently observe things — whether things within me or things without. I took Roy’s idea, which is a good one, and made it my own — I just don’t do it as a disciplined practice any longer. And I NEVER do it ‘Roy’s way.’

    I believe Roy over-emphasizes the ‘dark side’ of people. This is just a matter of my own opinion, but I don’t believe too many people on this earth are really deeply dark and evil — other than actual serial criminals like murders and rapists, etc. The rest of us don’t have a particularly dark evil demonic side, unless you call just having an ego your dark side. Roy demonizes the ego, too, and actually makes it harder to deal with than it is. Here’s my take on ego: The ego is a double-edged sword. It serves a purpose in the human soul. In its purity it’s what makes a person fight for his life if threatened….what makes a cancer patient decide he’s not going to die…..what gives a drug addict the drive to get free from poisoning himself. However, when an ego is corrupted a person can become a tyrant, an unreasonable monster. I don’t think the ego is evil or bad or makes a person weak (as Masters contends — he actually professes that the ego is an alien identity in us)….I believe it is the ego that makes a person stand up for himself. Ego can also make a person hard to deal with or extremely annoying!! I just think it is just part of humanity, part of our identity, however it needs to be ‘disciplined’ or it will become like a spoiled child, unruly, out of control and resistant to correction. Harness it properly and you have a friend that sticks closer than a brother, an impulse that can even save your life. I sent this very message to a friend who did a double take about doing Roy’s meditation, similar to yourself and was asking me some fundamental questions about Roy’s teachings. People who are stanch Roy followers, they will absolutely not listen to me about this. They’d rather stay in an endless fight and eternal struggle with their ego…mistaking it for something ‘alien’ in their life.

    Levon, we all have a conscience. It’s built right in. We really don’t need Roy’s meditation to face up to our ‘dark side’. I think Roy complicates matters, makes it sound like you damn well better do the meditation his way or your chances of finding the narrow path that leads to life are pretty grim. He’s wrong. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ. The meditation is just not necessary (in my opinion). In fact, there are some Christians, apologetics authorities, and counter-cult ministries that consider Roy’s teachings and meditation to be heretical and down-right demonic. I won’t go that far in criticizing Roy’s teachings, but to me there are some definite errors in them.

    There’s a weird thing that sometimes happens when you follow Roy for a while, do the meditation earnestly, and then begin to become disillusioned with the meditation and following that whole path. Sometimes you enter a state of confusion about the whole matter — you thought Roy was so right about so many things and you don’t really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater — what do you do?? Don’t worry!! Just take some time to sift through all these things in your heart and mind. The good things you’ve heard from Roy — keep them, they are yours now. Don’t be afraid to discard the rest. Pray, Levon. Roy teaches AGAINST praying with words. I think that’s also very wrong. Jesus prayed in words. Moses did, too. John the Baptist did, holy moly every patriarch in the Bible prayed to God with words. God even spoke to His people with words!!!! Roy is also against language — ‘the letter killeth’ and all that confusion. Levon, it’s not confusing or difficult. God gave us language. Why would he sanction it or forbid it? Give me a break. There are times when prayer CAN be wordless…but it doesn’t HAVE TO BE. The times of despair in my life, I would pray in nothing but tears. Of course God hears that, too. God is NOT LIMITED on being able to hear us if we cry to Him.

    I hope this doesn’t sound like a whole lot of blither. You’re such an honest searching person, I believe you’ll find your way. I don’t know if I’ve offered anything at all that helps. If there’s anything I’ve said that doesn’t make sense or seems confusing in let me know.

    Jon? I hope I didn’t just jack this thread. I know I have such a big mouth when it comes to this subject — when I hear people asking honest questions it moves me to really want to help.

    Peace ~~Linda~~

  20. xpunged says:

    Now that was an awesome post.

