Posted on 18/11/2009 22:59:01
Hey Riddler,
I can relate... omg, I just spent too much time that I don't have writing a spiel about evolution and crap, and then lost it all. sigh at that. So now to bullet points instead.
- I spent a couple of years venting into a blog about why relgion sucks and god doesn't exist and yadda yadda, but really, what the heck do/did I know?
- I too don't have time to study Darwin's book, nor do I have time to study theology (or Theology for Dummies, for that matter).
- Ken Ham and his AiG young earth cronies are a bunch of kooks that make the bible actually look like a literal fairy tale.
- I don't believe in evolution. They say that toads have developed longer legs to handle Australian distances, but I don't know who 'they' are, and I'm not sure I believe 'them' anyway.
- Transitional fossils 'should' be all over the shop. They're not. Even when they do find something they believe is a creature that fills a gap it only serves to make more gaps in the supposed transitional timeline of the species.
- Of all the millions of species that do exist and have previously existed in the earth, air and sea, they seem to all be perfectly designed for their habitat already. All of these millions of creatures should have left behind countless variations of their development in their wake. We went from Velociraptor to Emu without a long lineage of fossilised remains in their transformatory transitional tale? Personally, I find it difficult to believe that god blinked them all into existance at various stages over the last 30 million years, but it's the most logical explanation I can think of.
Posted on 13/09/2009 06:45:53
Hmm
Well then! It looks like many of us have a 'case'. We were given no other choice but to marry, and in no uncertain terms.
I should think a fair few 'pastors' should be worried by their past transgressions of the law. They may catch up with them yet.
Posted on 09/09/2009 07:02:02
Yeah
The ever changing Revival morals stand. I'd like an apology for being co-erced into marriage at the age of 17, and I dare Mister Brad Smith to do so one day. That they can at least admit that their 'wisdom' ain't always that wise (incredibly rarely actually) is something, and knowing that they have relaxed this unfair practice may be enough to allow this mothy ghost in the machine to move towards the light and peacefully put it behind him..
Posted on 09/09/2009 05:32:14
I'm sure TB is referring to the N.T. narratives :P
This discussion is a nice contrast to the 'other' Luke thread.
Interesting how much the book of Luke talks about 'tongues' isn't it?
Posted on 04/09/2009 04:33:11
Reply to drmont:
Hiya there... nice to see a new face on the forum.
"and Ian's thoughts... of one resurrection to eternal Glory or eternal torture seems to fit"
Torture? That'll fix 'em huh? I don't actually recall Ian using that word and I think to do so is a huge misconception, but that's for another thread. Take care
Posted on 01/09/2009 00:32:28
Fremde
Tonyluke was invited into this thread by Ian, and allowed a stay by the moderator. After some lengthy posts it seemed that all he was interested in doing was moving his forum into this thread, seeing that it wasn't being engaged with there. We don't want to host his forum here, and he was asked to shorten his replies to tolerable lengths rather than 'in your face' flooding. A bit of a docking rather than a blanket banning.
So no, no one's asking him to leave. This is sort of a side-show alley, and he's /ahem, kinda the side-show freak. He's allowed to throw all the classic Revivalisms this way, in this thread, as long as he keeps his 'much speaking' in reasonable bites. If nothing else, it provides a talking point and a fresh set of rebuttles to the classic doctrine foibles for Revival readers.
It is disheartening to click on the today page and see that bewildered buffoon displaying all the misconceptions we all used to buy into. It's a sad reminder of all the souls that have bought into the bad bible beliefs invented by well meaning, but 'stupid' men. Sigh at them. Sigh at Luke. Sigh of relief not to be stuck in that rut anymore when there's much better grooves to be in.
Posted on 31/08/2009 09:50:49
Tonyluke I do not know anyone of you people on this site. You could be nice people for all I know.
Imagine that!
None of my coments are personal. Yes I believe that some people (or rather the words some people say) are heretical which makes them false prophets and serpents (in the Biblical sense) I have said for example that Ian is probably a good, well intentioned guy. I know plenty of baptists and most are lovely people. But that is not the point here.
