Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Reviving from Revival > The Bible, Beliefs and Faiths Go to subcategory:
Author Content
dogmafree
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Date Posted:21/06/2009 12:35 PMCopy HTML

In a Cbox discussion several weeks ago, Ian made the following (highlighted green) comment with regard to divorce.

Episkopeo: Ian: You know about divorce, I have never come across so much divorce and remarriage etc as I have in the Revival churches. Epi

Didaktikon: Epi. Well, the whole matter seems to be inconsistently handled from within. I get the feeling that various pastors play rather fast-and-loose with Scripture when it comes to this subject. Ian
         [11 May 09 23:16:19]

Episkopeo: Ian They look after relatives and friends in this regard. They will find a reason for another marriage to go ahead even if no fornication. It's laughable when spiritual fornication is quoted. Epi
         [11 May 09 23:17:25]

Didaktikon: Epi. And it's sad when, realistically, Jesus forbade divorce altogether. Ian
         [11 May 09 23:18:18]

Episkopeo: Ian: Yes, the extent of it in Rev is unbelievable. Yet, if the pastor says it's OK then the whole community swallow it and go along with it because he is allowing it.
         [11 May 09 23:20:10]

Dog: "Jesus forbade divorce altogether"? Another dumb-arse archaic piece of biblical nonsense! :zonked:
         [12 May 09 05:01:38]





In recent discussions, Ian has said thet there ARE cases where Jesus and the bible would allow divorce and subsequent remarriage.  This is inconsistent with your earlier statement, which would appear to be an absolute statement to me.

So Ian, why did you say "Jesus forbade divorce altogether" when you now say this is not your view or understanding from the bible.  Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:21/06/2009 10:51 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Dog.

Well, I'm more than happy to "chew" on this, your latest "bone".

In a Cbox discussion several weeks ago, Ian made the following (highlighted green) comment with regard to divorce.

Didaktikon: Epi. And it's sad when, realistically, Jesus forbade divorce altogether.

In recent discussions, Ian has said that there ARE cases where Jesus and the bible would allow divorce and subsequent remarriage.  This is inconsistent with your earlier statement, which would appear to be an absolute statement to me.

So Ian, why did you say "Jesus forbade divorce altogether" when you now say this is not your view or understanding from the bible.  Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Certainly. To begin with, the remainder of the conversation from which you quote, which includes my response to your "Jesus forbade divorce altogether"? Another dumb-arse archaic piece of biblical nonsense!" comment is yet to be posted by Moth (point one). Now, the context of that particular "fly-by-night" discussion, had to do with the slippery ease with which certain Revivalist pastors enabled/enacted divorce and remarriage within their assemblies: "Episkopeo: Ian They look after relatives and friends in this regard. They will find a reason for another marriage to go ahead even if no fornication. It's laughable when spiritual fornication is quoted" (point two). As I recall, I stated words to the effect that, 'Jesus, being God; provided the Divine absolute on the subject of marriage and divorce' (point three). The reason I did has to do with the fact that Scripture very clearly presents that marriage is intended to be a life-long covenant entered into between a man and a woman, a covenant wherein both parties sacrifice themselves for the other, placing the others needs ahead of their own (point four). And as I very clearly pointed out to you in post #74 of the "gay marriage" thread, Jesus also made allowance for divorce under a very select group of prescribed conditions. These conditions, by-the-bye, are to be found in the Old Testament, and they might be summed up thus: (1) marital unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse. (2) Failure by one party to meet the physical needs of the other. (3) Failure by one party to meet the emotional needs of the other, i.e. "abandonment".

I believe that in your marked haste to yet again rail against God, you (a) failed to appreciate the specific and narrow context that underpinned the Cbox discussion: you went "global" when the context was very clearly "local". (b) Furthermore, you altogether failed to recognise that the Cbox isn't the forum proper, it's necessarily immediate. Consequently I don't craft my comments there for the same audience, or in the same way that I do for the permanent record, here. This is why I've asked people in times past not to cut-and-paste my statements from there to here. Next, (b) I believe that you intentionally failed to acknowledge (even when informed of such) that I have written on the subject of divorce (extensively) in several places on this forum, over several years. You imply, above, that my explanatory comments over your misunderstanding are a "back-pedalling" away from a previous position. Well, my "previous position" predates the Cbox comments by several years! Understand, this time, that my position on the subject of divorce is to be found, and should be assessed, by those earlier, detailed and nuanced discussions. And, (c) ultimately, you failed to appreciate the basic hermeneutical principle: meaning resides in authorial intent, and not in the interpretation of the reader (I'm actually surprised that you seemed so over-quick to "proof-text" me).