  21. Levon says:

    Hi Linda and thank you for your thoughtful response. You have given me a lot to think about and ponder. I do like the fact that you are using critical thinking which is a topic that I have been interested in long time. One principle that has helped me in my search is to separate the message from the messenger. I can’t say that I have always been able to practice this principle because sometimes when we perceive a person to have more knowledge then us we tend to accept of the message without critical thinking. Another wrong mental habit is that when we accept some of the ideas to be true we automatically assume all other ideas are true in the book or person we are listening. It take an open mind to be able to take each idea on it’s own merit- accepting and not accepting some ideas as true.
    One point that I disagree with you is your assessment that Roy is against language, after all he is using language to teach what he teaches. What he is against is dry knowledge with no understanding. In other words we should use knowledge to come to an understanding and not accepting what we read without questioning and this applies to reading Roy’s work.
    One question that I have struggled and still think about a lot is when it comes to spiritual truth or truth about human nature and how to live a good/moral life is how do we know what we believe is true. In other words what criteria do we use to judge the truth. Is it because we find other people agree with us or because our own reasoning or conscience testifies what is true etc… I do have a lot of questions and points that I would like to make but I will live that for another time or forum.

  22. Linda Method says:

    That’s interesting. It could be that Roy has softened his message about language. During the ‘Masters-Martin’ debate (in the 1980’s) Roy stated: ‘language is the mouth of Satan’….which to me is a very bizarre thing to say and he did not substantiate what he meant by it. At that time he emphasized that all prayer must be wordless in order to keep it from being an ego pursuit, he may not totally agree with that any longer — perhaps he realizes that prayer should not be limited to simply ‘wordless’.

    As for seeking truth — I never look to anyone else for that any longer. I don’t think there is anyone on this earth who has a secret treasure map to absolute ‘Truth’. If something I hear resonates inside me, I accept it and keep it. If it bounces off me, I reject it. It also seems that truth is ‘relative’ according to what you believe and there is just no way to get everyone to believe the same thing. That’s why I am not religious at all. I’m not saying I don’t believe in ANYTHING — I’m only saying that I’m not going to believe in something just because someone in authority tells me it is so, or tells me that I am going to die and go to hell if I don’t believe in a certain thing. If I believe in something, it is because it has merit that is plain to see. If you want a good Bible verse about THIS look at Philippians 4:8: “Whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” The verse doesn’t tell you what the things are — the author of this verse trusts that the reader will recognize it within himself what these things are. That’s about as close to ‘Truth’ as any human being can get.

  23. Levon says:

    Hi Linda. You are absolutely right that there is just no way to get everyone to believe the same thing unless by pure physical force as they do in some parts of our world. This is a fact of life and you might say one of the main reasons why there is so much conflict in the world between people and nations. I am not sure I completely understand what you mean by ” truth is relative according to what you believe” Do you mean when it comes to ethical question there is no such thing as good and bad ideas or values and truth cannot be discovered by searching heart. I am not sure if you are saying that you are a moral relativist. Because we are largely talking in abstractions without specific examples it is hard to sometimes communicate ideas without specific examples. As to looking to others for wisdom I do seek wisdom imparted by others but like you, I do not accept something just because the person is in a position of authority or because of credentials.

    Let me give you an examples and questions to think about and may help us communicate the abstractions about truth. For example, the question of physical intimacy. Is it morally wrong to be intimate with a person you hardly know? Is it wrong to be intimate before marriage? Is it wise to be intimate with a person just because of attraction without an emotional, intellectual and spiritual connection? The answer we can come up to will depend our reasoning or logic, authority ( culture or religious book) emotion, intuition and science. Which method is the best method of reaching a conclusion?

    Now that I think what I wrote it seams that I am equating truth with right moral conduct. Hope my response is meaningful to you and other readers making us think more about this subject.

