The Manhattan Project - Revision history

Admin at 04:46, 10 July 2026

2026-07-10T04:46:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:46, 10 July 2026
Line 252:		Line 252:
	=The Manhattan Project - Part 1 =		=The Manhattan Project - Part 1 =

	= The ~~Score Was 31 to 27 =~~		This is a review and analysis of a document produced by David Courchaine entitled:

			:THE MANHATTAN PROJECT - PART ONE - The Meta-Layer (V16)

	David Courchaine opens his new document, "The Manhattan Project, Part One," with a football game.		David Courchaine opens his new document, "The Manhattan Project, Part One," with a football game.

			== The Score Was 31 to 27 ==

	On January 10, 2026, the Packers led the Bears 21 to 3 at halftime. Courchaine is a Packers fan, and he was sure his team could not lose. A Bears fan watching the same broadcast saw a game his team could still win. Same plays. Same recording. Two very different experiences, each fan certain he was simply watching reality.		On January 10, 2026, the Packers led the Bears 21 to 3 at halftime. Courchaine is a Packers fan, and he was sure his team could not lose. A Bears fan watching the same broadcast saw a game his team could still win. Same plays. Same recording. Two very different experiences, each fan certain he was simply watching reality.
Line 336:		Line 341:
	Look up at the scoreboard.		Look up at the scoreboard.

	The score was 31 to 27. The Message has a score too, and it is written in the historical record, waiting for anyone willing to read it.{{Bottom of Page}}		The score was 31 to 27. The Message has a score too, and it is written in the historical record, waiting for anyone willing to read it.
			{{Bottom of Page}}
	[[Category:Unfinished articles]]		[[Category:Unfinished articles]]

Admin: /* The Manhattan Project - Part 1 */

2026-07-10T04:40:14Z

The Manhattan Project - Part 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:40, 10 July 2026
Line 309:		Line 309:
	For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William Branham basically adopted as well. Clarence Larkin was a major proponent of premillennial dispensationalism.		For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William Branham basically adopted as well. Clarence Larkin was a major proponent of premillennial dispensationalism.

	However, the ~~historicist~~ view of the seven churches has basically ~~disapeared~~ because of the substantial objections to this method:		However, the view of the seven churches as seven ages has basically disappeared because of the substantial objections to this method:
	<blockquote>The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the humorous—if it were not so deplorable—exegesis which, for example, makes the church of Sardis, which was dead, refer to the glorious age of the Reformation; it should be clear to every student of Scripture that there is not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles of Revelation 2 and 3.<ref>William Hendriksen, ''More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation'', 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1940] 1982), 60</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the humorous—if it were not so deplorable—exegesis which, for example, makes the church of Sardis, which was dead, refer to the glorious age of the Reformation; it should be clear to every student of Scripture that there is not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles of Revelation 2 and 3.<ref>William Hendriksen, ''More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation'', 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1940] 1982), 60</ref></blockquote>

Line 336:		Line 336:
	Look up at the scoreboard.		Look up at the scoreboard.

	The score was 31 to 27. The Message has a score too, and it is written in the historical record, waiting for anyone willing to read it.		The score was 31 to 27. The Message has a score too, and it is written in the historical record, waiting for anyone willing to read it.{{Bottom of Page}}





	{{Bottom of Page}}
	[[Category:Unfinished articles]]		[[Category:Unfinished articles]]

Admin: /* When you actually look at a claim */

2026-07-09T20:52:05Z

When you actually look at a claim

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 9 July 2026
Line 309:		Line 309:
	For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William Branham basically adopted as well. Clarence Larkin was a major proponent of premillennial dispensationalism.		For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William Branham basically adopted as well. Clarence Larkin was a major proponent of premillennial dispensationalism.

	However, the historicist view of the seven churches has basically disapeared because of the substantial objections to this method. William Hendriksen comments that “the notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation,” noting that there is “not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church.”[2] The fundamental problem remains that there is no suggestion in the Scriptures themselves that the intention of these letters was to outline seven periods of church history.[3]		However, the historicist view of the seven churches has basically disapeared because of the substantial objections to this method:
			<blockquote>The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the humorous—if it were not so deplorable—exegesis which, for example, makes the church of Sardis, which was dead, refer to the glorious age of the Reformation; it should be clear to every student of Scripture that there is not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles of Revelation 2 and 3.<ref>William Hendriksen, ''More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation'', 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1940] 1982), 60</ref></blockquote>

	The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the humorous—if it were not so deplorable—exegesis which, for example, makes the church of Sardis, which was dead, refer to the glorious age of the Reformation; it should be clear to every student of Scripture that there is not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles of Revelation 2 and 3.<~~sup~~>~~13</sup>~~

	William Hendriksen, ''More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation'', 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1940] 1982), 60

	Gary DeMar, ''Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church'', Fourth revised edition (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999). Gary DeMar, ''Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church'', Fourth revised edition (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), 220.

