I realised that I did not address the point Dave raised about the nasty people who "condemn the Jesus Christians for a mock trial in which we inflicted pain on ourselves as a demonstration of our love."


The doublethink that expresses itself in Dave using Bonhoeffer logic to challenge Gandhian pacifism and vice versa, is also apparent in the JC trial and whippings. This trial followed a similar one in Kenya where the community tried a servant they accused of stealing from them and had him whipped for his crime, and was intended to dish out punitive justice upon those who had assaulted a JC member, but the perpetrators refused to submit to JC's vigilante justice and so they vented their desire to return violence for violence by administering it to each other. The claim that it was meant to bring a sense of closure and allow the JC's to forgive their abusers and move on, is countered by Cherry's claim on the JK show that it was necessary to stage this trial to embarrass the authorities into laying charges so they could then proceed in suing the family for damages. It sounds like there are a whole lot of mixed up agendas involved here which may be why the rest of the world fails to associate this with the selfless sacrifice of Christ's crucifixion.

"The serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood, after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth." (Rev. 12:15-16)

Dave is getting all apocalyptic on us now stating that our criticism of his actions represent the flood coming from the serpents mouth. Sheesh. You attribute far to much power to us Dave. Are you going to run away now for a couple of years to hide? Is that where you are leading your group members?

However, if you are into making up interpretations of this passage to suit your own bias, and seeing that you are unable to answer Josh as to what the earth opening her mouth means, I will play the same game. Let me see... I will stick with the water being words, except that I will make them your continual lies, slander, and false accusations against ex members. It is biasing me, such is the nature of perspectives. I have an example of what "the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the flood" means, and it fits what I want it to fit. The earth represents everybody who is not in your group, and who can think rationally, who have provided assistance and support to ex-members as they flee into the barren wilderness of outcastes seeking to escape your incessant attacks. Swallowing the flood means that they can see through your lies, slander, and false accusations, and disagree with what you say; standing by our side against such attacks. It is so good to have the earth help us in this way, and I for one am grateful that the people in the world are not as the Jesus Christians teach... i.e. under the control of the "serpent".


That was fun. Got any more?

I think that's a worthy interpretation, Apostate.

Dave wrote:

"Actually, Jesse, the laws of the land DO outlaw slander (i.e. gossip which is hurtful to a person's reputation, which is almost always the case with real gossip). The problem is that there is almost a universal conspiracy against anyone being caught gossiping. It is the real reason behind the staunch loyalty that everyone seems to feel toward gossips: i.e. If I don't tell on them, they won't tell on me.


"It is virtually impossible to get most people to even question that loyalty, much less the justifications for gossip in the first place. And because we are all curious, most of us can't resist listening when the gossip starts, especially knowing that if we protest we will be hated by everyone except the person who is the butt of the gossip. But it won't change until people are willing to confront that evil habit."


Hear that guys! Who has the guts to oppose that evil in the Jesus Christians? Its almost impossible to get you guys to question your loyalty to justify Dave doing exactly the same thing he accuses everyone else of doing. Would someone like to testify how Dave said things which were hurtful to a person's reputation, how he enlists support against people with private emails/discussions to ensure they understand the background, and to see if he can get them to participate in joining him in perpetrating more slander against individuals.


"But to restate my original point, the laws of the land just call gossip slander and they outlaw it. Even in a court of law, only under the most extreme circumstances is it possible to anonymously testify against another person, and then only with meticulous examination of the evidence to support such testimony. However, amongst Quakers, for example, the whole meeting will feel no shame at all about asking someone to leave the room so they can gossip about them, which is what they do whenever someone applies for membership! (Admittedly, most of the time they say nothing bad at all; but the tradition exists so that they will be free to slander in the event that anyone feels so inclined."


How is that any different to leaders meetings in the Jesus Christians and one-on-one discussions when Dave will take people aside to discuss how someone else is going and to share his concerns about them? And what about the use of code words like "selah" to stop each other from leaking out sensitive information to the public? You guys are not any more open with the Quakers then what you accuse them of being with you. Can't you guys see that you project your own failings on to everyone else?

Dave is "shocked" by Casey having a confused vision on the idea of working for love. Perhaps he's trying to mirror Dave's pacifist stance? But its funny that Dave has to correct his loyal lap dog by referring to the time "when "we" were cleaning out the sewer in Chennai". Dave is actually referring to a whole crew of people he expelled. While ex members have been warning the current JC's that Dave does not respect them any more than he did those who faithfully shovelled shit in India, here is some evidence to suggest that perhaps Dave respects those he booted out more! It seems the new generation JC has 'lost the vision' and are just playing 'follow the leader'.