  24. Linda Method says:

    Wow, Levon, you bring up such fascinating concepts. I believe we are born with a conscience about certain things like not hurting or killing people. People who have killed just to find out what it felt like will often describe an internal barrier that they had to break down inside themselves in order to go through with it. Moral values about things like lying or stealing are mostly instilled in us by our parents, it seems. Morality in terms of sexuality, for the most part I believe also comes from our upbringing and religious influences. Children are not born with any shame about their bodies or sensual responses to physical stimulation, but quickly learn there are certain things you just don’t do in front of others and that they must keep their sexual parts covered up. Not so in other ‘uncivilized’ cultures where clothing is hardly even necessary. Even within religions there are differing opinions about morality. I know Christians who are very puritanical and don’t believe in any intimacy outside of marriage….other Christian friends of mine don’t have a problem with living together in a committed relationship before getting married yet believe that homosexuality is a sin., still others I know attend a ‘liberal’ Christian fellowship that promotes not judging anyone’s morality or sexuality, including homosexuality. A friend I know from a Hindu family told me that their religion includes gods of sexuality and a god of alcohol and a god of drugs, so to speak. Moral values are as individual as the people who believe in them. It seems like Christian-type religions and Islam included, religions which believe in only one god are much more puritanical about sex and practically teach that it’s kinda ‘dirty’ and shameful — other more ‘Eastern’ religions who believe in multiple gods don’t teach shame about sexuality. Kinda like — take your pick, you know? None of these religions agree so you have to find a way to make up your own mind about how you want to conduct your life in terms of morality.

    Probably I am not helping you at all, Levon. I just don’t want to tell anyone WHAT to believe. Am I a moral relativist? I tend to shun labels…I just consider myself very open-minded, yet I also tend to be skeptical of things that can’t be proven and have to be taken on faith. I myself was raised Christian, then I took on Roy Masters’ “brand” of Christianity….then dropped that….ended up with a violent controlling cruel alpha-male type who fathered 4 children with me. After he was finally arrested for domestic assault and put in a nursing home because of his ailing health, I was left alone in my mid-40’s with 4 growing children. I pursued a social life for the first time in over 25 years. Forgive me, I’m going to spill something very private — and Jon, if I offend you, I’ll understand if you want to kick me off this forum — I did a very bizarre and daring thing. For the first and only time in my life, I had a one-night stand (safely)…and it was actually kind of a personal experiment. I wanted to see how I felt afterward…would I feel terrible? Would I hate myself and cry and repent over it? Would I feel hurt and used? Would I fall in love or something? This fellow was very good-looking and financially successful, but a ‘bad-boy’ type….drummer in a band, drove a motorcycle….would not miss me if he never saw me again. I was surprised that I felt….kinda nothing. It was not a bad experience, really, although I never wanted to do it again — and I sure didn’t want to make this kind of thing a recreational activity. Perhaps I needed to find this out about myself. I allowed myself a one-time experience and didn’t upbraid myself about it afterward. I didn’t lose my self-respect either, because what I did was deliberate and … almost clinical. I didn’t hurt anyone and I didn’t get hurt myself. The reason I am sharing this intimate experience in such a public forum is to make a point and to show that I don’t mind if other people judge me from their moral standpoint or call me ugly names for what I did. I respect myself and that’s more important to me than anything else. This experience didn’t change me at all…it only taught me something about myself. It taught me that purity of heart has very little to do with ‘moral’ values about sexuality that come from society or religion. There’s a cool story in the Bible (the book of Joshua) about how the prostitute Rahab risked her life to protect the Lord’s spies from an evil king. She was honored for what she did in a book published around the world….her being a prostitute seemed incidental to the story. I am not defending prostitution, I’m only saying that woman had goodness about her, despite her profession.

    Today I am married and faithful and monogamous with a wonderful man who treats me as good as I treat him. If I had believed in the moral legality of the Bible, I would have had only a choice between 2 things: be reconciled back to my violent ex, or stay alone the rest of my life….neither of which are right for me. Reaching a conclusion about what is right for each person just has to be that person’s sovereign choice and his choice alone. Let me add this: my daughter is heartbroken today….she discovered her boyfriend’s best friend in his basement — he had hung himself. He was 19 and had lost both his parents — he came to the conclusion that he had more to die for than to live for. He didn’t kick a chair out from under himself, his legs were bent in order to allow the asphyxiation — at any point he could have changed his mind and relented. He left excruciating grief behind. Was he wrong for what he did? You could say yes….because he would have known he’d be discovered that way and his action was going to hurt a lot of people. His private journals revealed he’d been contemplating it for a while but didn’t tell anyone because he didn’t want anyone talking him out of it. He wanted to be with his parents again, being Mormon they believe families are forever. He made a very deliberate conscious choice — he took his life in his own hands and ended it the way he wanted to.

