The Last Post
Chris Garland
bowe...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (saliena b bowers,george) wrote:
>To Whom It May Concern,
>
> I have grown tried of the arguing on this news group it is
>almost always unfruitful and intending to hurt someone on the other
>side. So I am deleting it from my file. My conviction in the Word of
>God and in His Church stands in tack like it always has and I pray
>always will. It was nice talking to you all and I did enjoy some of
>the conversations about the Church and our beliefs but now I am cutting
>off that which cause me to struggle.
> Take care all and I will pray for you as I hope you will for
>me. And as for those disciples out there who this newsgroup has caused
>to struggle I would say to do what Christ said which is to cut it off.
> God Bless in whatever you choose to follow God and His Kingdom
>or Satan and His.
Saliena, it sounds as if this post is very condescending to former
members. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's how it came across to me.
"God bless you in whatever you choose to follow God and His Kingdom or
Stan and His." Are you implying that non-members are following Satan? If
that is your implication, then good riddance to you -- your arrogance and
self-righteousness isn't welcome. And I call on you to repent. If it
wasn't your implication, I'd sure like to know your motivation for
writing that sentence. I'm not a Satan worshipper -- my life has been
turned inside out in following Christ and I deeply resent any
implication, if meant.
Seems to me that if your are *struggling*, its because you've been cut
off from the head and become arrogant.
Catherine Hampton
What Chris said, Saliena. That crack of "Satan and his" was arrogant,
ugly, and served no purpose but to play one-upsmanship games with those
who disagree with you. I'm a bit saddened. I would have expected this
of some others here, but not of you.
Catherine
saliena b bowers,george
To Whom It May Concern,
I have grown tried of the arguing on this news group it is
almost always unfruitful and intending to hurt someone on the other
side. So I am deleting it from my file. My conviction in the Word of
God and in His Church stands in tack like it always has and I pray
always will. It was nice talking to you all and I did enjoy some of
the conversations about the Church and our beliefs but now I am cutting
off that which cause me to struggle.
Take care all and I will pray for you as I hope you will for
me. And as for those disciples out there who this newsgroup has caused
to struggle I would say to do what Christ said which is to cut it off.
God Bless in whatever you choose to follow God and His Kingdom
or Satan and His.
Saliena Bowers
R.L. Measures
In article <4sgn1h$k...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
bowe...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (saliena b bowers,george) wrote:
-----------
See you on Judgement Day, Saliena. Have fun.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
RICK & SARAH BAUER
bowe...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (saliena b bowers,george) wrote:
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
> I have grown tried of the arguing on this news group it is
> almost always unfruitful and intending to hurt someone on the other
> side. So I am deleting it from my file. My conviction in the Word of
> God and in His Church stands in tack like it always has and I pray
> always will. It was nice talking to you all and I did enjoy some of
> the conversations about the Church and our beliefs but now I am cutting
> off that which cause me to struggle.
It is interesting to note the double-speak in Saliena's reasons for
unsubsribing to the NG. She says first that she has "grown tired of
the arguing." Secondly, she states the NG "causes (her) to struggle."
Well, which is it? To just be tired of something is one thing.
Anyone can get bored. But to admit that the NG caused her to
"struggle" is another.
The term "struggle" is used in the ICC to mean dealing with sin in
my life.
It is one of the terms that is used to describe weak Christians, or
those in the midst of some type of challenge.
I wounder if the NG challenged Saliena? All the debate, and logic
can be very difficult to take. Reasoning and thinking, questioning
and analysis. It is the reason Randy McKean marked me. He said,
"(we) were causing people to question their faith in the church."
> Take care all and I will pray for you as I hope you will for
> me. And as for those disciples out there who this newsgroup has caused
> to struggle I would say to do what Christ said which is to cut it off.
> God Bless in whatever you choose to follow God and His Kingdom
> or Satan and His.
> Saliena Bowers
I would say that not all "struggle" is sin. Did Jesus struggle?
Did He sin?
If this NG makes someone think, is that not healthy? We are to "cut
off everything that hinders," I agree with Saliena. If thinking
"hinders" my participation in an organization, which should be "cut,"
the organization or the thinking?
Sarah
BTW, How can "God Bless" someone who chooses to follow Satan?
Jeetendra Manghani
In article <4shcf1$1c...@mule2.mindspring.com> ma...@mindspring.com writes:
>bowe...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (saliena b bowers,george) wrote:
>
>>To Whom It May Concern,
>
>> I have grown tried of the arguing on this news group it is
>>almost always unfruitful and intending to hurt someone on the other
>>side. So I am deleting it from my file. My conviction in the Word of
>>God and in His Church stands in tack like it always has and I pray
>>always will. It was nice talking to you all and I did enjoy some of
>>the conversations about the Church and our beliefs but now I am cutting
>>off that which cause me to struggle.
>>me. And as for those disciples out there who this newsgroup has caused
>>to struggle I would say to do what Christ said which is to cut it off.
>> God Bless in whatever you choose to follow God and His Kingdom
>>or Satan and His.
>
>> Saliena Bowers
>
>
>that she is "struggling" and all the "satan" crap shows that the truth
>has started to creep in... it's tough to get off your mind once that
>happens... :)
>
>Mark Davis
>
>
>P.S. Bet we hear from her again in a few months only she be out...
>
>
>
It seems like a game to you. Is the object of this newsgroup for
convert people tp "EX-ICCism"? I have not told anyone or encouraged
anyone to go to any ICC here on the newsgroup because I am here to
talk about issues. Some of them I feel are completely ridiculous
and others very valid, but I am here to "debate" and discuss.
What is your purpose in posting here? I think deeply and rationally
about the things posted here, but I've been through too much in
life, in and out of the church to be swayed by every wind of
teaching. My purpose in posting here? To discuss issues that will
help me to disciple the people around me in a righteous manner and
so trying not to repeat mistakes that the disiples around you may
have made.
you all know the issues. I want all of you to make your decision
based on all of the issues. I don't want anybody to make an
emotional decision but a decsion based on reason and logic and
faith. I was disappointed to see that someone asked for PRO and CON
information about the church, and a post from a former member had
only the CON information. I wonder if this is to help them see both
sides of the story or to keep an unsuspecting inquiisitive person
away from an evil-mindcontrolling money grubbing "want to know about
your sex life" cult. Of course, I don't know all that went on in
private email. So I may be wrong.
Jeetendra Manghani
member of San Diego Church of Christ
Mark Davis
Clayton Lane
Hi Saliena,
I am confused by your comment that this newsgroup caused you to struggle.
How? Do you mean that reading this newsgroup caused you to question your
faith in Jesus Christ? If that is the case, I honestly do not understand
how.
My discipler once said that reading part of Susan Condon's "A Diary: Why I
Left the Boston Movement" caused him to struggle. But he, "prayed about
it," and so everything was okay. In reality, Sue Condon's story caused
him to question the International Church of Christ in a manner in which he
felt uncomfortable. He even believed he was sinning by doubting his
"faith [in the ICC]" -- even though his faith in Jesus had not changed.
Did this newsgroup cause you to struggle in your faith in Jesus, or in
your continued commitment to the ICC (are the two synonymous?), or in some
other way? I realize you likely will not reply, but perhaps some others
who read this newsgroup and share your feelings will reply. In any case,
I hope to hear your thoghts.
Respectfully,
Clayton
Scott W. Schreiber
jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Jeetendra Manghani) wrote:
>It seems like a game to you. Is the object of this newsgroup for
>convert people tp "EX-ICCism"?
The purpose of this NG, as I understand it, is to discuss the ICC's
practices, and relate them to the truth.
If the truth causes someone to rethink the ICC, or "struggle" then
good. Saliena herself exhibits the false {ICC} doctrine that the
kingdom of God is a particular organization, something that can be
outwardly seen, and quantified. Guess what, that's wrong. The only
one to quantify the kingdom, is the KING.
Again, if people have spoken the truth here, and it causes folks to
"struggle" with ICC doctrines that are contrary to biblical ideas,
good. Why don't you {not a personal attack} *REALLY* be a berean and
study it out?!? So many times I have heard that, and so many more
times I have seen contrary evidence. For example, I am STILL waiting
for someone to show me a scriptural reference that says baptism is a
required work of salvation. That is a thing that the ICC teaches, it
is also a lie....How bout that issue Jee, wanna discuss it?
As I have tried to convey several times, on judgment day, it will be
*YOU* before the throne. Your discipler will **not** be there
answering for you. Also, God loves everyone, and there is absolutely
nothing you can do to influence that fact. It doesn't matter how many
visitors you bring, or how much you contribute.
Scott
R.L. Measures
> saliena b bowers,george (bowe...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu) wrote:
> : To Whom It May Concern,
>
> : I have grown tried of the arguing on this news group it is
> : almost always unfruitful and intending to hurt someone on the other
> : side.
-------------------------
The people who get hurt are the ones who deny things that are real. He
who called himself the 'Son of Man' said that everything that defiles a
person comes out of that person's own mouth.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Mark Davis
jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Jeetendra Manghani) wrote:
>you all know the issues. I want all of you to make your decision
>based on all of the issues. I don't want anybody to make an
>emotional decision but a decsion based on reason and logic and
>faith. I was disappointed to see that someone asked for PRO and CON
>information about the church, and a post from a former member had
>only the CON information. I wonder if this is to help them see both
>sides of the story or to keep an unsuspecting inquiisitive person
>away from an evil-mindcontrolling money grubbing "want to know about
>your sex life" cult. Of course, I don't know all that went on in
>private email. So I may be wrong.
Sorry but if you expect me to argue the PROs for cult membership I
wouldn't hold your breath.
I agree that we are here to debate the ICC - but I don't agree that we
should make your arguements FOR you. If it bothers you that your side
is under represented here I suggest you go have a talk with the
leaders who have "reccommended" that members not come here.
As far as this being a "game" - you best remember that If your players
don't show up you forfeit.
Mark Davis
R.L. Measures
In article <4sjm08$3...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu
(Jeetendra Manghani) wrote:
I don't want anybody to make an
> emotional decision but a decsion based on reason and logic and
> faith. I was disappointed to see that someone asked for PRO and CON
> information about the church, and a post from a former member had
> only the CON information. I wonder if this is to help them see both
> sides of the story or to keep an unsuspecting inquiisitive person
> away from an evil-mindcontrolling money grubbing "want to know about
> your sex life" cult. Of course, I don't know all that went on in
> private email. So I may be wrong.
----------------
Every former member I've spoken with told me that the sect was after their
money. People who got scammed are not likely to provide favorable
information about a scam that seperated them from their hard earned
money.
The sect is based on what is now widely-recognized as a mind-control tool.
The leader of the sect not only wants to know intimate details about
members' sex lives, he wants to control their sex lives as well. IMO,
this is an especially troublesome matter in light of what we now know
about David Koresh, Charles Manson, and Jim Jones.
One of the findings of Yeakley's research into the sect is that it
produces people with judgemental personalities. Judgemental
'Christians'? Give us a break.
I can't think of anything positive to say about this sect. Can you, Jeetendra?
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Starr
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
>I can't think of anything positive to say about this sect. Can you, Jeetendra?
PROs CONs
a sense of familiy like feeling pressure to perform/conform
I never had before
A feeling of uniqueness feeling like I had to watch every move
I did or said
More activities than I had Being exhausted much of the time
time for
Always having someone to Never know what you say will be
talk to repeated for your own good
emotional highs from fired-up constant evangelizing = good ICC
member
worship services
learning a lot about different trying to be everying to everyone one
people and forgetting who I was in the process
feeling great pressure to give monetarily
more emphasis on converts than on the other
gifts of the spirit
Feeling extremely self-righteous
not buying the ICC = God's Kingdom and
yet trying to convince others of it
Should I go on?
Catherine Hampton
Thanks, Kim. I don't think many of us former members feel like Rich
does about this -- we remember plenty of good things about the ICOC. The
bad just outweighed the good, for those who finally assessed it that way.
Or, in my case, not all the good in the world could make up for a distant,
cold, and dying relationship with God.
Catherine
nancy
On Jul 20, 1996 07:07:39 in article <Re: The Last Post>,
nancy
Randy Poe
In article <4sk31p$8...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com says...
>
>Again, if people have spoken the truth here, and it causes folks to
>"struggle" with ICC doctrines that are contrary to biblical ideas,
>good. Why don't you {not a personal attack} *REALLY* be a berean and
>study it out?!?
Or, what the heck, why not try praying?
If we admit that everyone, ICCer or non, is human and therefore fallible,
then perhaps you should ignore all the human-generated noise and seek
your own personal relationship with God.
Personal.
Private.
