Re: relevance? -- Jesus Army Watch Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 25/06/10 5:15:27pm
Author: Peter Eveleigh
Subject: Re: relevance?
In reply to: Luke 's message, "Re: relevance?" on 25/06/10 4:55:44pm

If you pity them, Luke, you missed the point of community and the call to a simple way of life. There is little point in pitying people who don't pity themselves.

They had little because they chose to have little.

Turn-over is misleading....it is no real indicator of anything. The only relevant figures are profit and capital. Being a wealthy community does not mean sharing the wealth as a community but being able to share the church's message more broadly.

I have said this before, but I see little merit in attacking aspects of the church which are part of its more laudable ethos. In itself, the simple life is not a bad thing. What we should focus on is the abuses of power.

I disagree with your suggestion the devil is behind the JA and was behind the prophesy that started it all off (over-looking the fact that I don't believe).

I believe that people always had good intentions at the start and that good intentions keep it going to this day.

As regards the relevance of the TV programme, "spiritual abuse" is a term largely coined by Barbara to get herself out of a hot corner a year or two ago when she got caught trying to say that she was a sexual abuse survivor who had been abused in the JA.

She admitted she had not been sexually abused in the JA...and tried wriggling out by claiming she had meant "spiritual abuse" all along. There is no such thing.....not if you sit down and think it through rationally. Use of the term is deliberately misleading.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Ooooo, you are SUCH a fibber! -- Barbara, 25/06/10 6:12:29pm
- Luke is really Barbie!!! -- the artist formerly known as anon, 25/06/10 6:31:04pm
  - Re: Luke is really Barbie!!! -- Anon, 25/06/10 9:09:40pm

[ Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>If you pity them, Luke, you missed the point of >community and the call to a simple way of life. There >is little point in pitying people who don't pity >themselves. > >They had little because they chose to have little. > >Turn-over is misleading....it is no real indicator of >anything. The only relevant figures are profit and >capital. Being a wealthy community does not mean >sharing the wealth as a community but being able to >share the church's message more broadly. > >I have said this before, but I see little merit in >attacking aspects of the church which are part of its >more laudable ethos. In itself, the simple life is not >a bad thing. What we should focus on is the abuses of >power. > >I disagree with your suggestion the devil is behind >the JA and was behind the prophesy that started it all >off (over-looking the fact that I don't believe). > >I believe that people always had good intentions at >the start and that good intentions keep it going to >this day. > >As regards the relevance of the TV programme, >"spiritual abuse" is a term largely coined by Barbara >to get herself out of a hot corner a year or two ago >when she got caught trying to say that she was a >sexual abuse survivor who had been abused in the JA. > >She admitted she had not been sexually abused in the >JA...and tried wriggling out by claiming she had meant >"spiritual abuse" all along. There is no such >thing.....not if you sit down and think it through >rationally. Use of the term is deliberately misleading.
Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.