    I’m not sure if this story of suicide adds to the discussion or just confuses things. What my life is about is having a good effect on the world around me. I would never commit suicide myself because I cannot bear to hurt anyone, even if I was tempted to do it somehow. Every ‘moral’ choice I make is based on not just what I want for me. I wanted to find a life partner and not live my life out alone….but I had kids to think about, too. The only father they knew was a violent psychopath….they were a little fearful of me marrying someone else. I told them — kids I promise you I will not bring someone into this family who is good for ME only and not for you….he will be good for all of us. I kept my promise. I want to leave a good mark on the world. That’s morality to me.

  25. Levon says:

    Thank you for sharing your life store, Linda. You have given me a lot to think about. Just a few points I like share. I have just recently started reading a lot Christian apologetics and my conclusion from what I have read is not that Christians view sex as dirty or shameful. What they do think is that sex is sacred and human sexuality is different then animal sexuality and should be reserved to share with someone we love in the context of marriage.

    As to your point about you not wanting to tell anyone what to believe I agree with you in the sense that I do not generally impose by beliefs but at times I do believe in speaking out. Let me give you one example, if I see a friend who is married is starting to flirt with another women and thinking about having sex, I have no problem in letting him know that what is considering doing or has done is wrong. Of course in correct people we should do it with love for the intent of helping the person and not to boost our egos or to fill that we are better then other people. In short humility is required in correcting others.

    As to the one-night stand issue and not hurting anyone that is a hard fact to proof. Let me give you an example, what if I go have a one night stand with a women I just meet in the bar without knowing anything about her life. I have no way of knowing how this women is effected by the sex. It is possible that she is sleeping with man as a way of covering up pain. I is also possible that her sleeping with lot’s of man is having deep negative effect on building a long term relationship with one man. The truth is that is would be almost impossible to know how the sex impacts her life in the future. As with most things in life there are short term and long term effects of what we do. Also, should we consider what is good by the pleasure it gives us?
    I do appreciate your honesty and openness. The older I get the more I realize that Billy Joel had point about honesty being the loneliest word : )

  26. Linda Method says:

    It may seem that I am a walking contradiction considering what I’ve shared here, but in truth I tend to be more of an old-fashioned romantic and a traditionalist rather than an intrepid sexual explorer. I value loving commitment with one person versus sexual adventuring with the ‘hey, it’s my body, I’ll do what I want with it’ attitude. Sex is a very impacting thing, and I agree it should be treated with reverence and respect and not as a selfish pursuit of pleasure and manipulation of others. Even if I wasn’t married now, I would never repeat that one-night stand experience, not because it’s such an ‘immoral’ thing to do, but because it’s just anti-value for me – it’s not how I choose to live my life. Like the term ‘casual sex’….how can sex be ‘casual’ ?? I’ll add that I don’t agree with Roy Masters in that sex is actually a failing that needs to be overcome at some point, that even married couple should stop it eventually. He speaks of sex as if it were a metaphysical experience that can damn your soul to hell if you indulge it too much — but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion.

    Glad you appreciate my honesty. Not everyone does — I’ve lost a friend or two because of it. That Billy Joel song is a favorite of mine 🙂

  27. Ray Fulford says:

    In the crazy, confused and desperately wicked society in which we live, David Kupelian stands as a beacon of God’s truth. Reading his masterful work THE MARKETING OF EVIL will give insight into what is really happening and where we are headed. So what if he isn’t a trinitarian? Neither was Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern science. Yet Newton was a deeply committed Christian who based his theology on the Word of God. The problem with most “Orthodox” Protestants is that their theology still clings tenaciously to the coattails of Mother Rome. You need to research the trinitarian doctrine and discover its origins. You will never discover truth until you get rid of pride. It’s never too late to learn. First read THE MARKETING OF EVIL, and then re-evaluate your ideas about David Kupelian.