(The ICCer seems to say "of course disciplers are human" here in the
NG -- I've noticed that ICCers often tell people what they think
they want to hear. I've also noticed that the ICC doesn't make
any allowance for disagreeing with your discipler. If you
disagree, you're counselled till you agree.)
If the discipler and elders are only human, then how is it that
they're infallible?
Hmmm, infallibility, sounds almost <gasp> Catholic to me.
- Randy Poe
R. L. Measures
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >I can't think of anything positive to say about this sect. Can you,
Jeetendra?
>
> PROs CONs
>
> a sense of familiy like feeling pressure to perform/conform
> I never had before
>
=======
Although I was never a member of 'god's kingdom', I become aware of the
sense of family. I also became aware that this sense of family was
scripted--as were the friendships. One word from the 'family' patriarch
and you get thrown out. Healthy families and real friends do not operate
this way.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
Gee, Rich, a lot of us seem to be enjoying this sense of family for many
years without being "thrown out" by "one word from the family
patriarch". Oh yes, I've seen people leave the church on their own, as
well as disfellowshipped for unrepented sin that was hurting the whole
church. (Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5:1-13). I didn't personally witness your
situation, however, so I really couldn't comment directly on it.
Does this make sense to anyone? A group of people that work like crazy to
draw people in, then just kick them out capriciously with no rhyme or reason?
That's nuts. I don't see the ICC operating that way.
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
Martin Hinves
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Gee, Rich, a lot of us seem to be enjoying this sense of family for many
>years without being "thrown out" by "one word from the family
>patriarch". Oh yes, I've seen people leave the church on their own, as
>well as disfellowshipped for unrepented sin that was hurting the whole
>church. (Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5:1-13). I didn't personally witness your
>situation, however, so I really couldn't comment directly on it.
>Does this make sense to anyone? A group of people that work like crazy to
>draw people in, then just kick them out capriciously with no rhyme or reason?
>That's nuts. I don't see the ICC operating that way.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Well thanks for finally admitting that you are tied up in the works
and not concentrating on the GRACE - Roger <G>.
My experience has been that in many cases I have witnessed false
reasons are stated in the ICC as to why people leave.
I state this from my own experience and from talking to both the ICC
and many (over 50) ex-members face to face.
The ICC version of events never once tallied with the ex-member.
In all cases it was either the ICC member leaving of their own accord
(though they may have been forced to leave by manipulation) - I have
seen and witnessed this personally; OR the ICC decided that they were
a threat and unbiblically deal with them.
People were even thrown out for the most stupid of reasons.
It is suprising the number of lies and false reasons stated and given
by ICC leaders to their congregations.
In recent conversations I have had with ICC people here (they shall
remain nameless) they have confirmed for me that lies and false
reasons are still being told.
They are in possession of both sides of the story, and find it hard to
accept that the ICC can say such things about people when they
personally know them not to be true - and the person's saying them
know too.
My observation is that since the ICC can never be wrong this must be
shown to be the case.
As to why do you kick them out Roger ?
Well I can only speak from personal experience and from those people I
know of well.
You do so because they question your unbiblical actions ?
You do so because they discover your churches abuses ?
You do so because you have a blinkered veiw of deviseness ?
You do so because they are a threat to certain leaders ?
You do so because they ask questions you cannot or will not answer ?
You do so because they exhibit responsibility and accountability ?
You do so because they concentrate on Grace not on Works ?
You do so because they provide food & shelter to members who have left
?
You do so because they refuse to give 10% gross of their salary solely
and utterly only to the ICC and not to the Red Cross or Royal Blind
Society?
You see in your eyes it is the person who is always guilty.
Your church works behind the scenes to acheive it's aims.
I give you an example ..
If a leader decides that a dating relationship should be terminated
because the male is one day going to be an evangelist, and the female
is "not of the correct spiritual level" for the wife of an evangelist.
They have been dating for a while and he has asked the Evangelist for
permission to marry her and not received an answer....
The discipler then sets about influencing all those who are close to
the male - saying that the cause of the problems he (the male) is
experiencing are due to the relationship. All his "freinds" talk to
him about "their concern".
Eventually like a good disciple he raises the issue with his
discipler.
This discipler recommends that the relationship be terminated for his
spirituality - after all it is her that is dragging him down.
And since a good disciple must obey his discipler this is what he must
do and does so.
Later they find that they do love each-other but the ICC will not
allow them to date again.
Suddenly it is spread around to all who knew them, the sins of the
couple - and also implied immorality, accusations, etc.
They come under increasing peer group pressure from all those around
them, and their disciplers apply pressure too.
A decision is made that they cannot be allowed to be together.
Those members who know what is happened have pressure applied to bring
them around to the ICC veiw that it is for their own good that they
not see each other.
Eventually they leave the ICC because they do love each-other but the
ICC leadership refuses to allow them to be together.
They had no option to leave.
They have since married and have a beautiful family and attend non-ICC
church. I was MC at their wedding.
ICC history states that they left because of the sin in their
relationship. These sins will be casually tossed at you as evidence of
their unspirituality, also character assassination will occur.The
woman is blamed for leading the man astray.
(I recently confirmed this again after 2 years have passed).
IN this incident the ICC takes no responsibility....
You see when you apply pressure and a member leaves it is that
member's fault.
Again it is the result that matters.
A person leaves so they must be to blame.
YOu concentrate too much on the event not why ?
Perhaps if the ICC was a better more biblical grace filled church it
would not lose so many people.
Remember Roger that your leaders have said that 90% of you will leave.
How does it feel to know that according to your churches doctrine -
you (and everyone you know in the ICC have ) only have a 1in 10 chance
of going to heaven ?
Because you teach that to leave the ICC is to leave God, they are not
good stats are they ?
Me I prefer to trust in the Grace of God for my salvation, I find it
is a refreshing and positive faith motivating reason for existance.
It is so much more powerful and inspirational than the spiritual work
based quota's the ICC demands.
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves
R. L. Measures
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
snip
> : Although I was never a member of 'god's kingdom', I become aware of the
> : sense of family. I also became aware that this sense of family was
> : scripted--as were the friendships. One word from the 'family' patriarch
> : and you get thrown out. Healthy families and real friends do not operate
> : this way.
>
> Gee, Rich, a lot of us seem to be enjoying this sense of family for many
> years without being "thrown out" by "one word from the family
> patriarch". Oh yes, I've seen people leave the church on their own, as
> well as disfellowshipped for unrepented sin that was hurting the whole
> church. (Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5:1-13). I didn't personally witness your
> situation, however, so I really couldn't comment directly on it.
>
Apparently, not that many are permanently enjoying this sense of family.
Out of every 100 people who join 'god's kingdom', somewhere between 85 and
90 eventually leave. I don't buy the unrepented sin angle. When someone
has bailed out of 'god's kingdom' because they knew in their heart that
something wasn't right, out comes the sin-list and the bad-mouthing
begins. You have probably seen this face-saving move happen dozens of
times after someone made the decision to bailout, Roger.
RE: My situation: I have been scammed In the process, I got an
education. . . . The questions I received about my finances and my
business from ICC proselytizers indicated scam. // The type of
friendliness I saw reminded me of the friendliness of a car salesman who
finds out that you are shopping for a new car. In other words, predatory
friendship. The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
spiritual pornographers?
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Ovum
In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
>recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
>accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
>spiritual pornographers?
Tape recording conversations showed you had a "bad heart," Rich. You also
represented possible legal ramifications, which the ICC apparantly wants
to avoid at any cost. Did they continue to try to study with you, or were
you abandoned in favor of someone who was more "open?"
DAnder9518
In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com in the thread "The Last Post", (R. L. Measures)
writes:
>When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
>spiritual pornographers?
After I had studied with the NYCOC for about 2 weeks, I found out I was
suspected of being an undercover reporter wearing a wire during my Bible
Studies! Now, I was *totally* sincere about joining the church -- it's
just that I asked some difficult questions which made them suspicious of
my motives. At one point, Manhattan zone leader Sam Powell even joked:
"We've got a private detective on YOU!" Needless to say, as someone who
was sincerely "seeking", I didn't think this was funny. I thought, "Why
would a 'true' church be so suspicious of outsiders?"
Of course, now I am an outspoken critic of the church, and they probably
think I was lying to them all along. : (
---->Dave Anderson
Starr
>In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
>meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>>The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
>>recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
>>accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
>>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
>>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
>>spiritual pornographers?
not spiritual pornographers, Rich, but guess what - tape recording
private phone conversations without the other person's knowledge (or a
warrant for a wiretap) is ILLEGAL. Not only that, but it's sneaky and
dishonest. You can self-justify all you want, about how you just want
the facts, ma'am, and just the facts, but you could have just as
easily taken notes, or purchased one of their tapes. They tape their
own sermons, most are not edited or the transcriptions would be better
(I know this - I do transcription [not for the ICC]). I would react
negatively to someone tape-recording a conversation I had no knowledge
of too. I think that's called "human nature".
R. L. Measures
> In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> >The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
> >recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
> >accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
> >telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
> >tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
> >spiritual pornographers?
>
> Tape recording conversations showed you had a "bad heart," Rich. You also
> represented possible legal ramifications, which the ICC apparantly wants
> to avoid at any cost. Did they continue to try to study with you, or were
> you abandoned in favor of someone who was more "open?"
---------------
It seemed that they eventually realized that I realized that they were
basicly interested in my money and my ability to bring in new marks to
feed the people-eating machine.
As to the study issue. The bible talk leader who contacted me hardly
seemed to be a biblicly-knowledgeable person, Ovum. He knew about the
parts of the NT that the icc uses to promote its unique doctrine. He knew
not about the parts of the NT that casts doubts on icc doctrine. IMO, the
icc recruits few people who have a modicum of knowledge about NT. . . .
In other words, icc doctrine isn't just 'unique'--it is oblique.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Chris Garland
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>>In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
>>meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
>>>The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
>>>recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
>>>accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
>>>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
>>>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
>>>spiritual pornographers?
>
>private phone conversations without the other person's knowledge (or a
>warrant for a wiretap) is ILLEGAL. Not only that, but it's sneaky and
>dishonest. You can self-justify all you want, about how you just want
>the facts, ma'am, and just the facts, but you could have just as
>easily taken notes, or purchased one of their tapes. They tape their
>own sermons, most are not edited or the transcriptions would be better
>(I know this - I do transcription [not for the ICC]). I would react
>negatively to someone tape-recording a conversation I had no knowledge
>of too. I think that's called "human nature".
It's not illegal, Kim. One party has to be aware that the conversation is
being taped -- that's all. Wiretaps are illegal. That's a big
difference, because a third party is listening into a conversation among
two parties, neither of whom know they are being listened to.
Chris Garland
rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>Chris Garland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
>: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>: >>In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
>: >>meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>: >
>: >>>The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
>: >>>recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
>: >>>accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
>: >>>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
>: >>>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
>: >>>spiritual pornographers?
>: >
>: >not spiritual pornographers, Rich, but guess what - tape recording
>: >private phone conversations without the other person's knowledge (or a
>: >warrant for a wiretap) is ILLEGAL. Not only that, but it's sneaky and
>: >dishonest. You can self-justify all you want, about how you just want
>
>: It's not illegal, Kim. One party has to be aware that the conversation is
>: difference, because a third party is listening into a conversation among
>: two parties, neither of whom know they are being listened to.
>
>
> Accoriding to the information I received from Pacific Bell, in
>the state of California, it is illegal to record a phone conversation
>without the consent of all parties involved. If Rich's phone number in
>his signature is accurate, then he is a resident of the state of
>California, meaning that this applies to any of his phone calls.
>
> I agree very much with Kim: secretly recording a phone call
>without the consent of all parties involved is not only illegal, but it
>is unethical. If people can do this, then why can't the government or
>some other organization? Eventually, we would end up with an
>authoritarian society and government, where civil liberties have no
>meaning.
Raymond, it is commonplace in the business community to record conference
calls, and there is nothing wrong with it. Don't find it unethical in the
slightest -- it is done to make sure you get your facts straight and
don't misinterpret what the other side is saying. That's in business.
Personally, I wish I had recorded some of the ridiculous conversations
I've had with ICC leaders so Roger could have that unequivocal proof he's
been demanding.
Remember, what's illegal in California isn't necessarily illegal
elsewhere. ICC leaders are supposed to have transparent lives -- why hide
their conversations? Let's get them out into the light? What are they
saying that they are so afraid to expose? I'm sorry, but when someone
becomes a leader in the ICC, I submit that makes them a public figure. If
they can dictate people's lives, they can submit to the scrutiny for the
things they do and say.
Raymond Tam
Chris,
raymond
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide."
-Abraham Lincoln
R.L. Measures
> >In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
> >meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> >>The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
> >>recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
> >>accurately quoted. When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
> >>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
> >>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
> >>spiritual pornographers?