Now, what I think is that this entire "rabbit-trail" of yours is naught but an intentional ploy to distract others away from the fact that you've yet to adequately respond to/rebut a single point of mine in the "gay marriage" thread.

Bro', have you ever heard of the expression, "clutching-at-straws"


Blessings,

Ian

 
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 1:05 AMCopy HTML

Epi, point taken.  As your comments appear from the Cbox here, (to provide some context) would you like me to edit or delete them?

Ian,

I am aware of the differences of the Cbox and the forum proper.  Despite those considerations, and your other postings on the theme of divorce, I still find it inconsistent, that you made that statement.  It stands alone as an absolute statement.  Altogether = wholey, completely.

So what WAS your 'authorial intent' in this comment?  And how does any subsequent discussion change the contained message of your statement?  I don't recall any subsequent qualification at that time that would give the reader any other understanding.  And how is it that you find it so difficult to concede that most anyone reading your statement would have the same understanding.... that Jesus forbade divorce altogether?  The word 'altogether' pretty much cements the absolution of the statement.

Despite the Cbox being an immediate chat box where typos can easily happen, you are still most pedantic to correct any inadvertent spelling/grammatical mistakes of your own, and make plain your message, and to whom its addressed.  You are critical of anyone who fails to communicate/debate/whatever to your standards, yet you appear stubbormly able to acknowledge one little faux pas of your own.  Furthermore, you berate the messenger of the issue, instead of simply conceding that yes, you can understand that folk could read your comment as saying what clearly it IS saying.  You can give it Ian, but you appear unable to take it!

Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 1:11 AMCopy HTML

Dog,

Read my response again. The context has clearly been spelled out, the substance of the issue has been explained for you, and then in quite some detail. You're doing little more than "shadow-boxing" with yourself currently.


I wonder, are you the sort of person, who encountering a "STOP" sign at a road crossing, subsequently refuses to move forwards thereafter? The fact of Jesus absolutely prohibiting divorce from the Divine perspective isn't surprising. The issue of grace; however, often is. Scripture amply demonstrates that Divine Prohibitions, which reflect the completely holy nature of God, are frequently offset by Divine Concessions, allowances made for human weakness under sin. Think about it.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 2:29 AMCopy HTML

Okay, found it... and this'll be the LAST time I go trawling through the cbox archives.

2009-05-14 02:08:43 Dog: Ian, response #1. I acknowledged that yes, IF scripture is to be understood, context must be considered. All the more reason to leave it in the past, and live our lives by more RELEVENT and pertinent codes. You have shown how deciphering scripture is not for the average person in 2009. As if people really should have to get down & dirty to find what its all about, when its old history anyway!

2009-05-14 02:15:49 Dog: Ian, response #2. Because people are people who deserve a bit of compassion and care for their present circumstances. Dictating to people they MUST abide by some declaration supposedly attributed to Jesus millenia ago is just ignorant nonsense. It is about as helpful to those concerned as a road accident! It is that sort of moralising that really puts a sour taste in peoples' mouths and turns them OFF religion altogether.