  28. Jon Rowe says:

    Yes I know Isaac Newton was a unitarian. I have researched trinitarian doctrine. It was settled orthodoxy at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Though orthodox Christians tell me it goes back to Jesus time, that His Apostles understood the Trinity and recited orally something like the Apostles’/Nicene/Athanasian Creed. Since these folks rely on oral tradition to argue that point, I’m not sure (in general I’m a skeptic). Though, I do know the issue was settled orthodoxy in Nicea in 325AD. Do you think Nicea was not Kosher?

  29. Mrs. Jilby says:

    Goodness, the things you can find out from the simplest actions! I just wanted to know if my spelling of David Kupelian’s name was correct and entered it into my browser, and bam! I see the heading “David Kupelian is not a Christian”. Well, I had to investigate, and read all the thought-provoking commentary along with the article. I’m not as well versed in some of the things you discuss (I’ve never even heard of Roy Masters, for example) but my take on ANY type of meditation, and outright hypnosis, has always been that if it tries to take you into a state where you are not in control of your thoughts, it’s dangerous, and my reason for that is the MANY scriptural admonitions to stay sober, stay alert, be on your guard (“for the devil is as a roaring lion”, etc.) As regards Kupelian himself, being a child of the 60s, I saw first-hand the developments he discusses in The Marketing Of Evil. I fell for a lot of it, too, not coming to Christ until the mid-70s. Looking back on it all as I read that book was like having the scales removed from my eyes, in a way. I did not know that it was a deliberate masterplan of social engineering, the goal of which was to destroy nations in order to set up one-world government, and then of course, the worship of one god,Satan (ultimately, of course, the master OF the plan was Satan.) As Kupelian lays it out, I could see how easily I was duped, but I also can look back and see how God’s redemptive work through Jesus, has always been the way (“The Way” ) out, for me and for anyone, of Satan’s dominion, and the deceitfulness of sin. As for whether or not Kupelian is a Christian because he doesn’t believe in the Trinity, I think that no matter if his concept of Jesus is unorthodox, if he labors for Jesus, he cannot be against Him, and that while his beliefs and associations may give pause, we ought not throw out (like the baby with the bathwater) the truth gained by the solid research and reasoning he presents in his book, rejecting it because we reject his views on certain subjects. Thanks, though, for your openness and willingness to share your concerns. I think there is too much “celebrityism” these days in the Christian world, making many prone to accept sombody’s word just because they show up on a lot ot talk shows.

  30. Roberto says:

    I have been practicing the meditation that Roy teaches for a while (around 2 years) by practicing it 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the evening, and in between when I can, I found my self giving up all the fixations and addictions effortlessly, my wife and Daughters have seen a genuine change in me, I have a very close relationship with my creator, He has rewarded me by cleaning my mind from lustful thoughts, I can say with confidence that the list of sins that I was used to commit, has decreased immensely and I know that if I continue faithfully meditating I can conquer all my weakness that made me sinned and I will attain that state that I sought for, all my life…….Living without sin is possible……….all you need is the honest desire to be ruled by One GOD only…….

  31. malcome medz says:

    david kupelian miss guided fool. He is a traitor to the armenians. Like varton gregorian he is a stooge of the international zionist bankers. If you study thev armenian genocide you will find a jew ish connection. Enver, jamoal. taloat. masterminds of the armenian genocide were durma jews. Zionist jews hate christ.

  32. Scott says:

    @malcome medz:

    You’re an ignorant racist.

  33. Frank says:

    Has anyone checked his family lineage? He may be an Ashkenazi.
    And, of course, “Judeo-Christian” is an oxymoron, like saying “Satanic-Christian”.
    Jesus drove them out of the temple with a whip and they have hated Him ever since.

  34. Frank says:

    I noted the pejorative “racist” used. Read the first definition in the dictionary. Nothing about hate there. Would you consider a race that has a written language and invented all the wonders of the modern world to be superior to a race that has no written language and has invented nothing more than the jungle drum? But then, that is a subjective judgement.