>
> not spiritual pornographers, Rich, but guess what - tape recording
> private phone conversations without the other person's knowledge (or a
> warrant for a wiretap) is ILLEGAL.
Tape recording phone calls is not illegal according to Federal
law--provided that one of the parties knows that the call is being
recorded. The Federal law applies to all interstate calls. However, some
states have laws requiring that both parties know an intrastate call is
being recorded. Here in California, a threatening or obscene telephone
call may be taped legally if one party knows the conversation is being
taped.
>Not only that, but it's sneaky and
> dishonest. You can self-justify all you want, about how you just want
> the facts, ma'am, and just the facts, but you could have just as
> easily taken notes, or purchased one of their tapes.
I taped face to face conversations, Kim Notes work fine as long as you
are dealing with persons who are not deceptive. Deceptive persons have a
tendency to say that notes are in error. A tape recording that backs up
notes is a liar's worst nightmare. Obscene phone callers also fear tape
recorders--and they are quick to cry foul if a tape recording of their
activities surfaces during the discovery phase of a trial.
> I would react
> negatively to someone tape-recording a conversation I had no knowledge
> of too. I think that's called "human nature".
I encourage anyone who talks to me on the telephone to tape record. I
stand behind what comes out of my mouth--no pun intended
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Mark Davis
rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>Chris,
> Accoriding to the information I received from Pacific Bell, in
>the state of California, it is illegal to record a phone conversation
>without the consent of all parties involved. If Rich's phone number in
>his signature is accurate, then he is a resident of the state of
>California, meaning that this applies to any of his phone calls.
> I agree very much with Kim: secretly recording a phone call
>without the consent of all parties involved is not only illegal, but it
>is unethical. If people can do this, then why can't the government or
>some other organization? Eventually, we would end up with an
>authoritarian society and government, where civil liberties have no
>meaning.
>raymond
Georgia case law says exactly the opposite. I have loads of taped
evidence from both phone conversations and wires I wore to meetings
with Andy Lindo (the lead evangelist of the Atlanta church in '87). I
made these tapes when I was gathering ammo to use in a court fight to
save my son from being put up for adoption by the ICC.
In the opinion of the Georgia Supreme court, taping a conversation
that you are a party to (whether on the phone or in person) is no
different than simply reccounting the conversation to someone else
after the fact.
On a moral level, I agree that it is deceptive. In my case I felt
that deception was justified. A police officer has no moral problem
taping a drug dealer, an FBI agent has no problem wiretapping a
terrorist. And I have no problem taping the leader of a cult who is
trying to take my son away from me. In all those cases, a slight
deception was used to combat a much greater evil.
Mark Davis
Scott W. Schreiber
rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>Eventually, we would end up with an
>authoritarian society and government, where civil liberties have no
>meaning.
Eventually?
When was the last time you tried to pray in a public event?
{no response please....Rhetorical post}
R.L. Measures
9999/9//////////9In article <4u5iu2$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
> In article <measures-030...@term1-5.vta.west.net>,
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com in the thread "The Last Post", (R. L. Measures)
> writes:
>
> >When an ICC Bible Talk Leader contacted me by
> >telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
> >tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
> >spiritual pornographers?
>
> After I had studied with the NYCOC for about 2 weeks, I found out I was
> suspected of being an undercover reporter wearing a wire during my Bible
> Studies! Now, I was *totally* sincere about joining the church -- it's
> just that I asked some difficult questions which made them suspicious of
> my motives. At one point, Manhattan zone leader Sam Powell even joked:
> "We've got a private detective on YOU!" Needless to say, as someone who
> was sincerely "seeking", I didn't think this was funny. I thought, "Why
> would a 'true' church be so suspicious of outsiders?"
>
> Of course, now I am an outspoken critic of the church, and they probably
> think I was lying to them all along. : (
-------------------
Yeah, 'god's one true church' being paranoid about being quoted
accurately. It doesn't add up, Dave----unless the icc god is not the
father of the guy who said '...I am the truth...' in the book of John.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Starr
Rich wrote:
>>: >>>The dead giveaway was when they realized that I was tape
>>: >>>recording what they said. Honest, upfront people do not fear being
>>: >>>telephone, he demanded to know whether or not I was tape recording. Are
>>: >>>tape recorders Satanic? Are tape recorders the tools of so-called
>>: >>>spiritual pornographers?
>>: >not spiritual pornographers, Rich, but guess what - tape recording
>>: >private phone conversations without the other person's knowledge (or a
>>: >dishonest. You can self-justify all you want, about how you just want
Chris Garland wrote
>>: It's not illegal, Kim. One party has to be aware that the conversation is
>>: being taped -- that's all. Wiretaps are illegal. That's a big
>>: difference, because a third party is listening into a conversation among
>>: two parties, neither of whom know they are being listened to.
Wiretapes WITHOUT a warrang issued by a judge are illegal, Chris.
Tapping someone's phone without a warrant is clearly an invasion of
privacy and is illegal.
Raymond Tam wrote:
>>Accoriding to the information I received from Pacific Bell, in
>>the state of California, it is illegal to record a phone conversation
>>without the consent of all parties involved. If Rich's phone number in
>>his signature is accurate, then he is a resident of the state of
>>California, meaning that this applies to any of his phone calls.
>>
>> I agree very much with Kim: secretly recording a phone call
>>without the consent of all parties involved is not only illegal, but it
>>is unethical. If people can do this, then why can't the government or
>>some other organization? Eventually, we would end up with an
>>authoritarian society and government, where civil liberties have no
>>meaning.
Chris Garland wrote:
>Raymond, it is commonplace in the business community to record conference
>calls, and there is nothing wrong with it. Don't find it unethical in the
>slightest -- it is done to make sure you get your facts straight and
>don't misinterpret what the other side is saying. That's in business.
Kim writes:
I know I said I was taking a break, but I had to follow through on
this. In the first place, ONE person knowing a phone call is tape
recorded is NOT the same as both parties knowing. And it's ILLEGAL in
every state because it's an FCC (federal) reg. It cannot be used as
evidence in any state in the Union. Even business conference calls,
when they are being tape recorded, say at the beginning that the call
is being recorded. So do police & fire departments & hospitals.
>Personally, I wish I had recorded some of the ridiculous conversations
>I've had with ICC leaders so Roger could have that unequivocal proof he's
>been demanding.
You could have recorded them Chris, for your own personal memory. But
as far as proof goes, it's invalid anywhere you'd want to take it.
And you could be sued for invasion of privacy if you made it public.
>Remember, what's illegal in California isn't necessarily illegal
>elsewhere. ICC leaders are supposed to have transparent lives -- why hide
>their conversations? Let's get them out into the light? What are they
>saying that they are so afraid to expose? I'm sorry, but when someone
>becomes a leader in the ICC, I submit that makes them a public figure. If
>they can dictate people's lives, they can submit to the scrutiny for the
>things they do and say.
They can submit to the scrutiny in PUBLIC for the things they do or
say as a PUBLIC figure. Even tape recording a PUBLIC sermon can be
illegal IF it is posted that no cameras or tape recorders are allowed
(go to any concerts lately?) Facts about their private lives can be
made public if they are truthful and not libelous or slanderous, but
the burden of proof is still on YOU. It doesn't make any difference
how you try to argue it away, Chris.
The First Amendment gives freedom of speech and freedom of religion
(and the press). The Fourth gives the right against unreasonble
search and seizure. The Fifth gives the right against
self-incrimination. Tape record someone's presumably private phone
conversation, make that tape public, and see how fast you get sued, if
not outright prosecuted.
Mark Davis
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>I know I said I was taking a break, but I had to follow through on
>this. In the first place, ONE person knowing a phone call is tape
>recorded is NOT the same as both parties knowing. And it's ILLEGAL in
>every state because it's an FCC (federal) reg. It cannot be used as
>evidence in any state in the Union. Even business conference calls,
>when they are being tape recorded, say at the beginning that the call
>is being recorded. So do police & fire departments & hospitals.
>
This is just not correct. There is no fedral statute that prohibits
the taping of a conversation that you are a party to. This is covered
only by state law. The FCC law applies only to broadcast media. A
radio personality must tell you they are taping your call etc...
I covered this at length with my dad (who is a criminal attorney)
BEFORE I taped meetings and telephone conversations with the ICC.
Those tapes were made to be used AS EVIDENCE in a court of law to
block the ICC from taking my son away from me. There is very clear
Georgia law on the subject and it lands solidly on my right to tape a
conversation that I am participating in. My dad would never have
advocated that I do something illegal.
Mark Davis
R. L. Measures
> rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>
> >Chris,
>
> > Accoriding to the information I received from Pacific Bell, in
> >the state of California, it is illegal to record a phone conversation
> >without the consent of all parties involved. If Rich's phone number in
> >his signature is accurate, then he is a resident of the state of
> >California, meaning that this applies to any of his phone calls.
>
California law applies only to intrastate telephone calls, Raymond.
Federal law applies to all interstate and international calls. California
law says that both parties must be informed when a conversation if being
taped. Federal law says that one party must be informed. However,
California law says that a threatening or obscene telephone call may be
taped without informing the obscene/threatening caller
Anything I say to you on the telephone or face-to-face, Raymond, you have
my permission to tape and later quote if you like. .
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Chris Garland
No fair, Kim -- you're not supposed to be lurking!! :)
It seems we have a lot of different people saying a lot of different
things about the law. Some see cases where it is legal, some state cases
where it isn't lege. I suggest we either 1) ask a lawyer, or 2) drop the
subject. I vote for number 2.
In any case, Hard Copy taped conversations (including phone
conversations) with members when they did their expose and broadcast it.
So I doubt it is universally illegal.
R. L. Measures
> I agree very much with Kim: secretly recording a phone call
> without the consent of all parties involved is not only illegal, but it
> is unethical. If people can do this, then why can't the government or
> some other organization? Eventually, we would end up with an
> authoritarian society and government, where civil liberties have no
> meaning.
>
> raymond
For the second time, Raymond Tam. . . Federal law says you CAN record a
phone call that you are party to. State laws vary. If you received an
obscene telephone call, why shouldn't you be able to record it as
evidence?
What is the difference between taking written notes during a telephone
conversation, and tape recording? Written notes can be denied, even
though the notes are accurate. In such a dispute, a tape recording shows
who is telling the truth and who is not.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Raymond Tam
Chris Garland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
<whole lot of snippage going one>
: It seems we have a lot of different people saying a lot of different
: things about the law. Some see cases where it is legal, some state cases
: where it isn't lege. I suggest we either 1) ask a lawyer, or 2) drop the
: subject. I vote for number 2.
I vote for number 2. Let anyone who wishes to record phone conversations
do so at their own risk.
<snip>
Starr
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
okay - a bit of a correction to what I said about FCC regs and
recording phone conversations. I did some research at work today and
while there are federal regs that cover federal employees, there is no
FCC reg that would cover every state. So Chris was correct when he
said that in some states, taping the conversation would not be
illegal. Wiretapping (tapping into two people's private phone
conversation without their knowledge or a proper warrant) is illegal
everywhere. In many states taping phone conversations without consent
of all parties is illegal, but not in every state.
However, I stand by my statement that doing so is not only sneaky and
unprofessional, but it's unethical.
Kim
R. L. Measures
> Chris Garland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
> <whole lot of snippage going one>
>
> : It seems we have a lot of different people saying a lot of different
> : things about the law. Some see cases where it is legal, some state cases
> : where it isn't lege. I suggest we either 1) ask a lawyer, or 2) drop the
> : subject. I vote for number 2.
>
You seem to have missed something in Chris' reply, Raymond. He did ask a
lawyer--his father.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Gareth
Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
about tape recording sessions?
Surely when you see a religious TV program you don't see the spiritual
leader refuse to co-operate because it's being recorded.
If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem my friend?
Gareth
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
Gareth, one could make a similar argument for letting the cops come into
your house without a warrant or reasonable cause. I don't have illegal
drugs or unregistered firearms in my home, but at the same time I value
my privacy.
You've likely seen postings from anti-church critics on this newsgroup;
what do you see? Do you generally see full-quotations, in context? No,
you see "sound-bytes" designed for maximum impact and minimum accuracy,
like "God's man", "the prophet", and "sumbit and obey" and such. Sadly,
there are people ever as we speak right now who are reading this post,
searching for a little snippet that they can take out of context against
the church.
In a conversation, many things are said by both sides. Scriptures are
quoted, analogies used, arguments made and refuted, and in a recorded
conversation, when the disciple says, "Bro, you just need to obey the
Bible" he gets nailed. Someone who wants to make the church look bad can
say, "I was asking if I could go home to visit my grandmother and my
discipler said, and I quote, 'Bro, you just need to obey'".
