Excellent observations, Luth. I think Manc makes a good point, though, and I would argue that the prediction about the cancer cure *is* intrusive. Any "revelation" that purports to predict a future event - especially one as emotionally charged as saving the life of a loved one from a horrible disease - is emotionally intrusive.

There is a huge difference between doctrine - "God hates fags," in the charming words of that Phelps moron - and God's opinion of an individual. Now, I personally think that Phelps guys is an asshat of the highest order, but he is taking a scriptural passage and saying what he thinks God means based upon a particular passage. There is also that Cresco Dollar guy who says God wants you to be rich. Doctrine. harmful doctrine, IMHO, but if you don't believe that doctrine you can go to another church. It's like being a n Orthodox Jew and them deciding that Jesus is your Saviour. You won't continue to go to the same Temple because there is a pretty big doctrinal divide, and it's all about you and your PERSONAL (not as in your own personal Jesus, but your own INDIVIDUAL) relationship with God.


Individual interference is more about controling the individual: who you should marry or be friends with, how you should manage your money, etc. If you don't agree with such "revelations," it isn't about the doctrine of the church anymore: it's about YOU. It's not about God, but rather about someone else's ideas of how you should handle your life. It's no longer about you and your relationship to God, but you and your relationship to the world around you. Telling someone that their loved one will be cured is a perfect example of that. It's not about God really - God is just the means to an end - a cure. And if that doesn't materialize, it's still not about God. It's about what YOU (or your loved one) "did" to make it so that "revelation" didn't come to pass.