How lovely of you to bless them with your observations!
Its about what they preach! Jesus is not coming back for "nice" people. He is coming back for "Obedient people" Here's the point... On the fundamentals of the Gospel (as i see them) some on this site oppose them 100%
He's coming back for Christians, and Christians with any sense oppose Llyod's doctrine outright due to the many reasons listed within this thread. It just ain't Christian. The fundamentals of the Gospel as you see them are out of order.
I believe that with EVERYONE who is Born again of the Spirit. they will hear a 'sound" language! most here would say No! I believe Baptism is essential Most here would say NO! I would say that ALL who enter the Rest would speak in tongues most here would say No! On the Day of Pentecost Men and women (Handmaidens) Spoke in Tongues. most here would say No! Simon the sorcerer offered money when he saw the Holy Ghost being poured out.
No, tongues, or the versions thereof and interpretations therein that you espouse were not the common factor amongst these incidents. They've all been twisted to align with the ideas of a few nutters who had an idea. There are plenty of essays on this forum that can set you straight on that, should you ever be ready to listen.
This is not personal! Ezekiel 33 say that I will have bloody hands if I fail to Warn you all. Whether or not you heed my warnings is up to you. It doesn't affect me personally. Similarly I especially warn you from listening to Ian because he very much takes the lead in this position.
Most of us have lived a long life already believing Lloyd's doctrine and then saw it crumble under logic and some informed Bible study.
Why? Because someone somewhere in your fellowship wronged you! Most of you have not the faintest idea of real hardship.
You arrogant twat... "Most". You think you're some sort of prophet who takes pride in seeing more hardship than others? As if you had the magic powers to 'see' all. You think you can make these judgements? You believe some naughty pastor was the cause of intelligent people leaving your 'Holy' Revival church. The pastor of the RF I left was pretty much my best friend at the time. It wasn't easy to leave such close friends knowing that I'd not be able to keep company with them. After 17 years I'd come to realise that the belief system and doctrine didn't hold water. I don't think I can handle too many more of these self-righteous ramblings from you. I can only cringe so much.
Oh whats the use!, your minds are made up aren't they? .....Thats right someone hurt your feelings, Some stupid Pastor did the wrong thing! I have seen friends hang themselves, Shoot themselves and Overdose. some of you have no idea of "Hurt" Wake up!
As were our minds 'made up' when we only had the same information and beliefs that you cling onto now.
-----------------------------------
I get a sick feeling in my stomach whenever I come back here and find Tonyluke pedaling his wares, and I don't like him at all. Personally, I think he's a low-life in unawares... in his own eyes he believes himself to be righteous and learned and a good ol' boy. I think he's had quite enough rope. I'm hoping he can tie up his loose ends then crawl back to his phony forum at some point.
Posted on 19/08/2009 04:15:38
Lookey,
No I am not going anywhere. I am just very busy with work as well as fellowship commitments.
