Hahaha! Good one!

Quote
apostate

Jeremy wrote:
"Glenn and Al-- can you please refrain from insulting others... Sure, be honest with that person. But there is a difference between sharing honestly and unnecessarily hurting someone with offensive comments that are DESIGNED to hurt. Can you see what I'm saying?"

Glenn and Al are bottom of the JC totem and are fair game for correction, but Jeremy wrote this immediately after Elyas wrote: "He (Chris) clearly has no idea what he is talking about... Chris couldn't debate himself out of a wet paper bag...." And one does not know where to begin or end when quoting Dave's offensive comments designed to hurt, that have nothing to do with truth. Does anyone dare pull Dave up on the same issue?

So Elyas thinks I can't debate myself out of a wet paper bag? I guess he is entitled to his opinion. I just happen to understand the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. It is the heterodoxy I see on the JC site that bothers me. I am uncertain that the situation will change anytime soon.

One thing I am seeing is that I have become unwelcome by JCs. I guess educated individuals are viewed as a threat, especially those who've studied theology. I suppose that I should have known I would become unwelcome by the JC community, and particularly Dave and Lisa, before long. Education and wisdom seem to go hand in hand and I do not see that as acceptable. In a way, it is really sad to think that I am actually better educated and even more open minded than some of the JC community.

If asked where I see the JC community in another ten years, I would suggest that they will probably have dissolved and been absorbed into the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Whether or not, my continued adherence to what I consider to be the (theoretically at least) founding principles of the JesusChristians, taken in conjunction with my virtual non-observance of many of the strictures of "establishment" Christianity, as is the on-going case with several other former members of, would somehow imply that I then must be consdiered orthodoxically "heterdox", (in contrast to being simply heterdoxically "orthodox"), may be a moot point, but in any regard, I do think it a marked improvement upon any more banal association with the twisted theology of "he-who-sucks".....

...however be that as it is, and moving right along....

You've in some sense now "met" a lot of the personalities involved in the JesusChristians, Blacksheep. I remind you of the words of Coolhermit some pages ago, to wit:

"The JC's are regarded as a cult because of their association with Dave,
Please, please, please- can't some of you just write a new book and start again. You'd have more support than you can possibly imagine. ' Lo- with God, all things are possible.'"

I agree wholeheartedly. Ditch the dodgy geezer and spread your message of freedom from the strangulation of the system.


What credibility would you give to the idea, Blacksheep, that the JesusChristians could one day soldier on (David less at some point in time) in perhaps what might be a considerable improvement on the present scriptural disobediance to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount (Peace-seekers, Lovers of Righteousness, etc). Is the theology just corrupt to the core...or is it only David who is corrupt to the core?

Dave wrote:
Someone (I think it was Craig) listed a lot of things that he felt proved that our understanding of prophecy is vital to our faith. It was fairly impressive. But decisions to stay single, not renew passports, warn America, etc. are still pretty minor in the eternal scheme of things... something like buying a car, moving house, getting a job, or getting married are by comparison to gaining or losing one's soul. I can be wrong in any one of those things and it really and truly is no big deal.

Actually, I countered Dave's claim “Bible prophecy is NOT of huge significance within the Jesus Christians, far from it..." and I think I proved it is a hugely significant factor in the daily lives of those who refuse to get married, have children, get a passport, and who spent their working years flogging Dave's books all on the basis of Dave's teachings on Bible prophecy . So Dave thinks its "no big deal" if he's wrong... I guess their lives are a sacrifice he's willing to make, for something that is NOT of huge significance to Dave!

Newsflash, YOUR SOUL IS NOT LINKED TO OBEYING DAVE IN THINGS HE FEELS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT ANYWAY.

Although, when I look at something Kim wrote It seems its not that significant to Dave's followers if they are fed lies anyway.

Kim wrote:
"We are all liars in the sight of God, Franky. So, calling Dave a liar is making what point?"

Should we refer to you all as People of the Lie?

She does seem to feel a blanket accusation requires more specific detail...

"Although I do need to ask, what is Dave lying about?"

Perhaps you should ask clarification from Dave for the same general accusation made against me, Kim!

Dave wrote:
"Craig needs to put his time into writing that book he was going to write... (as opposed to the lies that he can get away with writing under a pseudonym)

Kim ended up concluding that Franky was a liar because she did not table her evidence to prove David Lowe is not Private Eyes. Dave admits that my evidence is "fairly impressive" (see above), so if Dave won't even articulate where he feels I lied... but then I guess you already know that don't you Kim...!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2008 03:55PM by apostate.

Since, to my surprise, I have been quoted on this page I ought to re-iterate that I have tremendous respect for the attitudes of the JCs - I thought the couple on "Wife Swap" were right-on in many aspects. And I would certainly lend support to any who wanted to leave but could not summon the courage. Dave excepted as he's making his bed and will have to lie in it.