How does that saying go? Oh yeah... "without a vision, the people PARISH".

I think you've 'hit the nail on the head'. From my understanding, there was definitely a 'golden age' for the JCs when current ex-members were involved in many 'good' works, such as, cleaning the sewers and setting up small medical facilities in India.

I wonder now if the extent of JC's 'good' works is being hunched over computer screens reading and responding to each other?!

Quote
Blackhat


David spends his every waking hour looking on the RR forum, replying to detractors and analysing their postings "line by line". He does not seem to do anything else much, apart from shuffling up to McDonalds for the free papers (not to support the multi-EvilCorp, mind you!) and going on the regular four-times-a-year overseas flights he seems to be able to afford on nothing. He then slouches back towards his septic soup, and dwells upon the evil of others, particularly his detractors in a stupendous battle of ossified ego-justification. Such is the fate of the Cult Leader!

This man does not bring to anyone new words of inspiration! All he brings is a septic sore, a compulsive need to justify his past, and a retributive attitude to all those he has wronged in the past.

He has nothing to look forward in his life, so all he can spend his time doing is responding to the postings of those he has damaged in the past. It is a feedback-loop he is addicted to!

This is a man in decay and denial, a man who spends his every waking hour responding to "detractors" and accusing them of hating Jesus. What a negative existance!

His missives are pathetic, with nothing of inspired hope. Nothing but ego-defending pseudo-analysis; a pathetic creature holed up in a cell with an internet connection and a daily shuffle to McDonalds to read the free papers.

Yes Jack, you are right. I said it already........

Quoting Fran:

I have been wondering whether part of the problem is that we tend to focus on the here and now. We tend to think that human life is really really important. Sometimes people act as if this life is all there is and that it must be protected at all costs. Our faith in God and in something eternal should help us to realise that there is more to life than life itself. The way I see it is that we all die, whether from violence or 'natural causes'. It seems silly to hold on so strongly to something that we cannot keep.

I have to remind myself that in the end both the victim AND the killer die and face God. Even if we were to let a crazed killer kill every last human being on the earth, would that mean that evil had won? The killer would also die eventually and would have to answer to God. And God could just resurrect the rest of us later.

When I think about that, I am more inclined to take the pacifist approach to such moral dilemmas. Perhaps on the earth people will consider it foolish and indifferent. But what will really count will be what God thinks. Was I sincerely trying to follow him by being non-violent till the end? Would God punish me for having followed my understanding of what Jesus was trying to communicate through his teachings and lifestyle?

As I have said before, in such situations, we each need to follow our conscience. I feel that I cannot make an absolute judgement on someone for acting with violence, particularly when it is a situation on the 'better' side of the mental scale i gave above. I feel a responsibility to do all I can to live up to what I truly believe to be right, even if it seems foolish to others and even to my own 'human' reasoning.
SOURCE: [welikejesus.com]

Fran begun the above post with "This post is probably going to be quite controversial... ". A comment which is ALL revealing about how he considers things are going in the JC's. I have to agree with you Fran. It is quite controversial within the JC's for you to make such a post, especially after Dave has gone to great lengths to shoot me down everytime I challenge his "It's OK to kill out of love" reasoning while still considering himself as following a cheek turning saviour.

It is telling that you having such thoughts, i.e. taking Jesus seriously on turning the other cheek, has become a source of controversy within your group. Do you think it would be a source of controversy for you to make such pacifist statements on Quaker, Amish, Anabaptist, Gandhian, forums? Somehow I think not. Maybe the fact that you feel a need to acknowledge something as being controversial regarding pacifism within a group professing to be following Jesus could give you some insight as to why the Quakers have said that Jesus Christian teachings and practices are incompatable with a Quaker way of life.

From what I have seen and heard, and now see you struggling with, the Quakers have spoken that which is true. Food for thought Fran.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2008 04:40AM by apostate.

Roland on violence:

In trying to understand what Christ said about loving our enemies, I do see that there are acceptable allowances for a certain degree of force. Jesus walked through the midst of an angry crowd that were about to throw him off a cliff. I don't think that he just glided through them without them knowing what was going on. He must have been rather sneaky and a little assertive. Perhaps he created a distraction and got a little physical.