"On that note I must bid you all a sincere goodbye". Not really sincere, and not really a goodbye. The difficulty with spending too much time trying to speak some sense to moth of you on this site is that almost all of the regulars on this site have a history of conflict in one form or another which impedes your collective ability to make fair and rational deliberations of my posts. 1. The moth freudian slip? Hmm... looks like I 'have' affected you. I'm the only moth here, and we're all individuals, not drones as you're used to seeing in your 'unified' Revival (or conformity bound Revivalism). 2. Your generalisations astound me yet again and cement the arrogant and patronising picture I have of you. It is almost like whenever the Government makes an announcement the opposition merely takes the opposite point of view for the sake of not appearing to agree. Wow. You are truly in your own little world buddy boy. One of the primary difficulties that the Pharisees had with Jesus was that often his words were mixed with parables, types and symbols. Yes yes... everyone here is a pharisee. /sigh, and /pat pat again. I bet you see them everywhere, while you flail your arms. 'Worldies', 'Pentecostals' and 'Pharisees' ---> Revival labels for people 'not' in Revival. Peter also noted that his writings were at times very difficult to understand. Maybe if your spelling and grasp of grammar were a little more mature you might get your message across better. It'd still be nonsense, and it'd still be something most of us already believe and preached for a huge chunk of our lives, and then thankfully moved on from. Many of my coments have been misunderstood because they are spiritually discerned not rationally examined. We ALL read those scriptures previously AS Revival drones who saw the scriptures through your 'spiritual' tongue coloured glasses already. We concluded that the whole Lloyd Lore was at fault. Also see a previous comment in this thread that was just 'gold' on that crazy reasoning of yours. You love to compare others to the JWs, but use it on yourself for a tick. Just for the sake of argument pretend for a moment that what I have said is exactly right. The setting is so hostile that and balanced examination of the arguments cannot be conducted in a deliberate and meditative way. Pish posh. Hostile? Check the sarcastic tone YOU started the discussion with. You're looking for hostility and you have pig arrogance with it. People here have come out of the belief system you're trying to resell. Been there done that. Bought the t-shirt and grew out of it. Jesus is coming back and I simply cannot justify wasting valuable time arguing with people. As such I will move on and do the first works and stop preaching to the converted. Jesus was coming back very soon when I came into Revival back in 1988... and he said he was coming back 'soon' to his mates 2000 years ago... forgive me if I don't bow to the urgency and be blindsided into taking on the Revival lie again. And oh, so now you're going? Well, goodo. Feel free to pop back in and answer the glaringly unanswered questions whenever you have free time. They're always entertaining in a cringey type of way. May God Bless all of you; for whom Christ died. Jesus loves you and so do I. You and Jesus hey? Forget the holy trinity, we have the bizarre Duality here instead. :P
Posted on 17/08/2009 04:40:49
Reply to Metanoian
That's a really good point, and I imagine that the 120 doesn't include toddlers that were with their mothers etc.
Don't hold your breath for Lukemeister to respond to it... he's a very 'busy' man and doesn't have time to respond to all the opinions here. He did have time to write billion word colour-coded essays, and planned to systematically reintepret every instance of the Holy Ghost in scripture for us though.../eyeroll
Posted on 13/08/2009 17:55:39
Regarding the '120' confusion:
The conversation ran it's course previously with Brett and Sabrina at
Posted on 13/08/2009 05:19:44
Given my definition of a “Revivalist” how could any Christian be “Anti-Revivalist”? But that said I have been completely open about how and when I left the RF. In the context of this forum the word 'Revivalist' refers to those who follow the doctrines and beliefs of Lloyd Longfield and his league of Unextraordinary Gentlemen, a wholly unchristian mob... by Christian standards that is. Now if I create a forum for former members does that then mean that I must be totally and completely antagonistic toward ALL of the various Revival churches and basically take the opposite view with everything they preach? Scratch at it and the whole thing seems to fall apart... hoo boy! This house was completely built on the sand of a very imaginative bunch of fellows. This seems to be what many do! The moment they stop going to their Revival church then EVERYTHING they ever believe all of a sudden becomes false. I would suggest that this is an emotional response to being hurt by people in that organization and has little to do with doctrine. Some obviously have a difference of opinion with respect to doctrine and that’s fine. Then you're altogether ignorant, moreso than I'd previously thought, and such generalisations are so very arrogant. Scratch at the surface and educate yourself to the history of ecstatic speech and understand some context and you may start to see how far off you are, and how imaginative Lloyd was to build such a doctrine. Then do some research into the mythology of British Israelism, and then study the sources of Pyramidology and heck... did Revivalism have anything rational to stand on?... besided Ivan Panin's work? :P If I personally believe in the salvation message and 99% of the doctrine that’s my business and it is perfectly ethical of me to create the forum. People can choose to either chat on that forum or not. I really do not see why this is such a drama for so many of you guys on Unkoolman’s forum Only one percent of their doctrines gave you raising an eyebrow? Wow. Anyway, of course you can create a forum... there are hundreds of topical forums in Aimoo. Anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection can blah blah anything they like. Have fun there... and have fun in this special thread, all for you... mwahh... lol.
