Why should she be? I used to follow Charlie but became less and less convinced.... This forum represents all shades of opinion from those who believe in Charlie, Garabandal, Medj, Vassula and so on, and those who don't. An interest in prophecy is all that members need to take an active interest in the forum. Which, if any, individual ones or sites is up to us.
No. I'm not a regular at Glenn's site. I only went to Mystics a few days ago after a friend sent a link about the Presidential Prophecy article. Outside the fever swamp of MOG and Charlie's own site, how many people do you think ever heard of Charlie Johnston?
How would you like to be the poor schlub at Denver Diocese who has to read/file/answer Ms. Harper & Disciples hourly SITREPs on dat mean Ol' Debil, Charlie Johnston, and his latest outrageous posts-n-disposition: https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/entering-the-danger-zone/ GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
CathyG, Could be! ..... but who really gives a Flying ****! We do know that Ms. Whomever got dissed somewhere along the line! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
One moment, he's an unravelling internet cult. The next, nobody's heard of him. I have no idea why, but this appears to be a form of personal vendetta which, though it may be very fulfilling for you, can be somewhat tedious for others.
The quote is "outside the fever swamps..." Cults don't have to be large or known to the wider community, and usually aren't. But, seriously, DeGaulle, I avoid the threads that don't interest me. I feel no need to go on them to tell others, "this is tedious."
I've been quite active on this thread. I've repeatedly expressed my view that Mr Johnston doesn't become a bad person if he turns out to be wrong (and the matter hasn't yet been decided). The reason I replied to you is because I received an 'alert' to this thread which I am interested in. And the constant repetition of a personal attack concerning a situation of which everybody that is interested in it is well aware of the details serves little purpose, in my eyes, other than feeding your own personal animus against this man, whatever it might be. I doubt there's any interested party who is unaware of your views. Must everyone be constantly reminded?
Perhaps they should DeGaulle. Many a false prophet started off orthodox only to veer off the tracks taking unsuspecting people with them. We have no idea where this thing is going in the end. If things don't "happen" before the 2oth we are left with two possibilities: 1) He is crazy and isn't having visions 2) They are demonic We have no idea who else is reading this thread - in fact there are 2 people who commented on this thread that have been lurking about this conversation and decided to chime in. Maybe Harper's links will enable them to be well informed. I must say that the whole disciple name calling and alleging that we are all related is disappointing though. Use facts for your case - not insults. Why can't new links about the title of the thread be posted without attacking the poster?
This just inspired me to post this gem from the comments section of "Mystics of the Church," the article on the Presidential Prophecy. It contains an exchange between Charlie and a woman visitor who is upset at the language used to "rebuke" others who asked questions. Charlie vigorously defends calling people "idiots" and compares the insults posted by one of his followers to the words of Our Lord to the Pharisees who questioned Him. Think about that... Does Charlie have a grandiose view of himself? What do you think of his justification of insults? Anonymous said... To Anonymous at 7:19, this is a sample of the talk at the very happy family at Charlie Johnston's website. Vicious. From comments in "Decisive Conundrum." roses1sb says: Hi Patricia I just would like to say one thing to you please….the word idiots is hurtful and harsh…people are only asking questions because they want some answers, this will only take and push people a way from the site that is doing good…if they are called idiots…it is rather humiliating and I feel you could use better words so not to push people a way…God Bless You Charlie Johnston says: You certainly have a point, Rose. But in Patricia’s defense, our Lord’s frequent harsh public criticism of people as “vipers” and “hypocrites” was harsh, too. I do not get terribly upset when people who make ugly, intemperate attacks, get rebuked harshly. roses1sb says: Remove all my post I am no longer following this site… Charlie Johnston says: Sorry, I have enough work without laboriously going back to remove your posts. I understand and wish you well. roses1sb says: One more thing Charlie…this is starting to feel like an a cult ….this is not good Charlie….you have allowed this and they follow you like you are the God….please be careful…you get mad sometimes when people ask questions and scold people a little…well it looks to me like you need to talk to your priest about this and see if it is alright for her and others to use such strong language…read her entire post where she start with the word…idiots and then goes on to the bottom…take them to the wood shed…tell the priest all of this and see what he says please. Charlie Johnston says: Rose, one of my priests reads everything I write each day – and calls me when He has a concern. I think you are getting a bit squeamish about people defending themselves against trolls. Do you really think someone should be allowed to attack, rather than dispassionately comment, without being rebuked? That is a sort of milquetoast Christianity that I have never subscribed to. You are a good woman, but I would have been more impressed if you had been equally condemning of intemperate accusations as you are of defenses against them. I say candidly that I firmly believe the misguided milquetoast Christianity has played a significant role in current disorders. And you never touched on how harshly Jesus spoke to those who restlessly accused and attacked Him. If you just read His words without knowing they were from Him, would you have corrected Him, too? I am not being sarcastic – I am suggesting you genuinely reflect on this, for I think your expectations are based on modern cultural practices, not the Gospels... Sometimes people say things that make me think they have never even read Scripture. One person made a comment to me that Jesus would always only give a gentle answer to His attackers. I suppose if calling them “vipers” or “hypocrites” or “whited sepulchers, filled with dead things” were considered gentle rejoinders, that would be true. We don’t have to guess what Jesus would have done in most circumstances: Scripture tells us what He actually did. One of the things that most disturbs me is people who seem pious making statements about Jesus that bear no resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels. It just seems strange. January 9, 2017 at 8:17 PM Anonymous said... What was worse was the supposed Bishop Yong Duk calling the people morons and idiots - I have a hard time believing he's a Bishop. If Charlie is intent on correcting people for poor behavior why did he not correct Beckita for 2 clearly false news stories which he even agreed were false but threw the poster off his site for bringing this to light. Charlie is a dictator who thinks he's god, judge and jury, remember his words " this is MY site", "you have no RIGHT to post on MY site". In 11 days Charlie is done. January 9, 2017 at 9:41 PM
