Re: 2000 apologise? -- 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: 26/11/09 8:37:55pm
Author: nelly
Subject: Re: 2000 apologise?
In reply to: Peter Eveleigh 's message, "2000 apologise?" on 26/11/09 7:28:45pm

Sarah - what kind of accusation are you making towards Peter - that he wanted to marry someone who was old enough to marry and make their own mind up.... but what you are really implying is something more sinister. You have no right to do that and should really shut up. Out here in grown up land we disagree with one another without having to resort to stuff like that.

>You are a
>>joke if you want the whole 2000 strong church to
>>apologize to you!!
>
>No, I think what we want is for the representatives of
>the church to stop blaming abusive behaviour on
>"individuals" from whom the church tries to distance
>itself, even when the individuals have been, in the
>main, elders acting in line with church policy....and
>to own responsibility for the fact that over several
>decades the enacting of JA policy has hurt many people.
>
>The JA says "mistakes were made" but nobody can ever,
>EVER give you an example.....mainly because it is a
>meaningless mantra.
>
>What mistakes will you admit to the church having
>made, specifically.
>
>(incidentally, interesting to see that you didn't have
>time for the JA dialogue because you were neglecting
>kingdom motherhood but you have time to come in here
>on a regular basis. You have time to defend the JA,
>but no time to help heal it)

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

Replies:

insinuations - the JA way -- Peter Eveleigh, 26/11/09 9:20:50pm
- Re: insinuations - the JA way -- Same Old Story, 27/11/09 7:58:57am
  - Re: insinuations - the JA way -- John Smith, 27/11/09 9:39:18am
    - the cutest irony -- Peter Eveleigh, 27/11/09 4:27:18pm
      - Re: the cutest irony -- Sarah Hughes, 27/11/09 11:25:50pm
        equal moderation would have meant a shared responsibility -- Peter Eveleigh, 28/11/09 12:19:48am
        Stockholm syndrome -- Peter Eveleigh, 28/11/09 12:37:56am
        Re: Stockholm syndrome -- Peter Eveleigh, 28/11/09 12:46:05am
        Re: Stockholm syndrome -- Sarah Hughes, 1/12/09 4:18:55pm
    - Re: insinuations - the JA way -- Sarah Hughes, 27/11/09 8:22:26pm
      - the JA way -- Peter Eveleigh, 29/11/09 12:59:09pm
- The JA way is like the Jesuit way -- Barbara, 4/12/09 2:00:04pm
Re: 2000 apologise? -- Sarah Hughes, 27/11/09 11:16:47pm

[ 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:
>Sarah - what kind of accusation are you making towards >Peter - that he wanted to marry someone who was old >enough to marry and make their own mind up.... but >what you are really implying is something more >sinister. You have no right to do that and should >really shut up. Out here in grown up land we disagree >with one another without having to resort to stuff >like that. > > > > >>You are a >>>joke if you want the whole 2000 strong church to >>>apologize to you!! >> >>No, I think what we want is for the representatives of >>the church to stop blaming abusive behaviour on >>"individuals" from whom the church tries to distance >>itself, even when the individuals have been, in the >>main, elders acting in line with church policy....and >>to own responsibility for the fact that over several >>decades the enacting of JA policy has hurt many >people. >> >>The JA says "mistakes were made" but nobody can ever, >>EVER give you an example.....mainly because it is a >>meaningless mantra. >> >>What mistakes will you admit to the church having >>made, specifically. >> >>(incidentally, interesting to see that you didn't have >>time for the JA dialogue because you were neglecting >>kingdom motherhood but you have time to come in here >>on a regular basis. You have time to defend the JA, >>but no time to help heal it)
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.