Posted on 12/08/2009 00:22:13
Lukatic? This 'bibliocentred' debate became a farce when you said that Ian's writing was sound, but the bible is unable to be interpreted by the nonspiritual (or un-tongued by your definition), aside from the point that all of us 'were' Revivalist tongue speakers at one time. This method of bible interpretation negates any further discussion and makes the bible unauthoritative to the 'unsaved' or non-tongue-speakers. The 'unsaved' therefore have to believe YOU and 'not' the Bible. This is very convenient for the babble-speaking Revivalist, and ignores the lore of using their bibles as sources of correction, reproof and reason. You can say anything you like and declare that non tongue speaking people won't understand. Step outside of yourself and your ego for a second and selah a little. Maybe you'd like to get back to the bibliocentric criticisms you were invited to. I found the chatbox funny today (I was home sick, but this has been cheering me up... fun reading). | heregoes: Yah - I'm bored with that now. Finished reading that forum | 12 Aug 09, 14:07 Didaktikon: HG. Wow! Already? You must've skipped anything penned by "Luke" then  lol:"> Ian | 12 Aug 09, 14:08 heregoes: Well, after the first few threads I was yawning, and since they'd all been exactly the same I guessed that was par for the course and I needn't read any further. Bit like the phone book really | 12 Aug 09, 14:10 heregoes: This sums it up for me: "Ian is a liar" "Ian doesn't know what he's talking about" "Yes, I have used aliases but I didn't mean to" and "We don't want to get spiteful, Praise the Lord!!!!!" | 12 Aug 09, 14:12 heregoes: and also a fair bit of "The RF is good" "You need to pray about it" "God will work it out" and "I am right" - does that just about sum up the other forum?? | 12 Aug 09, 14:15 Shoes: Nicely put HG, odd that the argument should centre on: "Unless you speak in tongues the Spirit cannot reveal the truth of the word to you." From an evangelical stand point you are claiming the only thing that can unlock the treasure chest is the key that is locked inside it.  |
Posted on 11/08/2009 22:32:21
BTW: Once again we have a little glimpse at the nature of the Pharisee. When Ian says “passing it off as your own” it demonstrates that it is important to Ian that material written by someone receives the due adulation. Again this shows that your (Ian's) motive is the reward in this life. The content on my site is for the lost to be saved. Not to bolster my ego. In fact I do not have an ego – I’m dead!….Buried in Baptism 20 years ago. Yes yes... everyone's a pharisse... /pat Being the 'Wordsmith' that you think you are, surely you'd appreciate the importance of intellectual property. I know 'intellectual' is a dirty word for you, but you'd have to understand that one needs to be accountable and protective of their own text for many good reasons. You simply don't seem to have respect for literacy, in the sense that an author's intent should have integrity. You look past the text so often if it doesn't fit into your hard-wired schema. Hence, your ability to 'use' and 'twist' any text you get in front of you, including the Bible. And omg, ego?? The statements you've made, and the various names you've given yourself in a huge host of username and email addresses may be all part of your unique humour, but also give more of a hint at the type of ego you have. No ego? Wow. Everyone has an ego, but most are able to keep it in check with discipline. Pride is not an evil word, it's just something that will bring you down if you have too much of. Your credentials are a joke and yet you claim to be an expert!! That my fiend is 'ego'. You're NOT ex-Revival at all, and you're actively and unashamedly pro-Revival, and the worst kind, in my opinion. You prey on people who have left the organisation you love so that you can encourage them back in, or at least try to ensure they hold onto its doctrine, and you're so obviously naive and insecure about the whole thing. YOU are the sort of person who nags people who leaves a cult to come back into a cult, whether you label it as such or not. The poor sods who get you as a faux pastor. Let's not forget the massive immaturity shown by the creation of one of your forums that's very title attacked Ian Thomason personally. The ego, the obsessiveness, and the stupidity of that resonates still. Let the penny drop boyo. How many vanity forums with you as administrator will it take to appease that massive EGO that is you. No ego?... sorry to be mean, but you're an epic fail in regard to reality. Your avatar? Guns blazing into the air, not giving a hoot about who gets shot... as long as you're happy. Despicable. Goose is about right.