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
Whether or not, my continued adherence to what I consider to be the (theoretically at least) founding principles of the JesusChristians, taken in conjunction with my virtual non-observance of many of the strictures of "establishment" Christianity, as is the on-going case with several other former members of, would somehow imply that I then must be consdiered orthodoxically "heterdox", (in contrast to being simply heterdoxically "orthodox"), may be a moot point, but in any regard, I do think it a marked improvement upon any more banal association with the twisted theology of "he-who-sucks".....

heterodoxally orthodox vs orthodoxically heterodox. Talk about double speak. Any reasonable individual with any linguistic talent would rightly see through this. The two terms are identical in meaning. In fact, this is a confession of willfully being heterodox. What is sad is that most groups that subscribe to a heterodoxal position ultimately use the allegorical method of hermaneutics when interpreting scripture, when they look at scripture. Worse still is that when they do this with scripture, they will try to make it look like a literal interpretation, never mind what the original language or the context of the passage may indicate. As for the "he-who-sucks", I suppose that is a direct jab at me and my education. Let it be. I already said that I should have realized that because of my education that I would not be welcome on the JC forum for long.

Quote
apostate
"If you become a pastor you are making it your responsibility to care for your congregation. Just quickly winning an argument by bluff will stop all the heretical questions from coming to your attention, but they won't stop the questions from being in peoples minds. You will also drive people from your church. Some may find another church home, some may give up and say what's the use. Based on statistics it'll probably be the latter."

How judgmental can one get? If a heretical question comes my way, I am more than willing to examine it in the light of scripture to discern the truth. Not a problem. Most people that leave the church are those who don't like to think in terms of sin and repentence, so that doesn't bother me either. It should otherwise be a rare occasion for somebody to leave. When it does happen, it is generally because of a geographical move. However, as was my own personal case, sometimes people do leave because of doctrinal issues, especially when they think something is not supported by scripture. I left the baptist/non-denominational churches because I didn't believe some of thier eschatology. In like manner I left the ELCA because of my failure to find scriptural validation for some the practices I was seeing.

If I become a pastor, it is because I was called by the congregation to be the pastor. In that regards, I am accountable to the congregation. If I become a pastor, I am expected to teach what scripture says with practical application and to be faithful to the Lutheran confessions insofar as they do not conflict with scripture. If the confessions and scripture are in conflict, I must take the words of scripture as final. Otherwise, I am not worthy to be a pastor. However, I not worthy as it is.

Quote
Coolhermit
Since, to my surprise, I have been quoted on this page I ought to re-iterate that I have tremendous respect for the attitudes of the JCs - I thought the couple on "Wife Swap" were right-on in many aspects. And I would certainly lend support to any who wanted to leave but could not summon the courage. Dave excepted as he's making his bed and will have to lie in it.

Hey Coolhermit!
Nice to see you again. Freeganism is something I have complete respect for. At one stage I lived in a community of Freegans that recycled bicycles, made compost and even ran a ' restaurant' that fed up to forty people- including many homeless people on skipped food! I saw drug addicts cared for and ' rehabiliated'- and all of this was done freely. I feel very honoured to have been a part of it.
The difference between that community and the JC's- is that it was a ' spiritual' community instead of a ' religious' one.
Roland and Sue- that you saw on ' Wifeswap'- have been involved in two cases of ' kidnapping' - both involving underage boys. I once sat with Sue where she told me how one of their community members had sexually molested a young boy- the JC's response was to eject him from the community. The man in question was free to molest again- the only issue they had was that he shouldn't be associated with the JC's. Sue's defence seemed to be that the man' was slow'- though I don't doubt that she was telling the truth- it never occured to her as a Christian to get him some help- so that he couldn't do it again.
Appearances are foremost to the JC's.
What the JC's lack- and it makes them extremely dangerous- is any emotional understanding of situations. They have put themselves in a repressive environment- where they have extremely rigid boundaries- and because they are taught to deny their own emotions- after a while- can no longer recognise the emotional needs and rights of others.
For example- in ' Wifeswap' we have Sue trying to force a little girl to eat a mushy bowl of cereal. A little girl who would have been missing her Mum terribly. Someone with a healthy understanding of relationships and emotions would have dealt with this situation in a completely different way. Sue was there to promote Freeganism- not to bully little girls.
What would have endeared her more to the family and all those watching- would've been if she had of eaten the cereal herself and asked the little girl to hold her hand- as everyone knows- mushy cereal - if you're a little girl- is horrible. There are so many situations that could've been avoided if the JC's showed a bit of compassion and understanding instead of rigid groupthink.