  35. do8ug says:

    It’s perverse calling someone as a heretic for saying they don’t sin.
    It’s not unchristian to honestly say I don’t sin anymore.
    1 John 3:9 KJV —
    5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
    6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
    7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
    8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
    9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
    without even getting into Paul’s version of it in Romans 7:17-20

    Why not go after the heretics who call Paul a chief of sinners? Paul is of chief importance to sinners as an example of God’s mercy. Paul was forgiven and saved from being a murderer of Christians.

  36. Jon Rowe says:

    Some folks do believe that the “holiness doctrine” is a heresy. However, the bigger “heresy” that Masters and Kupelian would be accused of committing is denial of the Trinity, that Jesus is God Incarnate.

  37. I think there is too much “celebrityism” these days in the Christian world, too, Mrs. Jilby. I can’t imagine these guys aren’t narcissists when they have so many adoring fans telling them they are wonderful all of the time. It would be awfully difficult to remain humble. It seems to go against scripture, too, when “the world” loves them and they sell a lot of books that they wrote, filled with their opinion of scripture, as if their opinion is the truth. I happened here after seeing something Kupelian wrote that did seem to ring true. I don’t know much about the guy, otherwise, but this Masters’ meditation stuff sounds dark to me. The Bible tells us how to meditate; we are too meditate on God’s word–period. We don’t need another book, written by some guy, to tell us how to do that. Does Kupelian subscribe to this Masters’ meditation stuff? I don’t know. He wrote about how American’s do not care enough about truth, anymore. I think he’s right about that.. Here is what he said: “Truth predates the incarnation of Christ, it predates the Bible. It’s the substance of our bond with God. If you have a love of truth, you’re just not ever really satisfied with anything else, and you want to know the truth about everything especially about yourself. If you are wrong about something, you want to know it. If you’ve been living a lie, you’re willing to see it no matter what the cost.” ~ David Kupelian

  38. I meant, we are to meditate on God’s word….(not “too”) :).

  39. Jon Rowe says:

    I think the response would be you won’t find the truth of the Bible unless you practice the meditation exercise. The Bible is just words on a page; you need the right spiritual state to understand it.

  40. @Jon Rowe
    You won’t find the truth of the Bible unless you walk with the Lord in mind and body.
    Take on his yoke.
    That means to stop sinning so that your understanding is not leavened.

  41. harris9513 says:

    We don’t really need to look at all the facts rationally here, and discuss Kupelian like he deserves the benefit of the doubt – he doesn’t. Yes he follows Roy Masters and Masters – though now ancient – is a creepy nut-job who started out as a hypnotist and I imagine will die nothing more than a creepy hypnotist. Kupelian once wrote that there was no such thing as postpartum depression. I challenged him on that via email. It ended with him telling me that the only reason women have trouble during their menstrual cycles is because they are not right with God.

    Masters made a mint with those relaxation cd’s of his. The Foundation for Human Understanding (Masters website https://www.fhu.com/)- is evil. That’s about it. I’m a writer and Kupelian starting blocking my submissions to WND after our email exchange. Oh- I should be clear and say that after I found out who he was – I contacted Joseph Farah and asked him WHY he let such a nut-job be MANAGING EDITOR for WORLD NET DAILY. Of course there was no response but I was banned for life from writing for WND.

  42. Kevan Kruse says:

    the pearl in the snout of a pig is still a pearl. anyone who hates sin and wants to no longer bury their head in the sands would do well to read “how evil works.” i firmly believe reading such a work would not open them up to conversion to another faith.

    dont get caught up in play on words. the the bile says in 1 john 3:9 – “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” of course we are all still sinners in the flesh, but with the spirit of Christ (Holy Spirit) in us, the supernatural spiritual seed of God accounts us cleansed of sin and white a s now. this is a miracle! if i say i have no sin and believe that it comes from myself, then i am of all men most deceived. if i say i have no sin due to Christ alone! then i am of all men most faithful.

    the trinity is not a word that is in the Bible. while i believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, exactly how all that works is not contingent on salvation, does anyone really understand it? (after time we accept it) otherwise salvation would only be for the smart. of course, it is troubling that anyone would try to take away the deity of Christ, after all that is why they killed him because you being a man “make yourself out to be God.”