(When in fact, there was 15 minutes of dialogue inbetween the grandmother
issue and the quote, and it was in reference to the Bible and not obeying
an individual in the first place.)
If you want to try to score a quick point, use your tricks and deception
and you'll fool some people. Take a 10-second snippet out of a 4-hour
interview and yell, "Aha! See!" But you won't fool people that are really
searching after the truth and find out what disciples are really made
of. They'll listen to the other 3 hours, 59 minutes, and 50 seconds and
get the whole story.
Catherine Hampton
Raymond Tam (rt...@crl.com) wrote:
: Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: <much information snipped>
: : If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
: : about tape recording sessions?
: <snip>
: I don't mind being recorded as long as people tell me in advance. In
: fact, I'll probably say the same thing in private as in public. But I
: don't want the government or anyone else, for that matter, recording what
: I say without me knowing in advance. That also applies to other members
: of the ICOC as well as critics of the ICOC.
I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if someone
reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer and defend
yourself? etc. etc....
Privacy is a precious right and, like most of the rights in the
Constitution, was won at considerable cost in blood, sweat, and tears
by people who know what life can be like without it. :( If someone came
to me and wanted to talk about my time in the discipling movement, and
told me up-front that they would like to record the conversation, I'd
have no problem with that. (I'd probably request a copy of the tape,
actually -- it might be a good record for me too.) In any event, I'd
tell the same story.
But if I found out later that they'd clandestinely taped the conversation
and not told me, I'd be seriously hacked off, simply because that kind of
behavior is extremely rude and disrespectful of me as a human being.
That isn't to say I wouldn't forgive them. People get paranoid, make
mistakes, and sometimes in desperation do things they have no business
doing and wouldn't have done under ordinary circumstances. Unfortunately
there are situations involving the ICC which have left parents, family
members, and friends of current members desperate. But you don't want
to become just like what you're fighting, or become something worse. :(
Catherine
Raymond Tam
: If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
: about tape recording sessions?
<snip>
I don't mind being recorded as long as people tell me in advance. In
fact, I'll probably say the same thing in private as in public. But I
don't want the government or anyone else, for that matter, recording what
I say without me knowing in advance. That also applies to other members
of the ICOC as well as critics of the ICOC.
: If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem my friend?
It is an issue of civil liberties, IMNSHO. Even if the topic was
computers, I would be offended that you recorded my conversation
without telling me in advance. The same applies to politics, religion,
or even Chinese cooking. If you respect my civil liberties, I will
respect yours. If you don't, then don't expect me to cooperate.
Besides, if you wanted to record a conversation, then why not tell me in
advance? If you have nothing to hide, then what is the problem in doing
so?
Starr
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>If you want to try to score a quick point, use your tricks and deception
>and you'll fool some people. Take a 10-second snippet out of a 4-hour
>interview and yell, "Aha! See!" But you won't fool people that are really
>searching after the truth and find out what disciples are really made
>of. They'll listen to the other 3 hours, 59 minutes, and 50 seconds and
>get the whole story.
Roger, you, as a member of the ICC, should follow your own advice.
When you are studying the Bible with someone, do you not use
proof-text scriptures? One can usually prove any point one wants to
if they take something out of context.
Gintas Jazbutis
>I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if someone
>reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer and defend
>yourself? etc. etc....
>
Exactly. Why not just let everyone read your mail? No? What,
you've got something to hide, right?
>Privacy is a precious right and, like most of the rights in the
>Constitution, was won at considerable cost in blood, sweat, and tears
>by people who know what life can be like without it. :( If someone came
>to me and wanted to talk about my time in the discipling movement, and
>told me up-front that they would like to record the conversation, I'd
>have no problem with that. (I'd probably request a copy of the tape,
>actually -- it might be a good record for me too.) In any event, I'd
>tell the same story.
>
Maybe we should get rid of telephones and go back to
letter writing. Then all our words would be carefully
chosen, yet saved for all posterity. Plus we'd be rid
of AT & T, MCI, and Sprint calling us a 10 pm.
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
R.L. Measures
> Raymond Tam (rt...@crl.com) wrote:
>
> : Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : <much information snipped>
>
> : : If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
> : : about tape recording sessions?
> : <snip>
> I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if someone
> reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer and defend
> yourself? etc. etc....
>
I agree with Catherine. People who are other than honest have much to
fear from recording devices. ............Richard Millhouse Nixon
discovered this the hard way.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R.L. Measures
In article <rognmich...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> : If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
> : about tape recording sessions?
>
> : Surely when you see a religious TV program you don't see the spiritual
> : leader refuse to co-operate because it's being recorded.
>
> : If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem my friend?
>
> Gareth, one could make a similar argument for letting the cops come into
> your house without a warrant or reasonable cause. I don't have illegal
> drugs or unregistered firearms in my home, but at the same time I value
> my privacy.
Elvis Presley didn't have any illegal drugs either, Roger. During eye
surgery, I was legally given cocaine. During surgery on the other eye, I
was legally given the chemical equivalent of heroin.
The leap from tape recording a sales pitch to the cops rumaging around
your home---I find totally-awesome, Roger
> You've likely seen postings from anti-church critics on this newsgroup;
> what do you see? Do you generally see full-quotations, in context? No,
> you see "sound-bytes" designed for maximum impact and minimum accuracy,
> like "God's man", "the prophet", and "sumbit and obey" and such. Sadly,
> there are people ever as we speak right now who are reading this post,
> searching for a little snippet that they can take out of context against
> the church.
Yo, Roger. I provided the quote on the'extra bold' 'Prophet'. So what's
the problem? The guy either said it or he did not say it. You don't need
to read the entire Manila transcript to figure that one out.
For the benefit of anybody who missed it:
note--To those who are unfamilar with the loaded-language of the icoc, in
the following quote, McKean uses the term Church of Christ as an
adjective.
"See, we've gotten so Church of Christ we don't want to say 'well there are
prophets today.' I believe there are prophets today. I'll be extra bold. I
believe I am a prophet. Now my question is do you believe that you're a
prophet? Do you believe that you're a God=sent prophet who has been sent as
his messenger topreach his word to his people to make a difference in this
generation?" --Kip McKean, Manilla, 1994
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
Catherine writes:
> I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if someone
> reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer and defend
> yourself? etc. etc....
(I'm assuming this wasn't sarcasm.)
For one thing it's an invasion of privacy. If someone wants to read my
mail, I probably wouldn't care too much, but it's still none of their
business. And with the lawyer, you would hire one simply because they
know more about the law about than you do. Regardless of if you're
innocent, somebody chose to accuse you, because they assumed you were
guilty. If I'm innocent, I would find that somewhat offensive. Just
because you're innocent doesn't mean you should tolerate nosy or accusing
people.
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
The book of ACTS is full of Christians who had to tolerate those who
were nosy and accusing. They used it as an opportunity to share their
faith.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian)
R.L. Measures
In article <4vj9j8$c...@herald.concentric.net>, gin...@concentric.net
(Gintas Jazbutis) wrote:
> In article <arielDw...@netcom.com>, ar...@netcom.com (Catherine
Hampton) wrote:
>
> >I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if someone
> >reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer and defend
> >yourself? etc. etc....
> >
>
> Exactly. Why not just let everyone read your mail? No? What,
> you've got something to hide, right?
>
> >Privacy is a precious right and, like most of the rights in the
> >Constitution, was won at considerable cost in blood, sweat, and tears
> >by people who know what life can be like without it. :( If someone came
> >to me and wanted to talk about my time in the discipling movement, and
> >told me up-front that they would like to record the conversation, I'd
> >have no problem with that. (I'd probably request a copy of the tape,
> >actually -- it might be a good record for me too.) In any event, I'd
> >tell the same story.
> >
>
> Maybe we should get rid of telephones and go back to
> letter writing. Then all our words would be carefully
> chosen, yet saved for all posterity. Plus we'd be rid
> of AT & T, MCI, and Sprint calling us a 10 pm.
>
Nah---then AT & T, MCI, and Sprint would start sending us junk mail
encouraging people to put pressure on Congress to end Telephone
Prohibition.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Gintas Jazbutis
>For the benefit of anybody who missed it:
>note--To those who are unfamilar with the loaded-language of the icoc, in
>the following quote, McKean uses the term Church of Christ as an
>adjective.
>
>"See, we've gotten so Church of Christ we don't want to say 'well there are
>prophets today.' I believe there are prophets today. I'll be extra bold. I
>believe I am a prophet. Now my question is do you believe that you're a
>prophet? Do you believe that you're a God=sent prophet who has been sent as
>his messenger topreach his word to his people to make a difference in this
>generation?" --Kip McKean, Manilla, 1994
>
Sign me up! I am now a prophet.
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
R.L. Measures
In article <4vngcm$l...@herald.concentric.net>, gin...@concentric.net
(Gintas Jazbutis) wrote:
> In article <measures-230...@term1-13.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >For the benefit of anybody who missed it:
> >note--To those who are unfamilar with the loaded-language of the icoc, in
> >the following quote, McKean uses the term Church of Christ as an
> >adjective.
> >
> >"See, we've gotten so Church of Christ we don't want to say 'well there are
> >prophets today.' I believe there are prophets today. I'll be extra bold. I
> >believe I am a prophet. Now my question is do you believe that you're a
> >prophet? Do you believe that you're a God=sent prophet who has been sent as
> >his messenger to preach his word to his people to make a difference in this
> >generation?" --Kip McKean, Manilla, 1994
> >
>
> Sign me up! I am now a prophet.
>
Well, if you say so, Bro Gintas, then you ARE a prophet. However, if you
want us to follow you instead of the other prophet, I'm thinking that you
ought to cut us a better deal on contributions, Since the other prophet
takes 20%, how about 5%? Once you get us under your spell, then you
could have a convenient divine revelation upping it to 18%. In a few
years, you should have enough money stashed in Zurich to take an early
retirement.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
In article <arielDw...@netcom.com>, ar...@netcom.com (Catherine
Hampton) wrote:
>
>I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if someone
>reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer and defend
>yourself? etc. etc....
I thought of a something to add to this:
If this is your POV, and if you know you're a Christian, then what do you
care if the ICC doesn't think you're one?
ChrisGarland
Eric,
Thanks for that post. I no longer care what the ICC thinks of me,
although I did for quite some time. I am secure in my relationship with
God and His grace.
I post here and do what I do because in order for me to *get* to this
place of confidence, I went through absolute hell because of what was
said and done to me by the ICC. I do this so other people will not have
to suffer the way I did to realize that God is a God of love and grace,
and not so easily defined as by the ICC. The ICC's narrowing of God
brings people to emotional turmoil and even suicide. Somebody has to
speak out against this.
--Chris
Catherine Hampton
EOshiro (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <arielDw...@netcom.com>, ar...@netcom.com (Catherine
: Hampton) wrote:
: >I'm with Ray on this one. If you're honest, why do you care if
: >someone reads your mail? If you're not guilty, why hire a lawyer
: >and defend yourself? etc. etc....
: I thought of a something to add to this:
: If this is your POV, and if you know you're a Christian, then what
: do you care if the ICC doesn't think you're one?
Now I'm confused. The piece you quoted above, taken out of its
context, could mean two totally different things. I in fact think
that innocent people have every reason to distrust the legal system
enough that they should hire a lawyer and protect themselves against
miscarriages of justice as much as they can. I absolutely care if
someone reads my private mail. I'd sue if I found out they were,
and I use PGP regularly with electronic mail to make it difficult
for them to read at least a fair proportion of it.
I forget who I was responding to, but they'd asked why an innocent
person would care if a conversation they held with someone was
taped without their knowledge. Ray responded, saying something like,
"I would care -- it's wrong". I agree with him, and cited the
two examples of reading mail, and hiring an attorney if you are
innocent and accused of a crime, as similar situations. Anyone
who feels that an innocent person has no need of privacy or need to
avail himself of his rights is living in something other than the
real world, in my opinion.
I also don't see the connection with your question, and am not sure
in what sense you are asking what you ask, regardless of how you
understood what I said. But I'll try to answer it anyway.
I don't think that your opinion, or the ICC's, or anyone else's
opinion on earth, about whether I'm a Christian or not, matters
before God. Nor do I think my opinion, or that of my bishops, about
you or the ICC matters before God. God is the judge, and He doesn't
need our help to understand the truth of what is in each person's
heart, or what any given group is for.
I am not, however, indifferent to other people's opinions about God,
or Christ, or the Church. To be indifferent would be supreme
arrogance -- no human being is infallible, and it is God Himself
who put us on this earth together, caused us to be born into families,
caused most of us to want to love, marry, and form families, and
made us to be part of larger human societies as well. We are not
not solitary animals -- even the desert Fathers of the first few
centuries mostly formed monastic communities and even most of the
hermits maintained contacts with such a community.
