Re: personal responsibility -- 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: 4/04/10 4:36:50pm
Author: anon
Subject: Re: personal responsibility
In reply to: Peter Eveleigh 's message, "personal responsibility" on 4/04/10 4:21:15pm

Actually the constitution states that only when the Jesus Fellowship community trust is dissolved will its' current members recieve an equal division of monies and assets. If you chose to cease to become a member of the trust, you forfeit your cut.

I knew that when I became a member and accepted it when I left. I wouldn't sign up for a mortgage and then complain that I had to pay interest on the loan!!! and if I didn't keep up the mortgage repayments, would it be unfair of the financier to repossess their property?

>>Why? they knew the deal when they got into it - don't
>>see why the JA should give them anything. Presumably
>>you are suggesting that the gambling industry and the
>>brewing industry should subsidise their recovering
>>addicts as well?
>
>Good point. Except that the constitution officially
>says that all the members are shareholders in the
>community, so technically leavers should be entitled
>to their fair share, especially as, like business
>shareholdres generally, they contributed to the
>community's wealth and development.
>
>
>>People joined the JA for a variety of reasons, some
>>because they felt that was what their God wanted, some
>>wanted a crutch, others just couldn't cope with real
>>life anymore! Whatever you say about the JA, they
>>never pinned anybody down and forced them to join -
>>all these folk went into the thing with their eyes
>>open only with varied motivations.
>>
>
>I agree with this. I have always disagreed with
>suggestions that we were brainwashed. If anyone
>indoctrinated me, it was me.....I would argue with
>myself until I believed what the JA believed rather
>than what I started out believing, because it upset me
>not being accepted for my own beliefs.

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

Replies:

Re: personal responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/04/10 4:45:39pm
- Re: personal responsibility -- anon, 4/04/10 4:49:24pm
  - Re: personal responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/04/10 5:01:16pm
    - Re: personal responsibility -- anon, 4/04/10 5:29:33pm
- Re: personal responsibility -- Name Change, 4/04/10 4:56:53pm
  - Re: personal responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/04/10 5:08:41pm
  - Re: personal responsibility -- anon, 4/04/10 5:20:16pm
    - Re: personal responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/04/10 5:30:52pm
      - Re: personal responsibility -- anon, 4/04/10 5:44:20pm
        Re: personal responsibility -- Name Change, 4/04/10 6:03:24pm
        Re: personal responsibility -- anon, 4/04/10 6:41:35pm
        fears of Labour taking children away -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/04/10 8:27:16pm
        Re: fears of Labour taking children away -- anon, 5/04/10 7:28:59am
        Did the JA make self-defense more of a priority than the defense of children? -- Peter Eveleigh, 6/04/10 11:56:08am
        Tom, what do you think (don't let mine be the only voice)? -- Peter Eveleigh, 6/04/10 3:06:27pm
        Re: Tom, what do you think (don't let mine be the only voice)? -- anon, 6/04/10 3:37:01pm
        what about the kids? -- Peter Eveleigh, 6/04/10 3:57:05pm
        Re: what about the kids? -- Peter Eveleigh, 6/04/10 4:02:11pm
        Re: what about the kids? -- peaches/nelly, 6/04/10 6:19:46pm
        Re: what about the kids? -- anon, 6/04/10 6:35:49pm
        Re: personal responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/04/10 6:16:45pm
        Re: personal responsibility -- Barbara, 13/04/10 10:42:43pm
        Re: Location of buttocks -- anon, 14/04/10 4:31:34pm
        Re: Location of buttocks -- Peter Eveleigh, 14/04/10 9:25:10pm
        Re: Location of buttocks -- nelly/peaches, 14/04/10 9:40:18pm
        Re: Location of buttocks -- anon, 14/04/10 9:41:07pm
        it is all opinion -- Peter Eveleigh, 15/04/10 12:52:24pm
        Re: it is all opinion -- anon, 15/04/10 2:29:53pm
        Re: it is all opinion -- Peter Eveleigh, 15/04/10 4:19:21pm
        Re: it is all opinion -- anon, 15/04/10 4:30:31pm
        being up above -- Peter Eveleigh, 15/04/10 7:33:38pm
        Re: being up above -- anon, 15/04/10 8:24:59pm
        Re: being up above -- Peter Eveleigh, 16/04/10 7:12:10pm
        Re: being up above -- anon, 16/04/10 9:20:09pm
        Re: being up above -- nellypeaches, 16/04/10 9:22:33pm
        Re: being up above -- Peter Eveleigh, 23/04/10 5:07:53pm
        Re: Location of buttocks -- barry m, 21/04/10 12:30:58am
        Re: Location of buttocks -- Barbara, 21/04/10 10:09:42am
        Re: personal responsibility -- barry m, 21/04/10 12:28:35am
        Re: personal responsibility -- Barbara, 21/04/10 9:59:20am
        Beatings with sticks -- Barbara, 21/04/10 10:02:53am
        Re: personal responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 23/04/10 5:18:19pm
        Choice between the JA and Jesus -- Barbara, 25/04/10 11:26:36pm
        Re: Choice between the JA and Jesus -- anon, 28/04/10 6:47:07am
        true JA -- Peter Eveleigh, 30/04/10 5:10:25pm
        Re: true JA -- anon, 30/04/10 5:20:53pm
        Re: personal responsibility -- anon, 28/04/10 2:51:17am
        MY NAME IS BARBARA, AS I HAVE ALREADY REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU -- Barbara, 28/04/10 4:48:16pm
        proportion -- Peter Eveleigh, 30/04/10 5:16:55pm
        Re: proportion -- anon, 30/04/10 5:28:56pm
        Re: proportion -- nellyp, 30/04/10 8:49:33pm
        The real problem -- Barbara, 30/04/10 11:15:36pm
        Re: The real problem -- Peter Eveleigh, 4/05/10 7:23:01pm
        Re: The real problem -- Barbara, 10/05/10 2:06:54pm
        Re: The real problem -- Peter Eveleigh, 10/05/10 7:28:16pm

[ 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:
>Actually the constitution states that only when the >Jesus Fellowship community trust is dissolved will >its' current members recieve an equal division of >monies and assets. If you chose to cease to become a >member of the trust, you forfeit your cut. > >I knew that when I became a member and accepted it >when I left. I wouldn't sign up for a mortgage and >then complain that I had to pay interest on the >loan!!! and if I didn't keep up the mortgage >repayments, would it be unfair of the financier to >repossess their property? > >>>Why? they knew the deal when they got into it - don't >>>see why the JA should give them anything. Presumably >>>you are suggesting that the gambling industry and the >>>brewing industry should subsidise their recovering >>>addicts as well? >> >>Good point. Except that the constitution officially >>says that all the members are shareholders in the >>community, so technically leavers should be entitled >>to their fair share, especially as, like business >>shareholdres generally, they contributed to the >>community's wealth and development. >> >> >>>People joined the JA for a variety of reasons, some >>>because they felt that was what their God wanted, >some >>>wanted a crutch, others just couldn't cope with real >>>life anymore! Whatever you say about the JA, they >>>never pinned anybody down and forced them to join - >>>all these folk went into the thing with their eyes >>>open only with varied motivations. >>> >> >>I agree with this. I have always disagreed with >>suggestions that we were brainwashed. If anyone >>indoctrinated me, it was me.....I would argue with >>myself until I believed what the JA believed rather >>than what I started out believing, because it upset me >>not being accepted for my own beliefs.
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.