Posted on 28/07/2009 03:16:51
Charto As for what church I go to, uh, well, guys here can be 'SO' negative, and criticizing. You say, and they say, that you are Revival free, "but" when you are so highly critical, 'THAT CAN BE, TERMED, REVIVALISM"
But it's critical to be critical, or one can end up in critical condition. The purpose of this thread is to give Lukazoid an opportunity to critique Ian's work at PC. And one of the main purposes of this forum is to educate and share knowledge so as to avoid being 'duped' by 'similar' organisations... 'cause ya know: Hosea 4:6.
The "Revival" tag that is so prevalent here, is really way off focus.
For want of a better term at times, eh? It's shorter than typing, "Church-like organisations that vehemently promote speaking in tongues as 'the' evidence of being Christian". Not really catchy... The coined term 'Revivalists' is adequate.
Are we all aware that as we come out of an organization like that, that we are not "instantly" free of all the problems that we have? We end up mimicking some of that behavior unknowingly. And luckily some manage to shake free of most of the false doctrines also... Everything Lloyd Longfield and his cronies built resulted in bad fruit right from the get go, and on top it off, in 1995, he unveiled his opus showing everyone just how out of touch he is and always was. The curse of Lloyd never improved and the bad fruit made its seed in kind. Were we not all "Called by God" to these places, Its not Gods fault that he hasnt got sufficient Pastors/Teachers of a pleasant nature, to guide us. Unfortunately, not enough people seem to be able to think for themselves, or think critically. Good to see you are not completely Atheist, moth. Good for who? I appreciate anyone who makes 'informed' opinions. Atheists make absolute statements, but I believe there's no good in that. A closed mind is one that ceases to learn, and that's no way to live. As for Luke, I believe that is the good thing about this site, we can learn things that are not normally learnt elsewhere, he will settle down, the calling of the Holy Spirit an "it" is what we learnt in Revival, in the "person of the Holy Spirit" is the way to go. The 'it/He' thing is Christian basics 101. Luke isn't up with the fundamentals and can only really cut and paste Revival scripture favourites, and then paste them scattegoried and void of proper context. Seen enough of that in my 17 years doing exactly the same thing. You're not learning anything new from his site unfortunately. One cannot criticize the perfection with P/C as far as Ian believes, and this time I dont think I am being sarcastic. I'm sure there are imperfections... /shrug, but Luke's admitted that the interpretations that Ian has put forward are sound... just not 'spiritual' discerned by Luke's definition to result in 'his' conclusions, and that makes perfect sense. Luke equates 'spirituality' with being able to ramble in double dutch. So it'd be really 'something' for him to be able to point out some of these imperfections. I'm sure there are people that could, but Lukie boy is certainly not one of them. As for you not being sarcastic, you've both been doing really really well. It seems you can be reasoned with. 
