Quote
Fran
I think the website also says that anyone is free to email us and ask for any of the restricted articles, stating why they want to read it. I don't think we have ever denied anyone who emailed us and was interested in reading them free access to those articles.

I agree with you that people who want to see evil in us will see that as suspicious. On the other hand, people who are genuinely interested in reading the articles write to us asking for them and so they get access to them. It all depends on what your motives are for reading them.

Really Fran, How about Freedom of Information. Or are the JC's less transparent than the government that supports your leader. At least the government does not question a person's motives for asking to see documents. I will give it a try here. Could you please post articles related to the 144000 here for us to read. We are curious. Is that good enough motivation

deleted

Quote

Fran wrote:

I read the article you gave the link for. It had arguments for and against corporal punishment. I don't understand what your point is. Besides you are missing the fact that we are talking about people actually choosing corporal punishment as opposed to incarceration.

I presented an article that presented both sides of the argument, but the EVIDENCE is overwhelmingly against corporal punishment. More evidence that you cannot critically read something, either because you lack critical faculties, or they have been indoctrinated out of you, or you are being dishonest and insincere.
Here is an extract:

"Some psychology research indicates that corporal punishment causes the destruction of trust bonds between parents and children. Children subjected to corporal punishment may grow resentful, shy, insecure, or violent. Some researchers have shown that corporal punishment actually works against its objective (normally obedience), since children will not voluntarily obey an adult they do not trust. A child who is physically punished may have to be punished more often than a child who is not. Researcher Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph.D., in a 2002 meta-analytic study that combined 60 years of research on corporal punishment, found that the only positive outcome of corporal punishment was immediate compliance; however, corporal punishment was associated with less long-term compliance. Corporal punishment was linked with nine other negative outcomes, including increased rates of aggression, delinquency, mental health problems, problems in relationships with their parents, and likelihood of being physically abused."

Remember that in reality the issue of corporal punishment is not a policy that is going to be adopted by mainstream society but rather a policy that is going to be implemented within your community. Corporal punishment is a standard thing already for children in the community who have no choice in the matter and the level of peer pressure and control in the group make me dubious as to whether it will really be a choice.

Quote

Fran wrote

I can't see how I am not serving the underpriveleged and downtrodden. And hardly any of my time has been spent at all on media attention.

Well, it's different from the past then. I hope so. I know that the JC's past projects in India have been completely unsustainable and they do not like to learn from others about how to do sensitive development work with locals. Of course some good things were done, but the professionals like World Vision and Oxfam do so much of a better long term job.

I am doing work for the underpriviledged constantly and am working for love in freedom. I am so much happier now and the fruit of the Spirit is much more in me.

It's interesting that even by your own standards of success a cult like the "Twelve Tribes" has been much more successful in expanding and recruiting members over the years and they do not use literature.

Someone like Bill Gates has probably been the most succesful person in following Jesus command to "sell what you have and give to the poor".

Quote
apostate
Really Fran, How about Freedom of Information. Or are the JC's less transparent than the government that supports your leader. At least the government does not question a person's motives for asking to see documents. I will give it a try here. Could you please post articles related to the 144000 here for us to read. We are curious. Is that good enough motivation

Sure, please follow the instructions on the webpage on how to get the restricted articles, and we will probably send you one to your email address.

Quote
apostate

I do not recall Jesus ripping universities and third world countries off, or refusing to pay taxes.

I don't recall doing either of those either.

Quote
Apostate
Your group is not serving the underpriveleged by exploiting poor countires and dodging that countries rightful dues in export taxes.

And just how do you think we are doing that?

Quote
apostate
You are not serving the underprivleged by wasting university resources by not using them, and by taking seats away from sincere individuals who use the knowledge to help others.

Again, I don't know what you are refering to. None of us are at university. And I don't know what you mean by "wasting university resources by not using them". Please clarify this.

By the way, since you are so into transparency and freedom of information, why don't you tell us your real name? It seems a contradiction to hide behind a username.