	But watch what happens to the real issue.		But watch what happens to the real issue.

Admin: /* When you actually look at a claim */

2026-07-09T20:50:04Z

When you actually look at a claim

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 9 July 2026
Line 307:		Line 307:
	He corrects a commenter who said "there are no church ages" and that Branham invented the idea. Courchaine points out, correctly, that the teaching that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represent seven historical periods is not original to Branham. It is found in dispensationalist writers with no connection to him. On that narrow point, he is right, and the commenter was sloppy.		He corrects a commenter who said "there are no church ages" and that Branham invented the idea. Courchaine points out, correctly, that the teaching that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represent seven historical periods is not original to Branham. It is found in dispensationalist writers with no connection to him. On that narrow point, he is right, and the commenter was sloppy.

	For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William ~~Brfanham~~ basically adopted,		For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William Branham basically adopted as well. Clarence Larkin was a major proponent of premillennial dispensationalism.

			However, the historicist view of the seven churches has basically disapeared because of the substantial objections to this method. William Hendriksen comments that “the notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation,” noting that there is “not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church.”[2] The fundamental problem remains that there is no suggestion in the Scriptures themselves that the intention of these letters was to outline seven periods of church history.[3]


			The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods of Church history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the humorous—if it were not so deplorable—exegesis which, for example, makes the church of Sardis, which was dead, refer to the glorious age of the Reformation; it should be clear to every student of Scripture that there is not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles of Revelation 2 and 3.<sup>13</sup>

			William Hendriksen, ''More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation'', 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1940] 1982), 60

			Gary DeMar, ''Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church'', Fourth revised edition (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999). Gary DeMar, ''Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church'', Fourth revised edition (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), 220.

	But watch what happens to the real issue.		But watch what happens to the real issue.

Admin at 20:29, 9 July 2026

2026-07-09T20:29:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 9 July 2026
Line 59:		Line 59:
	==The recurring logical fallacies==		==The recurring logical fallacies==

	His recurring themes contain some REALLY ~~bad arguments~~.		His recurring themes contain some REALLY glaring logical fallacies. If you want more detail on how logic applies below and in theological issues generally, please read our separate articles on [[God and the rules of logic]] and [[Logic and the Message]].

	== Motte and bailey at the center of it all ==		== Motte and bailey at the center of it all ==
Line 269:		Line 269:
	Hold onto that, because it is the whole issue.		Hold onto that, because it is the whole issue.

	== What the project ~~promised~~ ==		== What the project promises ==
	When Courchaine announced the Manhattan Project in May 2026, he was direct about its purpose. He said he was "systematically dismantling every lie ever set against the Message," and he named names, calling several researchers "liars" who could not be concluded to be honest.		When Courchaine announced the Manhattan Project in May 2026, he was direct about its purpose. He said he was "systematically dismantling every lie ever set against the Message," and he named names, calling several researchers "liars" who could not be concluded to be honest.

Line 306:		Line 306:

	He corrects a commenter who said "there are no church ages" and that Branham invented the idea. Courchaine points out, correctly, that the teaching that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represent seven historical periods is not original to Branham. It is found in dispensationalist writers with no connection to him. On that narrow point, he is right, and the commenter was sloppy.		He corrects a commenter who said "there are no church ages" and that Branham invented the idea. Courchaine points out, correctly, that the teaching that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represent seven historical periods is not original to Branham. It is found in dispensationalist writers with no connection to him. On that narrow point, he is right, and the commenter was sloppy.

			For the record, Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202) was the first person to interpret Revelation as a prophetic survey of church history, considering that the book prophesies the events of Western history from the early church until his own time. It gained significant traction with premillennial dispensationalism, which William Brfanham basically adopted,

	But watch what happens to the real issue.		But watch what happens to the real issue.
Line 336:		Line 338:



	We speak about logic in our discussion above. If you want more detail on how logic applies in theological issues, please read our separate articles on [[God and the rules of logic]] and [[Logic and the Message]].

	{{Bottom of Page}}		{{Bottom of Page}}
	[[Category:Unfinished articles]]		[[Category:Unfinished articles]]

Admin: /* The Manhattan Project - Part 1 */

2026-07-09T19:50:43Z

The Manhattan Project - Part 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:50, 9 July 2026
Line 252:		Line 252:
	=The Manhattan Project - Part 1 =		=The Manhattan Project - Part 1 =

			= The Score Was 31 to 27 =
			David Courchaine opens his new document, "The Manhattan Project, Part One," with a football game.