2009-05-14 07:54:25 Didaktikon: Dog. My response to your response #1. Simply because a certain truth or series of truths were committed to writing in ancient times does NOT automatically mean that they must necessarily be irrelevant for today, and the circumstances of modern life. Consider Pythoagorean mathematics, for example. Second, there are more than enough basic and inexpensive Bible study aids available nowadays, to provide sufficient explanations of the appropriate contexts to enable right (if not comprehensive) understanding. Failure to use such works implies either laziness or arrogance. Third, the role of teachers in the Church is to impart these sorts of information as part of their teaching and preaching. Fourth, and with respect to your off-hand comment about "old history", those ignorant of history are forever doomed to repeat her errors. Ian

2009-05-14 07:58:07 Didaktikon: Dog. My response to your response #2. Clearly your comment relates to Jesus' stand on divorce. Unfortunately, you failed to consider several pertinent points. First, Jesus is God, and so was providing God's absolute standard on the matter: marriage being a LIFELONG covenant between a man and a woman. Two, Jesus himself made allowance for human weakness and frailty, which a study of the relevant passages in CONTEXT would have demonstrated to you. Your bitterness towards Christianity blinded you to seeking out what the source actually says. Ian

2009-05-14 08:03:17 Didaktikon: Dog. In short, I found neither of your position statements to be based on anything approaching a logical, rational or considered basis. To the contrary, it seems that they were predicated on nothing more substantial that emotional and personal concerns. Ian

2009-05-14 10:11:00 Didaktikon: Dog. For your positions to be convincing, they need to be based on something approaching reasonable. To be honest, I just don't see that in what you've offered up to date. Ian

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 2:45 AMCopy HTML

Dog,

There you have it. Feel free to apologise unreservedly at any time

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 8:20 AMCopy HTML

Ian,


Nup.  In the subsequent posts Moth dragged in, (thanks Mothman) all that is said that could be said to qualify your statement is here...

"First, Jesus is God, and so was providing God's absolute standard on the matter: marriage being a LIFELONG covenant between a man and a woman.  Two, Jesus himself made allowance for human weakness and frailty, which a study of the relevant passages in CONTEXT would have demonstrated to you."

Your FIRST point would seem to reinforce your absolute statement.

Your second point "made allowance for human weakness and frailty" doesn't make it plain that you are saying something DIFFERENT to your original statement in question, and your directive to study the relevent passages would (I suppose) have revealed that Jesus did NOT "forbid divorce altogether".  So why say he did in the first place?

As usual, you do your utmost to talk your way out of a firing squad with your reasoning, which is totally self serving.  You are proving yourself to be as ambiguous as the bible that you like to tell people is so perfect.


Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 8:42 AMCopy HTML

Dog,

Absolutely amazing! Every single point that I reinforced with you over the past two days, has proven to have been the case. Every one! The Cbox, do remember, functions as an ongoing conversation. In our current example, I said something, you responded. I then replied to your concern. Exactly as what takes place in a normalconversation! For the past two days now you've sat at your keyboard accusing me of being evasive, building straw-men of your own devising to try to knock down; and yet I've answered every single point that you've raised. And Moth's recovery of the actual Cbox conversation demonstrates that I was being completely truthful in what I maintained.

I credited you with greater integrity and more common sense, the truth be told. Perhaps I've been wrong in my estimation. In any case, this will be my last word to you on this matter. Feel free to knock yourself out in your attempts to convince others that you're not chasing rainbows.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 8:58 AMCopy HTML

 Ian,

Nup,

Not accusing you of being untruthful at all or evasive.  Its clear in all of this that you DO NOT believe Jesus forbade divorce altogether.  You simply acknowledging that your statement to the contrary was misleading would have put the matter to rest long ago. 

I have your permission to "knock myself out".  You have my permission to remain silent if you prefer.  Its no skin off my nose in any case.

Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 2:23 PMCopy HTML

For Pete's sake,

For all the amazing and dedicated work and effort Ian puts into this forum it amazes me how quickly people can jump on Ian when they smell a little blood. The smallest of spelling errors get all sorts of excited reactions from various ones, and this whole thread seems like a slap to the face, imo. Yeah, I can see what may be considered a contradiciton... "Jesus forbids divorce... but...". The Bible forbids killing, but even that has its exceptions. I suppose in a perfect world people wouldn't make mistakes and, well, the word divorce wouldn't even exist. In the real world, however, the mistake can be the marriage in the first place, and the tragedy can be when that marriage continues to the detriment of the children and all involved. Ideally, a marriage that has been joined in love, and is built on love and promises, should be given every chance to continue.
My marriage ended this year, and when I confided in Ian, he was supportive and understanding. Not that I'm a Christian, who needs to live up to anyone's expectation, but there's an inherent underlying bible belief in me. Every situation is unique and complicated in its own right, and no one has the right to judge. I never wanted to be 'that' divorce guy who has to share custody and go through all that pain, but this year it happened, and should have happened a while ago. This was to be our 20th year of marriage, but we had to stop pretending to be happy and stop lying to the kids, and move on. Four months later, we're both happy and relieved we did this incredibly difficult thing, because it was the right thing to do. 