Christ saved His Church -- His Body and His Bride -- not just a
scattering of individual human beings with no further ties to each
other.
Finally, as a believer in the Trinity, I also believe that this
community of human beings is a reflection of the Divine Nature
itself -- God Himself exists as community. God is Love....
It is natural, of course, to trust the opinions of people you've
seen are both trustworthy -- that is, honest about who they are
and what they believe -- and who have shown good judgment in the
past. In my experience, my current religious leaders are
considerably ahead of my previous leaders in both respects, so I
trust their opinions more :), but a number of my previous leaders
were also trustworthy and wise people. I didn't ignore them, and
still don't, even when I disagree with them -- they are capable
of mistakes, but then so am I.
The real reason I care about the ICC and what it does, though, is
that I care that the name of my Lord and Savior is being used to
hurt other people. I know of too many people who have come to
distrust, fear, and hate Jesus Christ because of their experiences
in the ICC not to speak up. :( I'm a sinful person. I have trouble
staying the course sometimes. I fight my own fears, my own
depression, my own anger against God for various things. But
when I was fourteen, encountered Christ and for the first time had
a name to give to Him who had always been there on the edges of
my consciousness, I was caught good and proper. I can't not believe
any more.
And, because of this, I can't refuse to accept this world, which
He created and which He was willing to allow to exist with all its
sin and all its faults, nor His Church, filled with fallible,
sinful human beings just like me, who fail him, who screw up, who
try to improve upon what He made, and who constantly thwart His
will and ways because they think they know better than He does
how to do His work. Everything I've seen in the development of
the discipleship movement from its early days, which I was part of,
indicates that we did exactly this. We disobeyed Him because
we thought we knew better than He did. We created rules where
there were none, took on work which He had not set before us,
claimed His calling when we were doing our own wills and not His.
The results, in the ICC and in every human endeavor which claims
falsely to be from God, have been human misery, human pain, and
damaged and destroyed human lives. I don't take on more responsiblity
than I have for bringing this about, but I was a small part of
it.
The people who inherited the fruits and results of my mistakes and
those of others (including others in this group) are God's children
as much as I and they are. Christ cares when His children are hurt,
and He shows His love and care through His people, as well as in
many other ways. So I'm here.
Under His mercy,
Catherine
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Eric,
>
>Thanks for that post. I no longer care what the ICC thinks of me,
>although I did for quite some time. I am secure in my relationship with
>God and His grace.
>
>I post here and do what I do because in order for me to *get* to this
>place of confidence, I went through absolute hell because of what was
>said and done to me by the ICC. I do this so other people will not have
>to suffer the way I did to realize that God is a God of love and grace,
>and not so easily defined as by the ICC. The ICC's narrowing of God
>brings people to emotional turmoil and even suicide. Somebody has to
>speak out against this.
On the flip side, I post here because I don't agree with accusations from
specific instances directed at the entire organization. I accept the
reports, but I refuse to apply them to my experiences. I've simply never
experienced many of the things I hear about, and in a number of cases,
I've experienced the exact opposite. My friendships in the church here
have been the most genuine and loving I've ever experienced. I know
several people who would not even think of doing the things that have been
described. In my opinion, somebody has to speak *up for* this.
ChrisGarland
Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
*membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
planet. My problem is with the *technique* and *methodology* employed by
the church, which were instituted by your leadership. This methodology is
harmful and dangerous, as can be clearly seen by the great cloud of
damaged witnesses, and the suicides attributed to the ICC. Roger likes to
claim that all of the damaged people are on the outside, that if they had
stayed in,they wouldn't be damaged. That is simplistic and ignorant, and
we all know better. It is denial. Just wanted you to know where I'm
coming from.
R.L. Measures
> I do this so other people will not have
> to suffer the way I did to realize that God is a God of love and grace,
> and not so easily defined as by the ICC. The ICC's narrowing of God
> brings people to emotional turmoil and even suicide. Somebody has to
> speak out against this.
>
Yes.
nice post
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
>post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
>*membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
>in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
>planet. <snip>
Fair enough. Although, to me, sometimes it seems to come across as
otherwise. But maybe it's just a preconceived notion I have that colors
my vision.
>My problem is with the *technique* and *methodology* employed by
>the church, which were instituted by your leadership. This methodology is
>harmful and dangerous, as can be clearly seen by the great cloud of
>damaged witnesses, and the suicides attributed to the ICC. <snip>
Right now, I am transcribing a number of quotes from our recent Oceania
Missions Conference. I think you will find a number of them surprising,
especially since some of the speakers are from L.A.
>Roger likes to
>claim that all of the damaged people are on the outside, that if they had
>stayed in,they wouldn't be damaged. That is simplistic and ignorant, and
>we all know better. It is denial. <snip>
There is something to be said for perseverence, but there is something to
be said about beating a dead horse as well. I think some people are
probably better off having left, and some might have been better off
staying in and trying to change things. Of course, I don't know enough of
specific instances, so I won't say anything one way or the other.
>Just wanted you to know where I'm coming from.
Thanks, it helps.
ChrisGarland
Now this confuses me. I *know* what your church teaches about non-members
and people who leave it -- they go to hell. Are you saying that some
people are better off going to hell? Eric, what do *you* believe -- is
your church the kingdom of God or isn't it? It sounds as if you are
standing on a fence here, because I *don't* think you are saying some
people are better off going to hell.
R.L. Measures
> Chris G. writes:
>
> >Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
> >post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
> >*membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
> >in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
> >planet. <snip>
There were over 900 sincere Christians at Jonestown. There were over 80
sincere Christians at Mt. Carmel.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R.L. Measures
> Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> <much information snipped>
>
> : If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
> : about tape recording sessions?
> <snip>
>
> I don't mind being recorded as long as people tell me in advance.
-----------------
I don't mind being recorded by the person I am speaking with--whether they
tell me or not. I don't mind being quoted. A tape recording assures
accuracy.
A question: Does anyone feel that it is unethical for either party of a
telephone conversation to make written notes as the conversation is taking
place?
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
ChrisGarland (chr...@198.4.75.49) wrote:
: Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
: post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
: *membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
: in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
: planet. My problem is with the *technique* and *methodology* employed by
Come off it, Chris. You've called me and other members "brainwashed",
"cult members", accused us of not thinking, blindly following our
leaders, and posted that the ICC should be banned from every public place.
Others have posted on this newsgroup, without repudiation, that "the ICC
must fall!" and threatened that "Kip is going to pay".
I am a *member* and you are most certainly opposed to me, insulting me
and my brothers and sisters in Christ at every turn. You'd have me
locked up and thrown in jail if it wasn't for that annoying loophole in
the Constitution about free speech and freedom of religion.
Really Chris, you can go off and slam my church all you want, but it is
comical to hear your terms of endearment: "some of the most sincere group
of Christians on the planet". Darn right I'm sincere. I'm sincerely
ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
needlessly day in and day out.
ChrisGarland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>ChrisGarland (chr...@198.4.75.49) wrote:
>: eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>: >Chris G. writes:
>: >
>
>: Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
>: post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
>: *membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
>: in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
>: planet. My problem is with the *technique* and *methodology* employed by
>
>Come off it, Chris. You've called me and other members "brainwashed",
>"cult members", accused us of not thinking, blindly following our
>leaders, and posted that the ICC should be banned from every public place.
Roger, unless you can back these accusations up with proof, don't speak.
I *never* said the ICC should be banned from "every public place." I
said that the university in question had the right to determine which
groups used its public meeting places. I further said that *any*
university should think long and hard about allowing a group with a
reputation for abuse and mind control to utilize campus facilities for
recruitment. That is *far* from banning the ICC from "every public
place."
I do think you are brainwashed. I also think U.S. Marines are
brainwashed, but I am not opposed to individual marines, either -- only
the system of mind control employed. The fact that you refuse to see the
difference between opposition to your organization and opposition to you
only boosters my belief. Why *you* would take insult that I believe you
are brainwashed is beyond me. *You* aren't responsible for your
brainwashing, your church is.
>Others have posted on this newsgroup, without repudiation, that "the ICC
>must fall!" and threatened that "Kip is going to pay".
That's others -- not me. I've called someone a nut on this newsgroup for
threating Kips life. Critics are not a homogenous community engaging in
groupthink, Roger.
>I am a *member* and you are most certainly opposed to me, insulting me
>and my brothers and sisters in Christ at every turn. You'd have me
>locked up and thrown in jail if it wasn't for that annoying loophole in
>the Constitution about free speech and freedom of religion.
You insult yourself with sensationalist statements like this. Its no
wonder people call your church a cult -- I have never even come *close*
to insinuating that you or your fellow members should be thrown in jail,
yet you have taken it upon yourself to judge what it is my heart and
mind. Pathetic, Roger. The fantasies that you portray on this newsgroup
are the result of the mind-control group you are in, and it is quite
clear to the readers.
>Really Chris, you can go off and slam my church all you want, but it is
>comical to hear your terms of endearment: "some of the most sincere group
>of Christians on the planet". Darn right I'm sincere. I'm sincerely
>ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
>needlessly day in and day out.
And I am sincerely ticked off about you and your church dragging *my*
sisters and brothers in Christ through the mud and condemning us all to
hell! I reiterate what I've been saying all along --- take the plank out
of your own eye, Roger.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
Please refer me to which Scripture in the First Principles study is
"take[n] out of context" since these are generally the Scriptures I use
when I study the Bible with someone.
Mudpies
Roger writes:
>Really Chris, you can go off and slam my church all you want, but it is
>comical to hear your terms of endearment: "some of the most sincere group
>of Christians on the planet". Darn right I'm sincere. I'm sincerely
>ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
>needlessly day in and day out.
I thought it was Jesus' church?
"Hello Kettle(Chris), my name is Pot(Roger). You're black and I maybe
black too but my black is more rigtheous than your black, therefore *I*
can drag you through the mud.
Michelle C.
"A heart held humble will level and light your way"
nancy
On Aug 29, 1996 07:26:30 in article <Re: Why we do the things we do (was:
tape recordings )>, 'rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann)' wrote:
>ChrisGarland (chr...@198.4.75.49) wrote:
>: eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>: >Chris G. writes:
>: >
>
>: Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
>: post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
>: *membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
>: in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
>: planet. My problem is with the *technique* and *methodology* employed by
>
>Come off it, Chris. You've called me and other members "brainwashed",
>"cult members", accused us of not thinking, blindly following our
>leaders, and posted that the ICC should be banned from every public place.
>Others have posted on this newsgroup, without repudiation, that "the ICC
>must fall!" and threatened that "Kip is going to pay".
Come on Roger, Chris was a member for 5(?) years, he's been there!
I've yet to read anything about making Kip pay, unless, of course, the IRS
has finally caught up to him! <G!>
<snip>
nancy
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
<snip>
>>There is something to be said for perseverence, but there is something
to
>>be said about beating a dead horse as well. I think some people are
>>probably better off having left, and some might have been better off
>>staying in and trying to change things. Of course, I don't know enough
of
>>specific instances, so I won't say anything one way or the other.
>
>Now this confuses me. I *know* what your church teaches about non-members
>and people who leave it -- they go to hell. Are you saying that some
>people are better off going to hell? Eric, what do *you* believe -- is
>your church the kingdom of God or isn't it? It sounds as if you are
>standing on a fence here, because I *don't* think you are saying some
>people are better off going to hell.
Well, like I said, I'd rather not say anything one way or the other. So,
I guess I'll deal with theoretical ideas. In Revelations 2:4-5, Jesus
tells the church about how he will "remove your lampstand" if they do not
repent of their sins. So I believe it is possible for an entire church to
fall away from God, especially from a doctrinal perspective. There
exists, I believe, the possibility for the ICC to remain the true church
while a church from within its ranks falls away. I don't know about other
people, but I am highly reluctant to say, "So-and-so (i.e., Mother
Theresa) will go to hell," simply because I don't know the future. If the
person is dead, I can make a best guess based on their life, but I
probably won't even say anything unless I know them personally. But while
the person is still alive, it's fairly easy to point out Biblical
standards that *do* judge where a person will go *if* they continue to
live in such a manner. No, I certainly do not believe that some people
are better off going to hell. But I think the Bible clearly says that the
majority of people will not go to heaven. After taking that into account,
figure that more than half the people that have ever lived are alive right
now.
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Chris G. writes:
>
>>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
><snip>
>>>There is something to be said for perseverence, but there is something
>to
>>>be said about beating a dead horse as well. I think some people are
>>>probably better off having left, and some might have been better off
>>>staying in and trying to change things. Of course, I don't know enough
>of
>>>specific instances, so I won't say anything one way or the other.