			On January 10, 2026, the Packers led the Bears 21 to 3 at halftime. Courchaine is a Packers fan, and he was sure his team could not lose. A Bears fan watching the same broadcast saw a game his team could still win. Same plays. Same recording. Two very different experiences, each fan certain he was simply watching reality.

			It is a good illustration. He pairs it with a real and well-known 1954 study by Hastorf and Cantril, who showed the same film of a college football game to fans of both schools and found that each group saw the other side commit far more fouls. Their conclusion was that there is no neutral "game out there" that everyone observes the same way. Perception is shaped by who we are rooting for.

			Courchaine is right about all of this. It is true of Message believers. It is true of former members. It is true of me. Anyone who has argued about the Message online has felt it.

			But notice what his own illustration also contains. Something he never comes back to.

			The Bears won 31 to 27.

			That is not a matter of perspective. The Packers fan and the Bears fan felt the game differently, remembered the calls differently, walked away with different stories. And there was still a final score that did not care how either of them felt. The bias was real. The score was also real. Both things are true at the same time.

			Hold onto that, because it is the whole issue.

			== What the project promised ==
			When Courchaine announced the Manhattan Project in May 2026, he was direct about its purpose. He said he was "systematically dismantling every lie ever set against the Message," and he named names, calling several researchers "liars" who could not be concluded to be honest.

			That is a claim about the score. It says the critics of the Message have gotten the facts wrong, and that he intends to prove it.

			So a reader comes to Part One expecting the facts. The failed prophecies. The bridge vision. The borrowing from other authors. The doctrines. These are the "lies" the project exists to dismantle, and Part One is where the dismantling begins.

			== What Part One actually delivers ==
			It does not touch any of them.

			Part One is not about Branham's prophecies or Branham's sources or Branham's doctrine. It is about the psychology of the people in his comment section. It walks through five commenters, diagnoses each with a named mental mechanism, and cites a study for each one. Projection. Biased assimilation. Emotional reasoning. The document is thoughtful, and some of its observations about individual comments are fair. A few of those comments really were dismissive, and telling someone to "seek treatment" for disagreeing is not an argument.

			But step back and ask the simple question. What was the subject supposed to be?

			The subject was supposed to be whether the claims against the Message are true. Part One quietly changes it to how the people making those claims feel while they make them.

			Those are two different subjects. Whether a critic is emotionally invested tells you nothing about whether a prophecy failed. Whether a commenter is defensive tells you nothing about whether Branham copied his material. A man's state of mind and the truth of his statement are simply not the same question. You can be anxious and correct. You can be calm and wrong.

			This is the oldest move in disagreement. When you cannot answer what a person said, you talk about the person instead. It does not become something else just because it is done gently, with studies attached and the word "brother" in every paragraph. Warmth is better than cruelty. It is not the same as an answer.

			A project that promised to dismantle lies has, in its first installment, dismantled no lies. It has analyzed tone.

			== The score is still there ==
			Here is where Courchaine's own football game turns on him.

			His argument is that emotional investment shapes how we see the evidence, and that is true. But his illustration proves something he did not intend. It proves that underneath the biased perceptions, there was a real game with a real result. The fans disagreed. The scoreboard did not.

			The Message question has a scoreboard too.

			Did Branham prophesy that the Los Angeles area would sink beneath the ocean? Did he describe a vision of a bridge collapse with sixteen deaths, and does the historical record support it? Did his stories stay the same each time he told them, or did they grow? These are not questions of perspective. They have answers that do not change based on how anyone feels about them.

			You can acknowledge every bit of bias Courchaine describes, on all sides, and the scoreboard is still on the wall. The honest thing is not to stare at the fans. It is to look up and read the score.

			== When you actually look at a claim ==
			Let me show you what that looks like, using the one factual claim Courchaine does make in Part One.

			He corrects a commenter who said "there are no church ages" and that Branham invented the idea. Courchaine points out, correctly, that the teaching that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represent seven historical periods is not original to Branham. It is found in dispensationalist writers with no connection to him. On that narrow point, he is right, and the commenter was sloppy.

			But watch what happens to the real issue.

			The careful critique of Branham has never been that he invented the church-ages concept. It is the reverse, and it is worse. Branham took the seven-church-ages framework, and even the specific dates for each age almost word for word, from Clarence Larkin's ''Dispensational Truth'' and from Charles Taze Russell. And then he told his followers the revelation had come to him directly from God. In his own words about that teaching, "the Holy Spirit revealed and opened to us all the mysteries." He also claimed his view was different from the very books he was copying.