You see, our marriage was organised by The Revival Centres International in 1989 when my then partner and I were a mere seventeen. We were young, naive, and full of faith for the organisation we believed was 'the' Church. After some teenage sexual experimentation, and a guilt-ridden admission, a 'pastor' Brad Smith gave us the ultimatim of either getting married, or being kicked out of our church community. All parents involved were against it, but her parents pathetically bowed to the laws of RCI, and my parents were powerless to talk me out of it. We were not mature. We were not in 'love'. We did not court. It was completely unnatural and based on fear and law. We were not even allowed to 'see' each other without supervision throughout the engagement, and then the marriage was an almost secret event that our church friends were not allowed to attend.

The past is the past, and I don't regret the beautiful children and friendship that the twenty years brought us, but the truth was we never were able to grow 'into' love as we were told would naturally happen. We stayed together, and kept in line with the distraction of four or five meetings a week at the Revival meetings, over seventen years, until we escaped the hold that system had over us. How many shattered lives are there due to the mutated lifestyle this sect encouraged? I really think we actually deserve some sort of public apology for the treatment we got, but what would be the point? Would the vanity and pride in the awful persona of Brad Smith ever allow himself to accept these arranged marriages as mistakes. He actually thought he was doing the right thing at the time, and sadly, so did we.

I've envied marriages that have been brought together under the right conditions, and 'god forbid' that such beautiful relationships should end in divorce. I am currently very much in love with an amazing woman and looking forward to a real marriage ceremony of my own. My original marriage was one of religious convenience, and not one of love... as it should be. 

People actually have the gall to call this establisment a church? A Christian Church? Our story is far from uncommon in these Revivalist circles, and this is the fruit of their beliefs, and it continues. This is a club pretending to be a church, and I hope less people get trapped by it these days.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 3:36 PMCopy HTML

Hey Mothy,

During the day today, it did occur to me that the theme of divorce may touch a nerve, and I'm sorry if it's a little insensitive of me.  My interest in bringing it up is probably fairly obvious.  Its not the interest in the subject of divorce per se, but my objection to being told by Ian that I'm at fault for reading his statement, and taking it as saying what it says.

So yes it was intended as a 'face slap'.  Ian sets high standards, not only for himself, but for all who come here.  He is openly critical of anyone whose intellect or capacity to engage in dialogue or debate falls short, and so claims victory in his game of logic.  Ian leaving a 'smelly red herring' there was something that I felt needed clarifying.  But rarther than concede that "yes that might be seen that way, but...." he took his stance of criticising me for not reading it correctly, as he sees it.  Clearly its bloody-minded, and this made me more determined not to 'roll over' but to call him out for his little misleading statement.  Ian missed this opportunity (IMO) of showing a little humility and humanity, but that is his choice.  If he could see it, not being 'right' for once may actually have had a positive effect on the way people perceive him.

All this does NOT take away from what you describe as Ian's generosity of time & efforts.  I am quite able (as I have done) to acknowledge his talents and virtues.  But this incident is one where I am simply giving to Ian what he dishes out to us.  After all, what's good for the goose.... 

Anyway, all that aside, thanks for your words Mothy, and best wishes for your future!


Dog.


"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
tommo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Rookier
  • Score:1640
  • Posts:82
  • From:Australia
  • Register:06/10/2008 5:55 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 11:25 PMCopy HTML

 Hi Mothy

Your story really struck a chord with me. I am so sorry you were subjected to such an awful situation courtesy of the clowns running your branch. Yours is a story which is very common in RCI and something that has certainly touched my families life and one that even after ten years of freedom still angers me. Marriage/Family are, for me, what life is all about and has completely replaced my need for belief in a God.