Posted on 27/07/2009 20:29:48
Reply to Luke I am just wondering is this a manifestation of your opposition to Revivalism or your opposition to tongues in general. Both are worthy to be questioned thoroughly and I think my previous post covers which aspects. There's not much about the Revival institution that's not to oppose. Hatred 'is' a loaded word in my opinion, and it embodies nasty over-tones and makes you sound like you and your beliefs are 'victims' to the nasty 'haters' here, and we don't feel bitterness or hatred. I do have contempt for most, if not all, of the Revival doctrines and fanciful beliefs. If you could have "done something you wouldn't have did nothing?". Excuse me, but you're a bit hopeless and living in somewhat of a dream world with your self-important delusions of grandeur, el chappo.” Where did that come from Moth? I am simply saying that to relegate the fact that I was this and now I am that is “Undeniable” yet you seem to be denying/overlooking this as the Pharisees did in Acts 4. This is not to say that you are a Pharisee, but that the denial is pharisaical. Yeah yeah, everone's a pharisee... /eye-roll. My tongue in cheek reference to the amount of drugs you have taken is alluding to the unrealistic portrayal you have of yourself. I'll admit it wasn't very nice of me to suggest that your current behaviour has been affected by an over-use of drugs in your early life. I apologise for the inference. But you think that 'you' could have been a positive catalyst for any or all Revival church misbehaviours that you would have 'happened' upon? Please. I'm just saying that you're not all 'dat'. Up until very recently your behaviour has been off-kilter and erratic, even by my standards. You're NO Revival saviour especially considering that your tactic is to leave their group to be your own backyard 'pastor' to those that left it, and to harrass and prey on others who have chosen to leave on this site. “Exposure of this convoluted gospel is only dangerous in the minds of the likes of you who have been convinced to believe that scripture can be interpreted by anyone as long as they give it there own 'spiritual' Revival tongue twist.” I was only telling of my personal experience with Jesus, my particular place of worship does not change any single element of what I (or the 14 church leaders) experienced.
No, I was just stating that the 'offense' of questioning your doctrine is nonsensical considering it is a belief system built on an interpretation of the bible that, by your own admission, can only be understood by the 'spritual', ie. 'people who read it through glossalalia goggles'. Again you seem to be allowing the offences that you encountered in your specific assembly to taint your vision (beam in your eye) how then can you expect to give sound advice to others (me included)? My experience, and experience since is not tied to the one assembly. In fact, that particular assembly was a soft one and I enjoyed myself there for the most part. It was just before I left that I came to realise that 'things' just didn't make sense. What is in question is ALL the doctrine and philosophies and beliefs of Revivalism, in particular - tongues. There's no use throwing wads of scriptures at me that would just as easily be used to describe you from my perspective. From what I see of the Bible (and after 17 years in your position already under my belt), you are in error and in heaps of it... and I think that's more than obvious from your discussions with Ian thus far.
Posted on 27/07/2009 16:55:46
'Duke'
The point is obvious to the spiritually minded. The fact that you have missed the point shows that you are blind. Consider…Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
The point that's obvious to anyone scripturally and/or spiritually minded is that the very same scripture can be used to point our your shortcomings in regard to Bible interpretation.
I appreciate that many of you guys were hurt by the behavior of Revivalist Pastors and I am very sorry about that. If I could have been there and done something about that I would not have stood by and did nothing.
I thought my previous 'crack' about you was a bit cheeky regarding the copious amounts of drugs you've taken in your life, but now I'm just wondering. You really do have some tickets on yourself don't you and are fairly ignorant and unrealistic about that little Revival world you live in. If you could have "done something you wouldn't have did nothing?". Excuse me, but you're a bit hopeless and living in somewhat of a dream world with your self-important delusions of grandeur, el chappo.
But the repeated denial of the legitimacy of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (including Tongues) is dangerous ground my brothers and sisters.
Exposure of this convoluted gospel is only dangerous in the minds of the likes of you who have been convinced to believe that scripture can be interpreted by anyone as long as they give it there own 'spiritual' Revival tongue twist.
God Bless you all in your journey and I hope that you can overcome your hatred so that you may see clearly in the future.
Step off with the loaded 'Hate' trigger talk ok buddy? No one's hating on anything here. Perception is far from reality often times and hate is different from reasoned debate.
Posted on 27/07/2009 04:15:26
A-Luke-in-look,
Reply to Luke: I think that if we all were personally acquainted with each other we would find that we have more in common then any of us would like to admit.