  43. harris9513 says:

    How it all works is completely contingent on salvation. It’s repeated, simply, by Jesus and the apostles MANY times. The trinity has been understood by even the simplest Christians for the past 2000 years. “Who do people say that I am?” That’s what it’s all about. Saying “trinity” is not a word in the Bible shows you have an aversion to the concept, otherwise it wouldn’t be a fact you’d be ready to repeat – because in and of itself, the fact that the word is not there is a moot point.

  44. Bob Levey says:

    Well your comin at Roy and David hard… I want you to explain to me why there are so many Christian Denominations that it can make your head spin? Why you have take the Jewish influence out of Christianity and why you let the pope run around with a Yamaka and rip more Jewish Traditions off than, well I won’t say it… Why you have persecuted Jews for centuries and why you let so called christians kill blacks in this Country for way to long… where was your voice then I never heard anything but a squeak out of all of you,, nothin…Just, oh let’s pray for them… sorry that don’t cut it… You want scripture heres 1 King James 2000 Bible
    “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Who was Constantine,, who blessed him to pick the books of the Bible… heck he was just like the Politians of today… trying to make peace where Yeshua said He came to create division….
    With all due respect and there are some areas that deserve that I knew David and have met Roy and his son David a few times over the years… I don’t agree on several things but I’m still open… you heard of the Tiphillian? Just sayin… not 100% the same but just sayin… the problem with organized religion is it’s tryin to look good and appease everyone, I think they call it apologetics..well Yeshua never apologized to anyone for what His Father instructed Him to do… as far as the Trinity, man You really think Yeshua would hold salvation back from someone because of something they don’t quite understand or He has not revealed to yet? NOT If so He would have never told the The Thief on the Cross what He did.. ” I’ll see you today”

    You all quit fighting amongst your organization wipe out all the child abuse in all your sects and then I’ll maybe and that was a maybe open an ear… I do know some real true Christians… I would rather call myself a Yeshuian just simply a follower of Him… maybe a crumb finder, that’s for Him to decide…

    Blessings from
    a fellow Jew boy
    in Yeshua
    B Levey

  45. Robert Angle says:

    The 1611 KJB remains “the” only true God’s actual words representing the entire red of the bulls eye of truth. ALL of man’s attempt to replicate GOD intellectually is off of the target. Humans continue to prove their stupidity in all things of the mind. Academics of Theology continue to probe the red boundary to self qualify scriptural interpretations. The Jews have lost Gods love as they continue to be dysfunctional since Adam. Gentiles in general are more likely to receive God’s blessing then the whole of Jewdom. The fringe “Christians” have to be content with being on the fringe of God’s red purity. As the very words of Jesus state, “No one comes to the Father but through me”. God gave Jesus ALL authority over man, whether you like it or not. DUH!

  46. Bill Buxton says:

    Most genuine believers who have grown spiritually for a few years can immediately see from Roy Masters’ website picture that he is definitely not a genuine born again believer. David Kupelian, however is a harder nut to crack, at least from his still picture. Watching him on youtube will probably expose him as not being a fundamental Christian at all to most believers.

  47. William Curto says:

    I’ve met Kupelian a few times in the late ’80’s and I didn’t like his “vibes”. Like a lot of Roy Masters followers I’ve met at the “Tall Timber Ranch” I’ve perceived that most of his followers have very serious mental problems and made me uncomfortable, trying to SOUND like Masters and obviously parroting the quotes that Masters used. My instincts are always right, so I decided to stay away from that insanity. While I don’t deny Roy Masters helped me in several ways (I was a listener since 1977) I found it extremely important to USE MY OWN BRAIN that God gave me and so I weaned myself off of the dependency I had w/Masters, I found myself growing up and away from listening every day. Mind you I DO NOT blame Mr. Masters for his followers, but I refuse to associate with THEM.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s