I sincerely wish you well in your new relationship.

Tom



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 11:31 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, all.

I've been accused recently of "dishing out that, which I'm not prepared to be served", here. The original claim was that I was inconsistent, in that I had stated on the CBox that Jesus forbade divorce abolutely, but that I later stated (in the "gay marriage" thread) that he made allowance for the severing of marriages under certain circumstances.  I maintained when so challenged, that I wasn't being inconsistent at all, in that I had explained in the CBox conversation what I had meant. This explanation; however, was summarily dismissed along the lines of: "well, I don't remember it that way".

In post #3 of this thread, I elucidated my reasoning on the issue (especially given the circumstances or context which had predicated and underpinned the entire CBox discussion), on just how Jesus (being a completely holy God) could make a Divine Absolute, but also being God, that he could make a Divine Concession. I pointed out that this is what "grace" invariably is all about. In that very same post I indicated that I had said words to the same effect in the CBox conversation at the time. I maintain now that if one is seeking an example of consistency, then this a pretty good one!

Moth eventually posted the remainder of the CBox conversation, and, lo and behold, what I had maintained all along was shown to be the case! I had stated that Jesus gave a Divine Absolute in prohibiting divorce, but that he had also made a Divine Concession due to human frailty and the effects of sin. What I had repeated in this current thread was even shown to be almost word-for-word to that, which I had stated in the earlier CBox discussion! However, this explanation still wasn't accepted. But then a remarkable "twist". Suddenly the accusation itself changed! What was formerly the charge that I was being inconsistent in what I had written, suddenly became the charge of me "not believing that Jesus forbade divorce altogether"! (cf. the header post to # 13)

One of the reasons that I post here involves the challenging of people to think clearly. This is why debate itself is such a great medium, it forces people into not being lazy or haphazard in their thinking! It forces people into dealing directly and consistently with their subject matter to hand. And given what was the underpinning reason that most people found themselves in Revivalism to begin with, it also helps them to become more rigorous in their evaluating of other peoples' comments into the future, thereby minimising the risk of being duped again by "pleasing words".

I know full-well that my methods, manners and mannerisms grate against some people, people who seemingly take great pleasure in avoiding the issues in preference to attacking me personally. But I apparently also have a thicker hide than do many of them. The issue to me always remains one of having a proper comprehension. In noting this I have misunderstood what people had said on this forum in times past, and I'm also on the permanent record here, in apologising to them. When I'm wrong, I will and do admit to being wrong, and such will continue to be the case into the future. But I am very careful in what I write, and it's no doubt for this reason that some people believe that I think I "know everything about everything". However, if someone makes a statement--whether a proposition or an accusation--which isn't based on the available evidence, then I will point this out to them. Again, it's about promoting rigorous thinking.

In closing, I hold no personal animosity to those who rail either against me, or God (or who apparently confuse the two of us!). I will continue to "do what I do" here, and then in spite of the "naysayers", as the fruit of my labours is abundant enough to satisfy me.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 11:33 PMCopy HTML

For all the amazing and dedicated work and effort Ian puts into this forum it amazes me how quickly people can jump on Ian when they smell a little blood.

Perhaps they have learnt that from him.

My marriage ended this year, and when I confided in Ian, he was supportive and understanding.

Good, nice to know that Ian has those qualities in his arsenal. Perhaps he should show them a bit more often here and people would not be so easily inclined to think he doesnt have them at all.

How many shattered lives are there due to the mutated lifestyle this sect encouraged? I really think we actually deserve some sort of public apology for the treatment we got, but what would be the point? Would the vanity and pride in the awful persona of Brad Smith ever allow himself to accept these arranged marriages as mistakes. He actually thought he was doing the right thing at the time, and sadly, so did we.

Many many shattered lives. I am close to a couple that used to be in Brisbane whose story mirrors yours. They split up almost as soon as they left Revival. Just tragic to see the fallout, and the same story is repeated many times over.

Apology? From anyone connected with the Revival Dickheads? They don't know the meaning of the word. Who needs to when they are always right?