Apart from obsessive qualities not much really. You DO remind me of myself about ten years ago, but most of us here have left Revival Churches, and the off-shoots thereof. I would like to share with you all my story so as to help you all to better understand my motivation. In 1989 I was a drug dealer and addict. I was using approximately $1100 worth of my own product per day. I ran three houses along with two others major dealers. I actually did wonder if you'd taken a substantial amount of drugs in your life at some time. We do understand your motivation as we were in Revival churches (myself for 17 years) and we've given and heard those testimonies 12 to 15 times a week! Over the next three days I went to my parent’s house and I read through the pamphlets on salvation so as to navigate the many references in Acts and the gospels. On the Friday night I went to a young people’s activity where I asked God to fill me with the Holy Ghost. I kneeled down to pray and immediately burst out speaking fluently in tongues (not stammering or babbling) this was very fluent. Fluent babble?... via suggestive cueing? Whatever the case, free vocalisation, even if spontaneous, is without syntax and is wholly unremarkable. Ecstatic speech is not exclusive to Revivalism, or to Christianity, but has a history that preceeds it. It wasn't uncommon amongst ancient pagan religions and is also still used by non-Christian religions nowadays. A prayer mantra is a positive and relaxing meditative technique that some find beneficial. What I have also noticed is that these behavioural issues have been highlighted and linked (“Bad root Bad Fruit) to the “Salvation Message” This is (in my opinion) intentional and wrong. This is my number one problem with this site. You've got a problem with the site? /Shrug. So? Anyway, back in post #49 I made a list of common problems amongst all the Revivalist churches that are rightfully lumped here. The three step salvation doctrine is but one problem among many. The tongues things is just one device among many control mechanisms used by the group that are all damaging to individuals involved, but that one is a biggie as it leads to a kind of elitism that is exclusive and unnecessarily divides families. There's also the cult-like assembly guidelines that feed the fear of ex-communication and then the consequential shunning. There's the amount of meetings members are guilted into fellowshipping to. The list goes on... I also believe that institutional issue often hinder the members form developing closer relationship with Jesus. Wherever and whenever I see this I try to prayerfully and purposely act to stop this from occurring. In recent months I have found this to be the case in my local fellowship with several innocent victims. I have therefore separated and outreached to these disappointed and disillusioned people, with immediate success; many retrieved. While you believe this to be a good thing, I feel sad for the people who could have lead more normal richer lives outside of the influence of Revivalism. Of couse you have good intentions, but you're incidentally and essentially part of the problem. If your 'Bibliocentric' debate is anything to go by you've already admitted that Ian's interpretations of the bible are good, just not filtered 'spiritually' (or what goes for 'spirituality' in the Revival tongue-centric version anyway). Therefore, you are just a 'dude' with a bible and a wadful of Revival pamphlet knowledge seeking to bring the 'lost' Revivalists back to the place they managed to escape from. :( I hope this helps to frame who and why I am here and why I simply cannot swallow the idea that what I have “Seen and Heard” is simply a construct of my imagination. Nevertheless, whatever you swallowed you did it hook line and sinker, and you won't be the last.
Posted on 27/07/2009 01:55:40
Hey Urch, ... yep, because people DO have battles, and pain, and fear and often you'd just never know from the outer apperance. In Revival-la-la-land I remember loving being a house-leader so I could go up to the prayer-line and listen to all the prayer requests. Oh Man! The things people used to confide in the 'trusted' oversight. Messed up stuff, and lots of it. These people didn't need some ignorant house-leader chanting prayers in their ears and a pat on the head, they often needed professional counselling, but such a thing was discouraged in 'The Church'. I hope that attitude changed for some after leaving the organisations. Some people need professional help after leaving Revival, and this forum certainly ISN'T the place for it, and never has been. This is just a place for randoms to rant, and although we have some trained members give advice on the forum, they in no way can replace real life face to face contact with someone with some decent cert.'s on the wall behind them... obviously.
Posted on 27/07/2009 01:05:59
Wow
How apt that a facebook thread would be so 'freindly'... there's a lot of love in this room right now! :)
I'd like to thank 'all' the moderators, but I know some don't read anymore and I'm so thankful for the forum being here when I needed it and that it stays alive even in the face of so many different personality clashes. So many fun times and friends found. So many incredible stories have been told and it's been amazing to see so many people move on and grow. Priceless stuff.