>>
>>Now this confuses me. I *know* what your church teaches about non-members
>
>>and people who leave it -- they go to hell. Are you saying that some
>>people are better off going to hell? Eric, what do *you* believe -- is
>>your church the kingdom of God or isn't it? It sounds as if you are
>>standing on a fence here, because I *don't* think you are saying some
>>people are better off going to hell.
>
>Well, like I said, I'd rather not say anything one way or the other. So,
>I guess I'll deal with theoretical ideas.
Curious. Why, Eric? Are your ideas not in line with the ICC 100%? Or are
your ideas too radical for us to hear?
In Revelations 2:4-5, Jesus
>tells the church about how he will "remove your lampstand" if they do not
>repent of their sins. So I believe it is possible for an entire church to
>fall away from God, especially from a doctrinal perspective.
I don't think those scriptures were dealing with doctrinal issues, were
they (it's been a while since I read revelation). I'm under the
impression that there was sexual immorality (like temple prostitution),
denying the humanity and divinity of Christ, and lukewarmness. I don't
recall doctrinal issues.
There
>exists, I believe, the possibility for the ICC to remain the true church
>while a church from within its ranks falls away.
By the same token, the RCC could remain the "true church" (if there is
such a thing) despite the fact that that the protestant reformation
occured.
I don't know about other
>people, but I am highly reluctant to say, "So-and-so (i.e., Mother
>Theresa) will go to hell," simply because I don't know the future.
FYI, when I was studying in Philadelphia, the lead evangelist refused to
baptize me until I said publically that I believed Mother Teresa was lost
and going to hell. This man is still a big-wig evangelist, although he's
now in New York.
Michael
ChrisGarland wrote:
>
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> >ChrisGarland (chr...@198.4.75.49) wrote:
> >
> >: Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for your
> >: post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
> >: *membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the membership
> >: in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
> >: planet. My problem is with the *technique* and *methodology* employed by
> >
> >Come off it, Chris. You've called me and other members "brainwashed",
> >"cult members", accused us of not thinking, blindly following our
> >leaders, and posted that the ICC should be banned from every public place.
>
> I *never* said the ICC should be banned from "every public place." I
> said that the university in question had the right to determine which
> groups used its public meeting places. I further said that *any*
> university should think long and hard about allowing a group with a
> reputation for abuse and mind control to utilize campus facilities for
> recruitment. That is *far* from banning the ICC from "every public
> place."
>
> I do think you are brainwashed. I also think U.S. Marines are
> brainwashed, but I am not opposed to individual marines, either -- only
> the system of mind control employed. The fact that you refuse to see the
> difference between opposition to your organization and opposition to you
> only boosters my belief. Why *you* would take insult that I believe you
> are brainwashed is beyond me. *You* aren't responsible for your
> brainwashing, your church is.
>
> >must fall!" and threatened that "Kip is going to pay".
>
> threating Kips life. Critics are not a homogenous community engaging in
> groupthink, Roger.
>
> >I am a *member* and you are most certainly opposed to me, insulting me
> >and my brothers and sisters in Christ at every turn. You'd have me
> >locked up and thrown in jail if it wasn't for that annoying loophole in
> >the Constitution about free speech and freedom of religion.
>
> You insult yourself with sensationalist statements like this. Its no
> wonder people call your church a cult -- I have never even come *close*
> to insinuating that you or your fellow members should be thrown in jail,
> yet you have taken it upon yourself to judge what it is my heart and
> mind. Pathetic, Roger. The fantasies that you portray on this newsgroup
> are the result of the mind-control group you are in, and it is quite
> clear to the readers.
>
> >comical to hear your terms of endearment: "some of the most sincere group
> >of Christians on the planet". Darn right I'm sincere. I'm sincerely
> >ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
> >needlessly day in and day out.
>
> sisters and brothers in Christ through the mud and condemning us all to
> hell! I reiterate what I've been saying all along --- take the plank out
> of your own eye, Roger.
Amen, Brother! :)
Starr
ChrisGarland <chr...@198.4.75.49> wrote:
(I did some snippage for brevity's sake)
>rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>>Come off it, Chris. You've called me and other members "brainwashed",
>>"cult members", accused us of not thinking, blindly following our
>>leaders, and posted that the ICC should be banned from every public place.
>>Others have posted on this newsgroup, without repudiation, that "the ICC
>>must fall!" and threatened that "Kip is going to pay".
>That's others -- not me. I've called someone a nut on this newsgroup for
>threating Kips life. Critics are not a homogenous community engaging in
>groupthink, Roger.
>You insult yourself with sensationalist statements like this. Its no
>wonder people call your church a cult -- I have never even come *close*
>to insinuating that you or your fellow members should be thrown in jail,
>yet you have taken it upon yourself to judge what it is my heart and
>mind. Pathetic, Roger. The fantasies that you portray on this newsgroup
>are the result of the mind-control group you are in, and it is quite
>clear to the readers.
my, my, my.
Roger's getting his fur ruffled.
Chris' getting his dander up.
And I thought the ringside at the arcbc post was *humorous*. I didn't
realize how accurate it was.
Roger, you seem to have this persecution complex. Now, if it were
about anything other than *religion*, people would say you're
paranoid. Just cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to
get you. :) You take any discussion of your church and lump it into
"the critics say" without ever even seriously looking at the merits of
anything. Oh, you pay lip service - but for every question, you have
a dodge. You are free to go to any church you want, believe whatever
you want to believe. Why do you not feel the same obligation to
others that we afford you? Because you're bigoted. You're
close-minded. You refuse to accept any other position as *possibly,
remotely* correct except your own.
Chris, been under tension lately? I mean, I'm feverish with
pneumonia, and I have to separate you and Roger? Come on, lighten up
just a bit, please? Roger's accusations against you are unfair &
unwarranted & unjustified. But man, you're getting way too upset. Of
course, thise could just be the codeine cough syrup talking, making me
much more mellow than usual, but jeez, double-dog-dares went out in
grade school.
EOshiro
Chris G. writes (to Roger):
>I do think you are brainwashed. I also think U.S. Marines are
>brainwashed, but I am not opposed to individual marines, either -- only
>the system of mind control employed. The fact that you refuse to see the
>difference between opposition to your organization and opposition to you
>only boosters my belief. Why *you* would take insult that I believe you
>are brainwashed is beyond me. *You* aren't responsible for your
>brainwashing, your church is.
Personally, I'd rather people call me a cult member than tell me they pity
me as a victim.
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>Personally, I'd rather people call me a cult member than tell me they
pity me as a victim.
I do no think of you as a victim. Whether you follow Christ or Kip, if
you do it of your free will, you are not a victim. If we are
brainwashed into beliefs it is often because we allow it.
Cult members in Kip's kingdom.
- People who freely follow the teachings of Kip's Kingdom, based on
constant pressure and reinforcement of what it means to be a
follower of Kip. (Interpret the Bible and Jesus the way Kip would).
Victims of Kip's Kingdom
- Children of cult members.
- People who kill themselves because they don't measure up to Kip's
standards.
- People who disagree with Kip's teachings, and are marked, kicked
out, and or hated.
- Family members who are separated from loved one's because their
loved one is not allowed to associate, participate with their
earthly family.
- People who think they are unconditionaly loved by followers of Kip
and find out they were used.
- Followers of Jesus who are blasted unmercifully by Kip and his
followers without a chance to defend themselves or their beliefs.
I am a follower of Jesus, in some people's eyes that may make me a
cult follower and some believe my child is a victim of my beliefs.
My hope is that you are a follower of Jesus also.
Smlleecat6
Roger wrote:
>I am a *member* and you are most certainly opposed to me, insulting me
>and my brothers and sisters in Christ at every turn. You'd have me
>locked up and thrown in jail if it wasn't for that annoying loophole in
>the Constitution about free speech and freedom of religion.
Have you finally lost it or what?
I know some sincere people in the church. I leave right next to a couple
of them. I believe they love God with all their heart, mind and soul. I
also *know* that they won't read anything critical about the church. When
I told them about something I had read, they said "why do you even read
that?"
Now, if they were going to buy a car would they read all the critical
literature about the car? Probably. If they were going to choose a health
plan would they read the literature critical of the health plan?
Probably. If they were thinking of taking a job would they read
literature critical of the company? Probably. Yet ICC members think that
if they read material critical of their church that they are sinning.
Like you they make out everything outside the ICC to be pure evil. One
cannot have a good marriage outside the ICC. One cannot have sincere
friendships outside the ICC. They choose to exist all nice and snuggly in
their ICC cacoon.
Although I don't agree with everything they say or believe, I still like
them. Even if there was a loophole in the bill of rights I wouldn't lock
them up. That statement is ludicrous! (There are some people though that
I would like to slap across the face like in the movies and say "snap out
of it man!")
Catherine Hampton
EOshiro (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
: Personally, I'd rather people call me a cult member than tell me
: they pity me as a victim.
So would most people, but that's pride talking, not a realistic
assessment of the situation. Think, Eric -- which is more insulting?
To be told that someone believes you've been put under mind
control, or to be told that someone thinks you are lying about
God and trying to send people to hell intentionally? Mind control
isn't "brainwashed zombie", and to say that someone is operating
under it just implies that their judgment on certain issues is
suspect because their information and thoughts have been manipulated,
usually without their knowledge or consent.
The other accusation doesn't question your judgment or grasp
of the facts. It does question your basic decency -- to the level
that it implies you are more devil than human. :( To accuse
someone of intentionally lying about God in full knowledge that
they are lying, or of intentionally trying to mislead people
about God in full knowledge of what they are doing, is perhaps
the ugliest accusation it's possible to make against anyone.
Most of us humans would prefer to be thought evil than be thought
a fool, but that's because of pride and ignorance. In my opinion,
if we think things through and realize how small a thing it is to
be wrong or fooled, even about an important issue, and how huge
an evil it is to be deliberately deceptive, we'll change our minds
and repent of our pride rather fast.
For the record -- no, I don't think you're an intentional deceiver.
:> I do think you're deceived about certain things, and from
watching how you deal with adverse information about your church,
I think you're probably under mind control about certain issues.
I've been under mind control a few times -- times which had nothing
to do with my time in the discipling movement. Once during college
I was hypnotized, which was instructive. I've taken part in a
couple of experiments involving social and peer pressure, and found
myself agreeing to things I never would have if I hadn't felt
so pressured by those around me. If enough people around you
insist that black is white, most people will end up going along with
the crowd. And I'm unusually detached from my peers in a lot of
ways and less susceptible to this kind of pressure than most
people are. It can be =very= effective.
Once did involve a religious situation -- a cult recruitment, to be
precise. Oddly enough, this was a year after I got involved in the
Crossroads movement, and the lure was that someone I knew at
high school and hoped to convert asked me to talk with some guys
he'd been studying the Bible with. I jumped at the opportunity
because I wanted to know what the friend was hearing to be able to
counter it. So I agreed to meet with them one evening.
That evening, I came over to their place. Item 1 -- they controlled
the environment. The lights were dim. At the time I assumed that
was because this was a dumpy apartment in a bad area of town, but
it induced a sense of disorientation and made it hard to read, so
I couldn't keep up in my Bible with the stuff they leader was saying.
There were five or six of these guys, and someone's wife in the
kitchen bringing out refreshments, but otherwise staying out of it.
The guys insisted on sitting very close to me, and the leader
practically had his face in mine....
They were part of some fundamentalist group that called themselves
"The Apostolic Faith Church", but apparently not the larger one
some of you might have heard of. They may have been an offshoot.
Anyway, they didn't believe in the Trinity, didn't believe in
most of what I believed in, insisted in placing all reliance for
faith on some non-rational "gift of the spirit" and speaking in
tongues. I was raised by agnostic parents, and still mistrusted
anything that claimed to be supernatural by instinct. I knew the
Bible well, was teaching myself Greek and could even read parts
of it in the original. One on one with most people, I could hold
my own in any argument. (And was proud of this, unfortunately.) :(
I didn't believe anything these guys were teaching. It didn't
matter -- I got drawn in and felt as if I was trying to fight
a cloud or cotton. Toward the end I became frightened, convinced
both that I was on my way to hell and that these guys had drugged
something I'd eaten earlier. (It is possible they did, but I
don't think so.)
I wasn't wearing a watch, and lost track of the time. When I
finally asked, it was 3:00 AM in the morning. I freaked, and
insisted on going home. I think I scared them -- they tried
their best to convince me not to leave, but I practically tore
the door open to get out of there.
This was actually a pretty crude attempt at mind control. They
overdid it at first, failed to spot the signs that should have
told anyone with some understanding of psychology that I was
getting spooked with them and their behavior, and looking for
a way to escape. But the situation was frightening. I never
would talk to them again.