Yeah, and perhaps feeding the multitude was a publicity stunt for a catering business Jesus was running on the side! ... And these guys condemn "churchies" for looking for wriggle room in applying Christ's teachings.

Dave threatening the Quakers:

Cherry and I have never attempted to say that we were anything more than what we are... Quakers who are also members of the Jesus Christians. The Jesus Christians as a community have never attempted to impersonate Quakers. But I see no reason why we would not be entitled to START calling ourselves Quakers (new Quakers, real Quakers, practicing Quakers, or just Quakers... whatever), not based on a piece of paper, but based on what it is that we really believe. Imagine if we were to do that! It would then be the task of those people opposing us to tell the world that we are NOT Quakers, or at least not the kind of Quakers that they are. People would want us each to give a description of what it is that true Quakers stand for. What a wonderful opportunity that would be for each of us to share our faith and practice!


While Dave is at it he might as well add the names of all the other groups he joined and left or was expelled from believing himself and his community the REAL incarnation of. This new name might need a few hyphens; The Assemblies of the Children of God Uniting the Church of Christ with Holy Catholic Baptist Quakers, and that is leaving out the numerous little communities he tried moving in on like Cornerstone, The Yeshuans, The 12 tribe community and more, so perhaps Dave should just name himself and those who put up with him, "We-are-right-and-everyone-else-is wrong community". THAT would give him a wonderful opportunity for them all to share their superiority to the world.

We have just started distributing a novel in Sydney which tells the story of a Jewish Quaker whom God uses in the last days, to bring together people of many religious beliefs. It gives the public insights into many Quaker concepts (silent worship, clearness meetings, Yearly Meeting, spoken ministry, etc.) We have printed 200,000 copies of this book. Perhaps we could stamp on the inside back cover an invitation to the Devonshire Street Quaker meeting, where readers could see for themselves how Quaker worship services are conducted, and where they could meet the author! Hopefully we would not have to explain to them that many of the people they would see at the meeting at Devonshire Street do not practice the ideals that Quakers have preached for hundreds of years. But if my guess is correct, we would not have to do that, because "Friends" themselves would be the ones feeling obliged to tell visitors that they find US incompatible. And then they would have to explain why and how we are incompatible.

Who CAN Dave get along with?

I was also thinking back to the balcony daydream that suddenly caused Dave to revise his life-long position on pacifism in which he visualised shooting a religious rioter, and his claim that it was just a "hypothetical" unlikely to result in any real action.

I recall a couple other 'hypotheticals' that were discussed at that time. One was whether castration could be seen as a practical application of cutting off your hand if it offends you (Mtt 5:30), and the other was making live kidney donations - yes, shock horror, this was back in 1991, some 10 years before his story about being startled by the idea that people could actually do this while watching an airline movie. What we have seen since was a call (soon after the Split in 1998) for men to consider vasectomies as a sign of their commitment to the Virgin Army "vision" and most of the community donating kidneys.

I don't believe anyone has been shot, but we have seen a rationalisation toward force and pain as a necessary responsibility and alternative to the penal system, resulting in the community whipping a servant who they believe stole from them in Kenya and passing sentence on the family members of a JC member asking them to surrender to a whipping which they then administered to each other instead, which according to Cherry was necessary to embarrass legal authorities into pressing charges for an assault they committed against another community members, so they could sue for damages.

So, when Dave starts talking "hypotheticals" there is always a possibility that strange practice will follow bizarre rhetoric

Quoting Dave on Jesus teachings:

"It does seem that through our discussions we are coming to see that Jesus himself did not legalistically follow all of his teachings (e.g. refusing to give bread to the people who asked for more, and pushing through the crowd when they tried to kill him). It seems to me like we need to START with a kind of legalistic approach (or we will just rationalise away everything that he said), but that once we are quite literally prepared to do what he said, then he comes along (at some point... eventually) with clarification on how it doesn't have to be adhered to all the time. This subsequent revelation kind of becomes the personal property of those who were willing to take him literally to begin with, so that we do not have to justify ourselves to every Tom, Dick, and Mary that comes along telling us, for example, that we have to give to them whatever they ask for from us."

Hey Dave, it seems you are drawing closer to what you accuse me of... i.e. "Apostasy". Don't you just get a kick out of the whole projection thing? I know I do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2008 08:06AM by apostate.