Posted on 26/07/2009 06:00:02
Chartdoctor:You said, "I wont post again here, unless I have something different, or intelligent to say", And I'm thinking you should take some of your own advice already. You're conjuring up issues that don't really exist. Ian has never hinted at 'forbidding' the act of tongues in any of his work and he hasn't encouraged the use of the gift either outside of what he HAS already put it into context. The issue is whether such an act should be deemed as being what marks a Christian, and of course, it doesn't. Now a few things about Luke-eemia: Luke has admitted to using Ian Thomason's name as his own in his Aimoo profile and said it was just his sense of humour, and that's fair enough, a bit obsessive and silly, but ok (He says this isn't a game to him, yet he still does these infantile things). He's also called us liars and not admitted to using username puppets in discussions, which he has, but was probably, again, just his way of joking - childish, but probably not malicious. Such a thing can't be proven for the public records, however, let me just say this: Luke has been allowed to have his say here, and then asked to move on. He chose not to, and was insistant that all his 25 essays be laid out wherever he liked and was fairly arrogant with it. His request was denied and was shown the door and then he obsessively harassed individual members of the forum via private messages, and threatened to flood the forum with 'thousands' of user-names more than once. I mean, Sigh... These are all hostile actions in ANY forum, yet alone one designed for ex-cult members. So he was banned, and asked not to return. Some people cannot handle rejection gracefully and any civil person would take this as a hint and have taken their toys and gone home. Not Luke. No, Luke comes back under different guises continuously, and of course he does have to take on a different user-name each time due to the banning, but when he does strike up a conversation, he NEVER admits to being the same troll that has been banned repeatedly, until someone catches him out. ALL the regulars KNOW this to be true... hey I can relate to obsessive people, but someone slap me hard if I ever get this far gone. Anyway, squeak enough and someone will oil the hinge. Due to Luke's incessant whining and bi-atching and carrying on, he has been granted a thread here where he can go for it for as long as he likes. I wonder if Ian will be allowed any such freedom to reply to the roasting forum that's pretty much dedicated to discrediting 'his work'. Luke can't have free reign of the whole forum here because he and his doctrine are simply not wanted sprayed over all the furniture. I just checked out his forum, and it seems to be an ex-"'Revival Churches discussion forum' Forum" built on anti-Ian obsessiveness, and pouting. The forum of a scorned woman, if I may. The Revival doctrine is considered to be just that. Revivalist. This forum welcomes ex-members of the organisation to take part and vent and support each other and so on and etc. and always has. Naturally, there'll be ex-members who still hold on to the doctrine, and they can ask questions and discuss it, as long as they expect it to be questioned. And if you come on board here to push the doctrines of the cult we came from then you will only be allowed a certain amount of time before you're asked to cool it. You can't make this your home to 'fill' with endless pages of scripture dumping. Case in point: Jehovah Witnesses... if you leave their organisation, but still hold onto the core doctrines, you're pretty much still a JW. Kudos for coming out and being separate, but supporting their doctrines at an ex-JW site would just NOT be on. To Lukazade about me Luke has mentioned on his rip-off forum that I have a website called Aint-Christian, but it hasn't been called that for a LONG time, and it can be found at www.mothrust.com and is called Mothrust and is a hilarious collection of Religious and Christian satire. I still don't consider myself a Christian (nor do I consider Luke to be a Christian), but I don't consider myself an atheist either and repented of that. I'm a searcher and have been opening myself up to consider things after a dark period in my life after enduring the disorientation I felt when I discovered that the 17 years of Revivalism I lived was a sham cult that controlled my life. This forum isn't FOR Christians, and you can tell Ian to bugger off if you want to. You can leave Revival and become a Buddhist and still come for a chat, but if you preach Buddha, you'll probably get a challenge from Ian... Meh, if you know your "Buddha" then go for it... if you just want to be Buddhist and left in peace, just be loud and proud. That's enough ramble from this big mouth for one night, and no offense intended, this is YOUR thread, and I'm thanking you for coming on over and chewing the fat with us. I appreciate it and it's fun, and I don't think the tone has got nasty at all. I mean, why should it.
|