I think that was why I got interested in hypnosis and other forms
of mind control in college, although not enough to study the
subject systematically. It did once and for all get rid of my
scepticism that such a thing existed, though. :(
Catherine
ChrisGarland
stayed in the ICC. I don't need you judging my attitude. Keep it to
yourself.
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>On the flip side, I post here because I don't agree with accusations from
>specific instances directed at the entire organization. I accept the
>reports, but I refuse to apply them to my experiences. I've simply never
>experienced many of the things I hear about, and in a number of cases,
>I've experienced the exact opposite. My friendships in the church here
>have been the most genuine and loving I've ever experienced. I know
>several people who would not even think of doing the things that have been
>described. In my opinion, somebody has to speak *up for* this.
Once upon a time EO was walking through the woods. He was on his
way to his favorite cave where he could hide from the light of day. A
non christian passed him along the way and said, "EO - there's a
grizzly bear in that cave - don't go in there." To this EO replied,
"I have hidden in there from the light of day on many occasions -
never in MY EXPERIENCE have I seen a grizzly bear in there - surely
this is just another attempt at deception. You just THINK there's a
grisly bear in there. If you were a real christian like me - you'd
have more faith. So in he went.
Shortly thereafter came a blood curtling scream from the cave. EO
came running out from the cave all gashed and bleeding and as he ran
past the non christian he shouted, "SEE! THAT WAS NO GRIZZLY -
THAT WAS JUST MY DISCIPLER!"
The End
:)
Mark Davis
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Really Chris, you can go off and slam my church all you want, but it is
>comical to hear your terms of endearment: "some of the most sincere group
>of Christians on the planet". Darn right I'm sincere. I'm sincerely
>ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
>needlessly day in and day out.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Well there's the door Roger!
(The rest of you who use the ears God gave you will be tired of
hearing this so tune out now if you wish.)
Once again I will remind you that this group was CHARTERED for
the purpose of debating whether or not the ICC is a destructive cult
and ALL of the issues you JUST RAISED are covered in the original
charter for this group. That is why we are here. If you don't like
it well that's just TOUGH! That is the way it is. Stop whining about
persecution, stop complaining that we've hurt your feelings, get over
it and move on already... this is getting old.
Mark Davis
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Curious. Why, Eric? Are your ideas not in line with the ICC 100%? Or are
>your ideas too radical for us to hear?
I have no idea, since I don't know 100%.
>>In Revelations 2:4-5, Jesus
>>tells the church about how he will "remove your lampstand" if they do
not
>>repent of their sins. So I believe it is possible for an entire church
to
>>fall away from God, especially from a doctrinal perspective.
>
>I don't think those scriptures were dealing with doctrinal issues, were
>they (it's been a while since I read revelation). I'm under the
>impression that there was sexual immorality (like temple prostitution),
>denying the humanity and divinity of Christ, and lukewarmness. I don't
>recall doctrinal issues.
If perseverence is not part of doctrine, what is it?
>>There
>>exists, I believe, the possibility for the ICC to remain the true church
>>while a church from within its ranks falls away.
>
>By the same token, the RCC could remain the "true church" (if there is
>such a thing) despite the fact that that the protestant reformation
>occured.
That almost sounds like an argument for the RCC being the only true
church. Especially coming from someone who attends RCC services.
>FYI, when I was studying in Philadelphia, the lead evangelist refused to
>baptize me until I said publically that I believed Mother Teresa was lost
>and going to hell. This man is still a big-wig evangelist, although he's
>now in New York.
Hmm. I only had to confess, "Jesus is Lord."
EOshiro
Rob writes:
>In <508ua6$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) writes:
>
>>Personally, I'd rather people call me a cult member than tell me they
>>pity me as a victim.
>
>I do no think of you as a victim. Whether you follow Christ or Kip, if
>you do it of your free will, you are not a victim. If we are
>brainwashed into beliefs it is often because we allow it.
I also believe that brainwashing is possible only if you *think* it's
possible.
>Victims of Kip's Kingdom
> - Children of cult members.
> - People who kill themselves because they don't measure up to Kip's
> standards.
> - People who disagree with Kip's teachings, and are marked, kicked
> out, and or hated.
> - Family members who are separated from loved one's because their
> loved one is not allowed to associate, participate with their
> earthly family.
> - People who think they are unconditionaly loved by followers of Kip
> and find out they were used.
> - Followers of Jesus who are blasted unmercifully by Kip and his
> followers without a chance to defend themselves or their beliefs.
I suppose they are victims just in the definition of the word. But I
absolute hate the term "victim" as it is used endlessly on talk shows.
Starr
ChrisGarland <chr...@198.4.75.49> wrote:
Kim wrote:
>>my, my, my.
>>
>>Roger's getting his fur ruffled.
>>Chris' getting his dander up.
>>
>>And I thought the ringside at the arcbc post was *humorous*. I didn't
>>realize how accurate it was.
>>Chris, been under tension lately? I mean, I'm feverish with
>>pneumonia, and I have to separate you and Roger? Come on, lighten up
>>just a bit, please? Roger's accusations against you are unfair &
>>unwarranted & unjustified. But man, you're getting way too upset. Of
>>course, thise could just be the codeine cough syrup talking, making me
>>much more mellow than usual, but jeez, double-dog-dares went out in
>>grade school.
>>
>Hey Kim, i'm not interested in being discipled. If I was, I would have
>stayed in the ICC. I don't need you judging my attitude. Keep it to
>yourself.
Chris, I was going to email this to you, but on second thought I
decided to post. *I* discipling you? Puhlease. No interest
whatsoever. If that's what *your* experience in discipling was, then
I have no wonder whatsoever why you left the ICC. I wasn't judging
your attitude. I was commenting on your *words*. If you want
discipling, I could of course quote a great many biblical verses on
the subject. But I wasn't [discipling] and I won't [scripture wars].
So get off the ride, okay?
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
In <50bqgd$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) writes:
>
Rob wrote:
>
>>Victims of Kip's Kingdom
>> - Children of cult members.
>> - People who kill themselves because they don't measure up to
Kip's
>> standards.
>> - People who disagree with Kip's teachings, and are marked, kicked
>> out, and or hated.
>> - Family members who are separated from loved one's because their
> loved one is not allowed to associate, participate with their
>> earthly family.
>> - People who think they are unconditionaly loved by followers of
Kip
>> and find out they were used.
>> - Followers of Jesus who are blasted unmercifully by Kip and his
>> followers without a chance to defend themselves or their
beliefs.
EO wrote:>
>I suppose they are victims just in the definition of the word. But I
>absolute hate the term "victim" as it is used endlessly on talk shows.
I don't hate the word victim, it is one of the best words that we have
heard in our society in the last 10 years. Yes, it seems everyone is
calling themselves victims, but you know, many people do fit this
category based on man's inhumanity to man. Maybe there will be a time
when racial, religious, and cultural hatred are a thing of the past.
Maybe there will be a time when crime gets to a level where women are
not raped, or children abused. Until then, lets keep the word victim
in our vocabulary. I also think people who are kidnapped to be
deprogrammed are victims.
EOshiro
Rich writes:
>In article <501320$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
wrote:
>
>> Chris G. writes:
>>
>> >Eric, please correct me here if I'm wrong. I get the impression for
your
>> >post that you think I and the other ICC critics are opposed to the
>> >*membership* of the ICC. I am not; in fact, I think that the
membership
>> >in general are some of the most sincere group of Christians on the
>> >planet. <snip>
>
>There were over 900 sincere Christians at Jonestown. There were over 80
>sincere Christians at Mt. Carmel.
You do know you're responding to something Chris wrote, right? But if
you're saying sincerity does not necessarily equal salvation, I agree. (I
don't know the references offhand.) Although sincerity is a good thing in
itself.
Catherine writes:
>EOshiro (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Personally, I'd rather people call me a cult member than tell me
>: they pity me as a victim.
>
>So would most people, but that's pride talking, not a realistic
>assessment of the situation. Think, Eric -- which is more insulting?
>To be told that someone believes you've been put under mind
>control, or to be told that someone thinks you are lying about
>God and trying to send people to hell intentionally? Mind control
>isn't "brainwashed zombie", and to say that someone is operating
>under it just implies that their judgment on certain issues is
>suspect because their information and thoughts have been manipulated,
>usually without their knowledge or consent.
Actually, I was refering to personal contact situations. I don't care if
they call me a cult member because I'm there to defend myself. If they
tell me that they pity me, I don't need that. It means they think I'm
either too dumb to know right from wrong, or that they don't believe I'm a
human being with free will. "Cult member" has a more concrete, proveable
definition than "victim." There's less of a chance that I'll be able to
make someone stop their pity for me--unless it changes to hate. (Which I
would not try to do, but it could happen.)
<snip>
>Most of us humans would prefer to be thought evil than be thought
>a fool, but that's because of pride and ignorance.
I know I'm a fool. The Bible says that. I'd rather not be thought of as
evil because that makes a poor reputation for a Christian.
>For the record -- no, I don't think you're an intentional deceiver.
>:> I do think you're deceived about certain things, and from
>watching how you deal with adverse information about your church,
>I think you're probably under mind control about certain issues.
What's wrong with how I deal with it? I accept it, and present my (often
contraditory) side of the story. And I keep an eye out for anything that
sound like other people's experiences.
>I think that was why I got interested in hypnosis and other forms
>of mind control in college, although not enough to study the
>subject systematically. It did once and for all get rid of my
>scepticism that such a thing existed, though. :(
I believe it exists for those who believe it exists. But not me.
Rob writes:
>I don't hate the word victim, it is one of the best words that we have
>heard in our society in the last 10 years. Yes, it seems everyone is
>calling themselves victims, but you know, many people do fit this
>category based on man's inhumanity to man. Maybe there will be a time
>when racial, religious, and cultural hatred are a thing of the past.
>Maybe there will be a time when crime gets to a level where women are
>not raped, or children abused. Until then, lets keep the word victim
>in our vocabulary. I also think people who are kidnapped to be
>deprogrammed are victims.
Victim has a legitimate definition. But it is overused. My problem is
not so much with the term itself, but with people who are *living as*
victims. Those thrive on pity. Those who take no personal responsibility
for anything. Those who do nothing to change it, or prevent it from
happening to others. In short, whiners.
EOshiro
Mark writes:
>Once upon a time EO was walking through the woods. He was on his
>way to his favorite cave where he could hide from the light of day. A
>non christian passed him along the way and said, "EO - there's a
>grizzly bear in that cave - don't go in there." To this EO replied,
>"I have hidden in there from the light of day on many occasions -
>never in MY EXPERIENCE have I seen a grizzly bear in there - surely
>this is just another attempt at deception. You just THINK there's a
>grisly bear in there. If you were a real christian like me - you'd
>have more faith. So in he went.
>
>Shortly thereafter came a blood curtling scream from the cave. EO
>came running out from the cave all gashed and bleeding and as he ran
>past the non christian he shouted, "SEE! THAT WAS NO GRIZZLY -
>THAT WAS JUST MY DISCIPLER!"
>
>The End
Fabulous. Mother Goose meets Stephen King.
You've never met me. You've never met any of my disciplers. You've never
been to my church. So I think that was uncalled for.
For another thing, I never would have said those things. Christian and
Non-Christian would have no bearing (no pun intended) on the situation. I
would have actually taken the time to listen to the guy. Asked him if he
had seen the bear, or heard the bear, or if he had seen evidence that he
knew would show there was a bear in there, or if other people had been
attacked by the bear before. Of course, if they guy was nothing but a
practical joker or someone who did nothing but make trouble to me, I would
be much less likely to listen. And I would never make a stupid "real
Christian" type comment.
I've been searching for a way to put this: I think your hatred of the ICC
is just as unjustified as if you took a shortcut down a dark alley, got
mugged, and started hating all Hispanics because the punk who robbed you
was Hispanic.
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
EO writes:
>Victim has a legitimate definition. But it is overused. My problem
>is not so much with the term itself, but with people who are *living
>as victims. Those thrive on pity. Those who take no personal
>responsibility
>for anything. Those who do nothing to change it, or prevent it from
>happening to others. In short, whiners.
I guess we agree then. You don't dislike victims you dislike whiners.
Lets not associate whiners with victims. They are two different kinds
of people. Because of whiners don't lose your compassion for victims.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian - who tries to avoid talk shows)
Smlleecat6
>If this is your POV, and if you know you're a Christian, then what do you
>care if the ICC doesn't think you're one?
What if the ICC starts to recruit people from your church - telling them
that they are not christians? Telling them that the church doesn't teach
the truth?
ICC - Deprogrammers for the Denominational World.
Charge? 20% of your salary.
Starr
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
>In article <4vijq9$7...@crl5.crl.com>, rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>> Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> <much information snipped>
>>
>> : If your church is as honest as it says it is then why are you worried
>> : about tape recording sessions?