This is the issue with Ian. I have been off this site for a couple of years after the last time I was shredded by a person who should have known better. I pop up about a month ago to see what is happening and once again I am confronted by a pastor clone in Ian. After my exchange with him last Friday, which triggered my post- traumatic stress I had a very interesting weekend. I like to come here for a bit of support, not to have my pain churned up by yet another Pharisee for whom the milk of human kindness appears to have dried up.
If that is not the case with Ian, perhaps he needs to look at his almost non existent people skills. If he mouthed off the way he does in a pub, not wearing his uniform he would get the crap kicked out of him pretty quickly. He can be as much of a smartass as he wants in his sterile litte military and internet world, but why the hell does he need to do it to already traumatised people? Why would he need to do it to anyone at all?

When I ask him these kinds of question I get silence. How is his behaviour any different from the Revival oversight? Its "we can treat you any way we like and you have no right to question us". What kind of a person who names himself by the name of Christ knowingly continues to treat people that way after having been asked not to do so?

It saddens me to know that Ian justifies the way he demeans others. If God has gifted him with intelligence, why is it that said intelligence does not extend to the condescending manner in which he addresses others? I believe the scripture says Do justly, love mercy and walk HUMBLY with thy God.

I am currently very much in love with an amazing woman and looking forward to a real marriage ceremony of my own. My original marriage was one of religious convenience, and not one of love... as it should be. 

I am very pleased for you Moth. We all need another chance at what should have been. As for me, after two failed marriages, I have finally met a man with whom I am happy.

People actually have the gall to call this establisment a church? A Christian Church? Our story is far from uncommon in these Revivalist circles, and this is the fruit of their beliefs, and it continues. This is a club pretending to be a church, and I hope less people get trapped by it these days.

It seem less and less people are. Unfortunately more and more people are being trapped by the club that is Hillsong et al.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:22/06/2009 11:49 PMCopy HTML

All,

And the last post simply serves to reinforce my points. Apparently, I'm also to blame for the poor behaviour of, and various problems experienced by, others! It seems to be the case that one believes that she can enter into a discussion/debate with naught under her belt but inflamed passions and uninformed personal opinions; that she can start waving her fists violently in the air, and wagging her venomous tongue to all and sundry, but that in spite of these various personal failings she can't be corrected?!

I've always tried to live by the solid advice, "if one can't stand the heat, then don't enter the kitchen!" But if one does choose to so enter, then it's probably not the wisest thing to be waving about a paring knife when the chef is armed with a carving knife!

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:23/06/2009 1:21 AMCopy HTML

And the last post simply serves to reinforce my points. Apparently, I'm also to blame for the poor behaviour of, and various problems experienced by, others! It seems to be the case that one believes that she can enter into a discussion/debate with naught under her belt but inflamed passions and uninformed personal opinions; that she can start waving her fists violently in the air, and wagging her venomous tongue to all and sundry, but that in spite of these various personal failings she can't be corrected?!

Corrected by you? That is your function in life Ian, to correct others? How is it possible you cannot see the arrogance in that? I find it interesting yet typical of you as a person that you never directly answer a question that pertains to your own behaviour, but deflect it by referring to mine.

What you are responsible for Ian is your complete refusal to examine your own behaviour and the effect it has on others.

I've always tried to live by the solid advice, "if one can't stand the heat, then don't enter the kitchen!" But if one does choose to so enter, then it's probably not the wisest thing to be waving about a paring knife when the chef is armed with a carving knife!

This isnt a kitchen, it is a discussion forum for those affected by their association with Revival. But clearly this is your kitchen, in which you use that carving knife to slice dice and serve up others with the delightful garnish of your own arrogance. What I don't understand is why others have allowed you to take the kitchen over. Baffle them with bullshit did you? When you do stand in front of God and he asks you to explain it to him, what will you say Ian?

I was the smartest, the best at tearing others down with my own venomous yet educated tongue, so I had the right? I used logic so it was okay?