[quote="apostate"

No probs Xenophone, Yeah, Dave is a hypocrite.

I guess I have more of a problem with the whole "annointed" leader thing. Dave likes to separate and categorise people into "leaders" and "followers"... how demeaning.

Dave fits the hallmarks of a codependent individual in that he needs people to depend on him. When they no longer depend on them, he tries to make them do so, if they do not comply he discards them to look elsewhere for someone to depend on him. He is dependent on such relationships. Without it he cannot function. He whole "annointed leader" premise is based upon this.[/quote]?


Apostate. how would you define Cherry's role? An enabler?

Fran:

I notices that for some reason you have apparently chosen not to answer the simple questions asked in a previous post.

Is this because you cannot or will not?

Again, here they are:

What other groups and/or organizations would you point people to as viable alternatives to the JCs?

Is there another group that exists today that you think is spiritually equal and a viable and equal alternative to the JCs?

Do you think any of the criticism about the JCs or Dave is warranted?

What do you think either Dave and/or the group has done wrong?

How could the JCs be improved?

Quote
rrmoderator
Fran:

I notices that for some reason you have apparently chosen not to answer the simple questions asked in a previous post.

Is this because you cannot or will not?

Or maybe it's just because I didn't see your post or didn't have time to answer it when I was online last. Such explanations never seem to come to your thoughts, because you want so badly to believe what you want to believe.

The thing is, Rick, you have made your mind up. In some ways, I have made my mind up to, although I am open to hearing any genuine criticisms you have. However, most of what you and others post are outright lies or exaggerations. Hardly the stuff that is going to convince any of us that we are on the wrong track. Just the opposite is true; it will only confirm to us that you are only interested in one thing, and that is in attacking us no matter the cost.

The other thing that is clear is that you very often don't apply the same rule to yourself. How about you have a go at answering some of your own questions and see if you can. I'll answer yours when you have come up with real answers to your own questions.

Here they are for you, Rick:

Quote

What other groups and/or organizations would you point people to as viable alternatives to the JCs?

Quote

Is there another group that exists today that you think is spiritually equal and therefor a viable and equal alternative to the JCs?

And now let me re-phrase the other questions so that you can answer them honestly:

Quote

Do you think any of the criticism about you, the Rick Ross institute, or Graham Baldwin is warranted?

Quote

What do you think either you, your organization or Graham Baldwin has done wrong?

Quote

How could the Rick Ross Institute be improved?

I will be very happy to answer all of your questions if you answer them first. But I think you will just skirt around the issues, because you know the questions are loaded and you are not really interested in an answer that will convince you we are just reasonable people and not a danger to society. You are only interested in an answer that will prove your point. Am I wrong in saying this? (...probably another question you won't answer.)

Fran:

Attempting to avoid answering simple questions, by responding with questions is an evasion.

Many groups called "cults" use this same strategy, when they don't want to answer questions.

The questions are not "loaded" but rather easy to answer, why are these questions so difficult for you?

Hi Rick,

Just a tip that I have picked up from some other anti-cult sites. They spend a little bit of time just kind of being friendly and even saying a few positive things to people before they sneak in their "Tell me something bad" demands. It seems like "Tell me something bad" is almost the only thing you know how to say, and you so obviously and so consistently take that approach with anyone who says anything in defense of any group you dislike, that it doesn't take much effort on our part to see through it.

Personally, Fran, I think you are wasting your time even making such an offer to Rick. I agree that he is never going to practice what he preaches (i.e. by publicly declaring what is wrong with himself, his site, Graham Baldwin, or anyone else of his ilk, even though it is what he demands of everyone else before he will supposedly give them any credence). And when it is pointed out, he just does like he has done here and says, "I asked you first."

Anyway, Rick, I think if you had tried the more subtle approach that I suggested above, you probably would have been able to get a little more dirt out of people defending us. Hopefully not from many of them, but probably from more than you have reached through the blunt approach.