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't mind being recorded as long as people tell me in advance.
interjection: If I know the conversation is being recorded, I have no
problem with it. I think it sneaky to do so without telling all
parties involved.
>-----------------
>I don't mind being recorded by the person I am speaking with--whether they
>tell me or not. I don't mind being quoted. A tape recording assures
>accuracy.
>A question: Does anyone feel that it is unethical for either party of a
>telephone conversation to make written notes as the conversation is taking
>place?
Written notes? As in, to jog your memory of the time, place,
circumstances, people involved in the conversation, topic & basic
subject matter? No, I don't have a problem with that.
BTW - & FWIW - most handwritten notes like that are subpoenable.
Remember the former Senator Packwood? He found out the hard way his
diaries were subpoenable. Of course, he was a public figure imbued
with public trust. Kip certainly falls into the category of a public
figure, but as clergy he has certain immunities. I would have to do
more research - and it would probably vary from state to state - to
find out exactly what kind of immunity he has. Unless, of course, you
were alleging something federal, and that's a whole different ball of
wax.
Starr
robs...@ix.netcom.com(ROBBIN VUGRNICK) wrote:
>EO writes:
>>Victim has a legitimate definition. But it is overused. My problem
>>is not so much with the term itself, but with people who are *living
>>as victims. Those thrive on pity. Those who take no personal
>>responsibility for anything. Those who do nothing to change it, or prevent it from
>>happening to others. In short, whiners.
>I guess we agree then. You don't dislike victims you dislike whiners.
>Lets not associate whiners with victims. They are two different kinds
>of people. Because of whiners don't lose your compassion for victims.
A "victim" implies a sense of powerlessness. A "whiner", someone who
complains about something but does nothing about it. A "survivor", on
the other hand, has been through an experience, lived to tell about
it, and has hopefully gained some insight from the whole experience.
Most survivors I know try to help others in similar situations benefit
from their hard-earned experience. The school of hard knocks is a
good teacher, but the tuition's awfully expensive.
Ed Tice
> Once upon a time EO was walking through the woods. He was on his
> way to his favorite cave where he could hide from the light of day. A
> non christian passed him along the way and said, "EO - there's a
> grizzly bear in that cave - don't go in there." To this EO replied,
> "I have hidden in there from the light of day on many occasions -
> never in MY EXPERIENCE have I seen a grizzly bear in there - surely
> this is just another attempt at deception. You just THINK there's a
> grisly bear in there. If you were a real christian like me - you'd
> have more faith. So in he went.
>
> Shortly thereafter came a blood curtling scream from the cave. EO
> came running out from the cave all gashed and bleeding and as he ran
> past the non christian he shouted, "SEE! THAT WAS NO GRIZZLY -
> THAT WAS JUST MY DISCIPLER!"
>
Although this post is funny, it's scary that you ASSUME that EO thinks that
way. I for one listen to every critic I meet. If they are critical of a
leader whom I don't know, I try to shift the focus back toward God and the
Bible. If they are critical of something which has happened/is happening
in the church, I listen. If their criticism is invalid, I thank them for
their input. If it is valid, I don't get a bad attitude nor do I exepct
everyone in the church to change instantly. However, if someone has been
slighted by the church, I keep it in mind so that **I** don't do that to
somebody else. What happened to the days of being responsible for OUR OWN
salvation. If everyone in the ICC is doing something wrong, I'll make a
point not to do it myself. And I'll try to show others the way. I, of
course, do this more when I'm focused on God. When I'm trusting God, I
meet people on the street, tell them the name of my church and ask them to
study the Bible. When I'm not doing well and I'm forced to talk about my
church (i.e., somebody asks me to get together on Sunday morning during
service or whatever), I respond with "no, I'm going to Sunday service."
When I do the latter, it is the result of me not appreciating the grace
I've received. This is MY fault, NOT that of any church.
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>I've been searching for a way to put this: I think your hatred of the ICC
>is just as unjustified as if you took a shortcut down a dark alley, got
>mugged, and started hating all Hispanics because the punk who robbed you
>was Hispanic.
Unjustified??? You have got to be kidding! My son was taken from me
due to the advice/orders/suggestions of the church - period. I have it
ON TAPE! There are no two ways about it EO - your game doesn't work in this
instance. It's typical for the ICC to blame "individuals" when it's backed into
a corner and can't find any other way to account for its evil. That won't work
here - I have far too much evidence. My son was taken from me by the leadership
of the church and awarded to two of the leaders to adopt. I realize that sounds
too sick and warped for you to believe - but the sad part is that you are too
thought-stopped to realize that what I am saying is 100% THE TRUTH. If you
don't believe me - I'll play the tape for you that I secretly made of our
meeting with Andy Lindo who was the lead evangelist for Atlanta at the time.
Its sick and its twisted - obviously both sides are presented - the churches and
mine. It exposes the real evil heart of the ICC - they took my child because I
wouldn't join - plain and simple.
Yea I hate the ICC - but not it's members. I hate the evil presence behind the
closed doors. The one that puts on a pretty face and a commanding voice on
Sunday morning while it quietly works its treachery in the shadows. I hate that
it destroys families, ruins carreers, wreckes educations, turns people from God,
and even drives some to suicide.
The truth is EO - you want BADLY to believe that what I'm saying and what
everyone else on here is saying isn't true - because if it is then the
organization you thought would fill that void in your life really isn't what you
thought it was. Unfortunately - you probably won't listen until they've caused
you as much pain as they've caused everyone else on here. But isn't that the
way it always is?
Mark Davis
TriciaAZ
In article <50b0od$r...@mule2.mindspring.com>, ma...@mindspring.com (Mark
Davis) writes:
>Subject: Re: tape recordings (was Re: The Last Post)
>From: ma...@mindspring.com (Mark Davis)
>Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 03:40:20 GMT
>
>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
>
>>On the flip side, I post here because I don't agree with accusations
from
>>specific instances directed at the entire organization. I accept the
>>reports, but I refuse to apply them to my experiences. I've simply
never
>>experienced many of the things I hear about, and in a number of cases,
>>I've experienced the exact opposite. My friendships in the church here
>>have been the most genuine and loving I've ever experienced. I know
>>several people who would not even think of doing the things that have
been
>>described. In my opinion, somebody has to speak *up for* this.
>
>
>Once upon a time EO was walking through the woods. He was on his
>way to his favorite cave where he could hide from the light of day. A
>non christian passed him along the way and said, "EO - there's a
>grizzly bear in that cave - don't go in there." To this EO replied,
>"I have hidden in there from the light of day on many occasions -
>never in MY EXPERIENCE have I seen a grizzly bear in there - surely
>this is just another attempt at deception. You just THINK there's a
>grisly bear in there. If you were a real christian like me - you'd
>have more faith. So in he went.
>
>Shortly thereafter came a blood curtling scream from the cave. EO
>came running out from the cave all gashed and bleeding and as he ran
>past the non christian he shouted, "SEE! THAT WAS NO GRIZZLY -
>THAT WAS JUST MY DISCIPLER!"
>
>The End
>
>:)
>
>Mark Davis
>
Kind of a funny story ... but I'll have to agree with EO about his own
experiences. He believes other people when they relate their experiences,
so isn't it possible that his own experiences are reliable? I've met EO's
discipler (haven't I EO?) and he's not a grizzly (or even grisly). :-)
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: >Really Chris, you can go off and slam my church all you want, but it is
: >comical to hear your terms of endearment: "some of the most sincere group
: >of Christians on the planet". Darn right I'm sincere. I'm sincerely
: >ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
: >needlessly day in and day out.
: Well there's the door Roger!
: Once again I will remind you that this group was CHARTERED for
: the purpose of debating whether or not the ICC is a destructive cult
: and ALL of the issues you JUST RAISED are covered in the original
: charter for this group. That is why we are here. If you don't like
: it well that's just TOUGH! That is the way it is. Stop whining about
: persecution, stop complaining that we've hurt your feelings, get over
: it and move on already... this is getting old.
Mark, the issue here is not "discussion" of the issues, but etiquette.
Bob Dole and Bill Clinton can debate about who has the best plan for the
nation's future, neither saying the other is a philandering Marxist or a
senile bigot. One is discussion, the other is insult.
Since this group has no moderation, it is left to the participants to
bring their own systems of etiquette to the podium.
If you want to express concern about the discipling relationships in the
ICC, what churches are part of God's modern day movement, Kip's role in
the ICC, what motivates the evangelism of the disciples, whether disciples
have their own convictions or not, the financial handlings of the group,
etc. go ahead and say it, and you'll likely start an interesting discussion.
If you want to say discipling relationships are like Nazi Germany, that
the ICC is an exclusive destructive cult, that Kip thinks he's immortal,
that all disciples are guilt-driven, brainless, mind-controlled and
stupid, and the leaders are corrupt and greedy, go ahead and say it, but
you'll find that members of the church like myself will be insulted by
your rudeness.
R. L. Measures
In article <50f8ai$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, smlle...@aol.com
(Smlleecat6) wrote:
Yes---and it 20% this year, and 20% next year, and 20% the year after
that....and .like the Eveready Bunny it just keeps going and going and
going unless your God-given common sense pops out of thought-stop mode and
tells you that this just isn't right. .
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R. L. Measures
> >If this is your POV, and if you know you're a Christian, then what do you
> >care if the ICC doesn't think you're one?
>
> What if the ICC starts to recruit people from your church - telling them
> that they are not christians? Telling them that the church doesn't teach
> the truth?
>
> ICC - Deprogrammers for the Denominational World.
> Charge? 20% of your salary.
Yes---and it's 20% this year, and 20% next year, and 20% the year after
that...............and --like the Eveready Bunny-- it just keeps going and
going and
going unless the person's God-given common sense pops out of thought-stop
mode and
tells him/her that something isn't right. .
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Wade Novin
Roger:
Why don't you stop saying "Yes" to your mental drug you call a
religion and START thinking....Why so much controversy and for all the
wrong reasons....
I saw for myself the cultish and controlling system that you claim is
following Jesus....It was so disturbing and frightful that I tell others
about it quite a bit and have "SAVED" some people from joining your
organization...
First you hand over your time and money, then your brain and feelings,
and finally your hopes and eventually your life...
Remember, Roger....don't drink any Koolaid they may give you...
Wade
nancy
On Sep 03, 1996 03:28:52 in article <Re: tape recordings (was Re: The Last
Mark,
Would you mind posting a bit of the dialogue from the tape? I'm curious as
to what kind of things they said to you.
Thanks,
nancy
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>If you want to say discipling relationships are like Nazi Germany, that
>the ICC is an exclusive destructive cult, that Kip thinks he's immortal,
>that all disciples are guilt-driven, brainless, mind-controlled and
>stupid, and the leaders are corrupt and greedy, go ahead and say it, but
>you'll find that members of the church like myself will be insulted by
>your rudeness.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
So what Roger? Be insulted or persecuted or whatever your latest whine is.
I could do some whining of my own about all the rotten things said by the ICC -
but what's the point? What I'm trying to convey to you is that you do not
control this forum - you do not disciple us - you do not get to set the rules.
You want us to tone it down? You do the same. Will it work? Probably not -
because both sides feel very strongly about their positions and choose to
express them. That is the beauty of the internet.
So why continue to waste time with this issue - you will not get your way with
it. All you will do is annoy people with your persecution complex - but if
that's what you want to do - go for it. It's a free internet and we've both
said our peace on this issue.
Mark Davis
R. L. Measures
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>... I'm sincerely
> ticked off at seeing my church and my friends dragged through the mud
> needlessly day in and day out.
>
I'm sincerely shocked that you would say such a thing, Rog. If the Spawn
of Satan, spiritual pornographers, and divisive humanoids hereabouts were
not dragging the icc, the 'Prophet', and your icc-"friends" through the
mud, you would be in one flat totally-awesome persecution drought. The
way I see it, a.r.c.b-c is saving you from possibly falling away from
'god's kingdom'.....and we don't even get a damn thank you.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Mark Davis
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) wrote:
>
>Mark,
>
>Would you mind posting a bit of the dialogue from the tape? I'm curious as
>to what kind of things they said to you.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>nancy
Yes - I don't have the little microcassette recorder anymore because the one I
was using was on loan - but I plan on buying one soon and will not only make
transcripts - I'll make some WAV files of the better parts to post here.
Mark Davis
EOshiro
Mark writes:
As I've said before, if your situation was unique to the ICC or religious
organizations in general, I might have more sympathy for you. But the
plain and simple fact is, you (for lack of a better euphemism) "knocked
up" a girl. (I don't mean rape.) God created a design for families. You
don't follow that design, you can't expect God to work in your favor. As
much as you might like to believe, you did not have a family. The only
thing I agree with is that they should have kept their promise and
written.