Anyhow Coolhermit- hope you stick around. You seem really cool! :)

When I met Sue- her emotional needs weren't being met by her husband. She stuck in the relationship without any knowledge of how to even recognise her own needs- let alone voice them. She instead thrived on the affection and approval she received from Alf. As the Jc's have such a repressive environment - she recieved this as compliments for the dinner she provided- etc. As far as I'm concerned- Sue, Roland and Alf- can have a dysfunctional relationship if they wish- but they should really try and unselfishly put the needs of Danny first.

I was really shocked by what I saw go on in the JC's- and how unaware they were of their own behaviour.

Quote
apostate
Dave wrote:
Someone (I think it was Craig) listed a lot of things that he felt proved that our understanding of prophecy is vital to our faith. It was fairly impressive. But decisions to stay single, not renew passports, warn America, etc. are still pretty minor in the eternal scheme of things... something like buying a car, moving house, getting a job, or getting married are by comparison to gaining or losing one's soul. I can be wrong in any one of those things and it really and truly is no big deal.

Actually, I countered Dave's claim “Bible prophecy is NOT of huge significance within the Jesus Christians, far from it..." and I think I proved it is a hugely significant factor in the daily lives of those who refuse to get married, have children, get a passport, and who spent their working years flogging Dave's books all on the basis of Dave's teachings on Bible prophecy . So Dave thinks its "no big deal" if he's wrong... I guess their lives are a sacrifice he's willing to make, for something that is NOT of huge significance to Dave!

Newsflash, YOUR SOUL IS NOT LINKED TO OBEYING DAVE IN THINGS HE FEELS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT ANYWAY.

Although, when I look at something Kim wrote It seems its not that significant to Dave's followers if they are fed lies anyway.

Kim wrote:
"We are all liars in the sight of God, Franky. So, calling Dave a liar is making what point?"

Should we refer to you all as People of the Lie?

She does seem to feel a blanket accusation requires more specific detail...

"Although I do need to ask, what is Dave lying about?"

Perhaps you should ask clarification from Dave for the same general accusation made against me, Kim!

Dave wrote:
"Craig needs to put his time into writing that book he was going to write... (as opposed to the lies that he can get away with writing under a pseudonym)

Kim ended up concluding that Franky was a liar because she did not table her evidence to prove David Lowe is not Private Eyes. Dave admits that my evidence is "fairly impressive" (see above), so if Dave won't even articulate where he feels I lied... but then I guess you already know that don't you Kim...!

Poor Kim.
Kim- if you really wanted to know me- the JC's have my number. You can come round and I'LL SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE. Whatever I post, Dave could just say I created. ( He's tried that tactic in the past.)
The thing about the JC's- they say they're willing to be shown other ways- lol! If you even offer to show them- they'll run a mile.
Keep running from the truth Kim. When you run out of breath- come look me up.
If you want to see just some of the lies dave has told - just about me- flip back a couple of pages on this forum. I've listed my ' favourite'. There are lots of others though. Or do you genuinely believe Kirstie has multiple personality disorder?
Nah- thought not! LOL
You know Kim- if you want to know the truth- come and see me. I'm always - ALWAYS- accountable to meet people in person.
I'm sorry your marriage hasn't been all you thought it would. Don't take it out on me though.

Quote
blacksheep
Most people that leave the church are those who don't like to think in terms of sin and repentence, so that doesn't bother me either. It should otherwise be a rare occasion for somebody to leave.

As a pastor it shouldn't be ok with you if anyone leaves the church. Lutherans aren't really a "you can find God in your sweats watching NASCAR on sunday morning" type of church. And if you haven't known many people to leave a church because of personality conflicts with their pastor then you either have known alot more level headed people than I have or have known alot more pliable pastors.

[quote="blacksheep"If I become a pastor, it is because I was called by the congregation to be the pastor. In that regards, I am accountable to the congregation.[/quote]

You're right, that's what I said too. I want you to be a good pastor for your sake and for the sake of your congregants. You will have people come up to you and be fairly firm in a belief that you think is heretical. I want you to handle that situation well because handling it poorly will damage that persons faith.

I thought your disagreement about the trinity would be a good opporunity for you to practice talking through your position. At the least it would make you more familiar with arguments from the otherside and how to best answer them. If you're practicing this somewhere else then good, but it appeared to me that when confronted with what you see as heresies on the JC board you got pretty upset and started throwing out theological jargon that would, I think, alienate most people coming to you for guidance.

Quote
blacksheep
If a heretical question comes my way, I am more than willing to examine it in the light of scripture to discern the truth. Not a problem.

Then come and discuss the heresy you see about the various beliefs regarding the trinity on the JC board with me.

Gee Josh, does your generous offer extend to me as well?