He may be crazy, the visions may be demonic. Neither necessarily makes him a bad person-one can be innocently deceived. I have followed him for quite some time and have found him intriguing. I haven't jumped off the fence regarding his predictions, but I have found those essays of his that I have read very orthodox and quite edifying. He appears to have taken considerable pains to receive spiritual guidance. Of course, I could be wrong but should we condemn any man as being either insane or in league with satan without irrefutible evidence? In fairness to him, as the decisive time for him approaches he has not doubled-down on the veracity of his claims but has acknowledged the possibility of error and that he will exit the stage if this turns out to be the case. The core of his advice, 'to take the next right step' is hardly unsound. Those false prophets who have lead people to perdition tend to make more extreme demands of their followers. I never have read the comments on his website until today. I did so today and those commenting seem prayerful, level-headed and sane. I have no wish to insult anybody and would be grateful if you could point out exactly where I did this. If someone makes repeated semi-public posts attacking another individual, I do not see the problem in pointing out the monotony of this or even expressing the opinion that it may be unjust, just as you have accused me. It's called free speech and it cuts both ways.
CJ's latest opening: By Charlie Johnston Over the last few weeks there has been much speculation over the possibility that I might be objectively wrong about the peaceful transfer of power. That is well and proper, since the key to everything is to take the next right step in each moment, whatever happens. People are preparing themselves for that. But I want to warn you, take care that you not go into panic if a mighty convulsion proves me objectively right. I consider that the most likely eventuality.
Apologies DeGaulle, the second half of my post was not directed at your replies - which seem to always be logical - they were in reference to others' posts. But as for the first part of my post, we must be careful here. I never said I am condemning him. I'm not interested in judging the soul of the messenger, but rather the discernment of where the message is coming from. If there is any condemning it will be done by his own words. He is the one who alleges to received a message directly from the angel Gabriel. He is the one who stated emphatically that this prophecy was not subject to change and was to be a sign that he is telling us true. He is the one who stated that he typically has 3 visions per week. So what do we make of it if it turns out that the prophecy is wrong? By default it would be a) physiological or b) demonic - would it not? The fact that he has been mostly orthodox so far (there are some instances I would argue that e.g. his contraception remarks - but I'll let those go for the time being) does not necessarily indicate where this self proclaimed "sherpa" will lead his flock in the future. Yes, we can certainly hope for the best in this situation, but I'd contend - especially if his "apparition" is proven wrong - that we should also be wary of the worst.
I don't know if I am throwing Holy Water or not, but one point. I get emails for links to Charlie's latest posts on his blog. I don't know if anyone has read the latest? Anyway someone asked me if Charlie would close his bog is nothing happened vis a vis the inauguration prophesy. So Charlie said that he would only be closing down, 'until and unless something happened, so I would not be expecting Charlie to go away anytime soon. Also one curious thing regarding this prophecy which seems to be about to fail Charlie comments that God has 'rebuked him in similar fashion many times in the past. Well the obvious question arise, 'How'?' By making prophesies that never happened?' I am not taking a dig at Charlie but it reminds of the stars who do very last performance tours sixty zillion times. I think if you say you are going to go , then give the last performance and leave the stage, don't drag it out. Let our yes be yes and our no, no. There's nothing more annoying than the guy who says goodbye to everyone in a pub but keeps coming back again. It's time to say Sayanara, Charlie and mean it. Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. I don't think we are that far apart. I don't deny that he could be insane, and I'm not a mental health professional, but my layman's instincts are inclined to think he is not. The second possibility is the more plausible one of demonic deception. But I still maintain that it is stll quite possible he could have been innocently deceived. There is a third possibility-that he has been receiving genuine visions but has interpreted them incorrectly. Again malice need not necessarily be involved, although I concede it prudent not to exclude it in the two latter scenarios. I am ignorant of the contraception issue regarding Johnson, so I have to defer to you and it disappoints me. If he's wrong, whether any guilt falls upon him, or not, partly or in whole, some people who have invested too much of their being upon his predictions are going to be hurt. In that case, he'll fade away quickly, I think. One must be careful with prophecy and I only invest commitment in what is Church-approved myself. On the other hand, he could still be right. But I haven't piled up the rations nor greased my gun (I don't have one).
Correct. The jig will be up, one way or another, come 20th of January. If Trump is inaugurated uneventfully, Charlie Johnson has to get out of the prophesy game. Although, he shows great politically analytical skill and a talent for (non-prophetic) religious commentary, his reputation will be too damaged to even continue on that level. A quiet withdrawal would be in order.
I've been wondering...if Charlie's prophecy does not come to pass, will we get the standard "the prophecy was averted through the prayers of the faithful" response that I've heard in the past from different "visionaries" regarding their failed predictions? I know that CJ claims that he'll go away quietly, but I don't know if his followers will let him.