			So the charge is not "Branham made up church ages." The charge is that he borrowed a man-made framework and presented it as a divine download that came straight from heaven. Courchaine answers the first claim, which no serious researcher is making, and leaves the second claim, the one that actually matters, completely untouched.

			That is the pattern. When the subject is a real, checkable claim, the evidence is there, and it does not favor the Message. Which may be part of why Part One is about comment sections instead.

			== About the word "liar" ==
			I am one of the people Courchaine named. He called several of us liars, then two days later called those same men his precious brothers in Christ. Both statements are in his own material.

			I am not going to make this about the insult. I will only point out that "liar" is itself a claim, and like any claim it needs evidence. That is exactly what this document does not provide. It asserts dishonesty at the outset and then spends its length examining other people's psychology rather than demonstrating a single false statement in anyone's research. If the goal is to prove someone is lying, the way to do it is to show the lie. Not to describe the mood of the person you disagree with.

			== An invitation, not an attack ==
			If you are inside the Message and reading this, I want to be clear about something. I am not looking down on you. I was where you are. I know how it feels to hear the Message questioned, and how much easier it is to examine the questioner than the question.

			Courchaine is right that we are all shaped by what we love and what we have suffered. I will go further than he did and say it plainly about myself. Yes, I have a side. Yes, my past shapes how I read this. That is true of me, and it is true of him, and being aware of it does not make either of us the neutral one in the room.

			But awareness of bias was never meant to end the search for truth. It was meant to sharpen it. The Bereans heard Paul preach and did not simply accept it because an apostle said it. They "examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11), and Scripture calls them noble for it. Paul himself said, "Test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Testing is not the enemy of faith. It is how honest faith is built.

			So look at the fans if you like. Both sets of them. Then do the one thing this document never asks you to do.

			Look up at the scoreboard.

			The score was 31 to 27. The Message has a score too, and it is written in the historical record, waiting for anyone willing to read it.

Admin at 19:50, 9 July 2026

2026-07-09T19:50:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:50, 9 July 2026
Line 250:		Line 250:
	----		----

			=The Manhattan Project - Part 1 =


Line 255:		Line 256:


	~~=God and logic=~~

	We speak about logic in our discussion above. If you want more detail on how logic applies in theological issues, please read our separate articles on [[God and the rules of logic]] and [[Logic and the Message]].		We speak about logic in our discussion above. If you want more detail on how logic applies in theological issues, please read our separate articles on [[God and the rules of logic]] and [[Logic and the Message]].

Admin: /* Defending the indefensible n */

2026-07-06T19:38:14Z

Defending the indefensible n

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 6 July 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:
	= There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere =		= There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere =

	==Defending the indefensible n==		==Defending the indefensible==

	In the first half of 2026, David Courchaine has preached four sermons that, taken together, amount to something more than a preaching series. They amount to a worldview defense. The titles sound like separate topics: ''What Is the Message'', ''The Value of the Flaw'', ''There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere'', ''Why Are People So Tossed About''.<ref>Sources: What Is The Message Part 5 - Why Me - All Things, The Value Of The Flaw, "There's Got To Be A True Answer Somewhere", "Why Are People So Tossed About" — all preached by David Courchaine, April–June 2026.</ref> But underneath the titles, all four sermons are doing the same job. They are building a case for why William Branham's message cannot be examined the way we examine any other historical or theological claim, and why anyone who tries to examine it that way has already disqualified themselves from the conversation. This is likely what the Manhattan Project is.		In the first half of 2026, David Courchaine has preached four sermons that, taken together, amount to something more than a preaching series. They amount to a worldview defense. The titles sound like separate topics: ''What Is the Message'', ''The Value of the Flaw'', ''There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere'', ''Why Are People So Tossed About''.<ref>Sources: What Is The Message Part 5 - Why Me - All Things, The Value Of The Flaw, "There's Got To Be A True Answer Somewhere", "Why Are People So Tossed About" — all preached by David Courchaine, April–June 2026.</ref> But underneath the titles, all four sermons are doing the same job. They are building a case for why William Branham's message cannot be examined the way we examine any other historical or theological claim, and why anyone who tries to examine it that way has already disqualified themselves from the conversation. This is likely what the Manhattan Project is.

Admin at 19:37, 6 July 2026

2026-07-06T19:37:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 6 July 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Courchaine originally announced the Manhattan Project in a series of videos on Facebook and Instagram; however, these have all since been deleted. He also removed all of the episodes of his YouTube podcast, "What do you mean by."		Courchaine originally announced the Manhattan Project in a series of videos on Facebook and Instagram; however, these have all since been deleted. He also removed all of the episodes of his YouTube podcast, "What do you mean by."

	~~=Defending the indefensible=~~

	~~In our book, ''Under the Halo'', we prove that the message is properly classified as a cult using external academic sources.~~

	==Premature evaluation==		==Premature evaluation==
Line 31:		Line 27:
	= There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere =		= There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere =

	== ~~A look at four recent sermons by David Courchaine~~ ==		==Defending the indefensible n==
	~~Over~~ the ~~last two months~~, David Courchaine has preached four sermons that, taken together, amount to something more than a preaching series. They amount to a worldview defense. The titles sound like separate topics: ''What Is the Message'', ''The Value of the Flaw'', ''There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere'', ''Why Are People So Tossed About''.<ref>Sources: What Is The Message Part 5 - Why Me - All Things, The Value Of The Flaw, "There's Got To Be A True Answer Somewhere", "Why Are People So Tossed About" — all preached by David Courchaine, April–June 2026.</ref> But underneath the titles, all four sermons are doing the same job. They are building a case for why William Branham's message cannot be examined the way we examine any other historical or theological claim, and why anyone who tries to examine it that way has already disqualified themselves from the conversation. This is likely what the Manhattan Project is.
			In the first half of 2026, David Courchaine has preached four sermons that, taken together, amount to something more than a preaching series. They amount to a worldview defense. The titles sound like separate topics: ''What Is the Message'', ''The Value of the Flaw'', ''There's Got to Be a True Answer Somewhere'', ''Why Are People So Tossed About''.<ref>Sources: What Is The Message Part 5 - Why Me - All Things, The Value Of The Flaw, "There's Got To Be A True Answer Somewhere", "Why Are People So Tossed About" — all preached by David Courchaine, April–June 2026.</ref> But underneath the titles, all four sermons are doing the same job. They are building a case for why William Branham's message cannot be examined the way we examine any other historical or theological claim, and why anyone who tries to examine it that way has already disqualified themselves from the conversation. This is likely what the Manhattan Project is.

			He recently lost his job which is allowing him to spend 12 to upwards of 19 hours a day studying William Branham's sermons. However, his apparent sincerity and the hours logged are not the same thing as a sound argument. And David spends four sermons insisting that there has to be a true answer somewhere, and that the answer should be reasoned, tested, and not just felt. I think he would want us to hold his own reasoning to that same standard.

	~~He recently lost his job which is allowing him to spend 12 to upwards of 19 hours a day studying William Branham~~'~~s sermons. However~~, ~~his apparent sincerity and~~ the ~~hours logged are not the same thing~~ as a ~~sound argument~~. ~~And David spends four sermons insisting~~ that ~~there has to~~ be a ~~true answer somewhere~~, ~~and that the answer should be reasoned, tested, and not just felt~~. ~~I think he would want us to hold his own reasoning to that same standard. Let~~'s ~~do that~~.		In our book, ''Under the Halo'', we prove that the message is properly classified as a cult using external academic sources. This is an obvious conclusion that would be reached by the vast majority of independent observers viewing a Message church, although some are much worse than others. David Courchaine's defense of the Message worldview is a textbook example of [[Cognitive Dissonance\|cognitive dissonance resulting in increased fervency of belief after a disconfirmation experience]].

	== The recurring themes ==		== The recurring themes ==

Admin: /* Premature evaluation */

2026-07-06T19:25:47Z

Premature evaluation

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 6 July 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Courchaine originally announced the Manhattan Project in a series of videos on Facebook and Instagram; however, these have all since been deleted. He also removed all of the episodes of his YouTube podcast, "What do you mean by."		Courchaine originally announced the Manhattan Project in a series of videos on Facebook and Instagram; however, these have all since been deleted. He also removed all of the episodes of his YouTube podcast, "What do you mean by."

	=Premature evaluation=		=Defending the indefensible=

			In our book, ''Under the Halo'', we prove that the message is properly classified as a cult using external academic sources.

			==Premature evaluation==

	From the video transcript above, it is clear that David Courchaine started with his conclusions already established... before examining all the evidence. This is typical of cult followers. The [[Logic and the Message#Ad hominem\|ad hominem attacks]] (attacking the person rather than the arguments) he engaged in are also typical of responses from a person in a cult.		From the video transcript above, it is clear that David Courchaine started with his conclusions already established... before examining all the evidence. This is typical of cult followers. The [[Logic and the Message#Ad hominem\|ad hominem attacks]] (attacking the person rather than the arguments) he engaged in are also typical of responses from a person in a cult.