You have much to learn about being a decent human being Ian.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:23/06/2009 1:38 AMCopy HTML

Galien,

You are the one who is responsible for your behaviour, and not me. My own has been is as it's always been,  direct, logical and (dare I say it?) "clinical", so don't presume to tell me how I should act when you provide the perfect exemplar of how one should not act.

Now there are many parts to this forum, Galien, most of which are designed for discussion and/or debate. You chose to enter one of these, and you chose to shoot your mouth off without any sort of personal restraint, grace, or common sense. So please don't blame me for your childish outbursts; it's not only poor form, it's incredibly arrogant a thing to do, and it's also manifestly hypocritical!

To answer your question, when I stand before God and he asks me what my presence here has achieved, I'll be able to point out the many hundreds of people who left Revivalism through my efforts. And you?

Finally, an issue about which you're obviously ignorant: I was invited by the restaurant owner to be the chief chef in this little kitchen. Deal with it.

Think about this, your behaviour to date, and then repent of your hubris.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:23/06/2009 3:10 AMCopy HTML


To answer your question, when I stand before God and he asks me what my presence here has achieved, I'll be able to point out the many hundreds of people who left Revivalism through my efforts. And you?

I will NOT be glorying in the "achievements" that the love of God alone allowed me to be part of. I will be on my knees in repentance.

Finally, an issue about which you're obviously ignorant: I was invited by the restaurant owner to be the chief chef in this little kitchen.

God owns the whole block Mr Ramsay.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:23/06/2009 5:12 AMCopy HTML

Mothra,

One thing that "interacting" with Galien has demonstrated is this: it's far more productive a use of one's time chatting to a lump of sandstone! At the very least the 'block' is, (1) smart enough to realise that it's just a 'rock', and (2) it's not likely to split into shards when it finds itself under a little pressure
smiley9

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:23/06/2009 5:39 AMCopy HTML

 Cheer up Ian, the world's not over yet ... you know when I pour myself over the issue of divorce and your musings and off the track replies, I am reminded and yet again saddened that there is too little understanding of Grace - Charis within the whole body corporate but worse when it comes to the revivalist position, understanding of Grace is really a total zero...

 " For the law was given through Moses; he Charis kai he aletheia dia Iesou Christou egeneto "  and yet if I jump back a verse I read " charin anti charitos - grace upon grace "  so it seems to me that folk who have only a short time removed from the revivalist groups are very much undeveloped spiritually - and that just about sums up the whole revivalist paradigm... so never mind Bro, you are doing well and in some cases extraordinarily well.

blessings

Metanoian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:24/06/2009 2:15 AMCopy HTML

One thing that "interacting" with Galien has demonstrated is this: it's far more productive a use of one's time chatting to a lump of sandstone! At the very least the 'block' is, (1) smart enough to realise that it's just a 'rock', (2) it's not likely to split into shards when it finds itself under a little pressure, and (3) it doesn't suffer from either "basalt envy", or PMS ("Post Magma Solidification") smiley9

Very mature Ian. Until having the pleasure of meeting you I did not really understand that lumps of rock could be sentient. You have proved otherwise.

You sir, are a misogynistic bully who finds it amusing to poke fun at the suffering of others.

You certianly have managed to teach me one thing Ian. People like you are to be avoided at all costs.

Oh, Re the personality analysis I had thought you to be an ENTJ. However I realise now you are much more of another type. Still has four letters, but starts with C. In your case a capital C. And I don't mean cute.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:24/06/2009 2:51 AMCopy HTML

Galien,

"Heat and kitchens, girlie, heat and kitchens."

Now is there any particular reason that you're continuing this little personally-motivated tirade of yours? Are you keen on looking foolish? Are you trying to trigger another "episode" for sympathy purposes? Or is your life simply hollow, and you need a hobby of sorts to fill the time? And with respect to the "suffering" that you referred to, given what you've demonstrated thus far here, it's clear that you largely bring such upon yourself. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it functions as a convenient "crutch" for you.

Ian

P.S. Given that you're apparently a "Christian", working out which four letter "c" word you had in mind for me was simple enough. Initially I thought it must be 'cute', but clearly what you intended was C-O-O-L
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
tommo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Rookier
  • Score:1640
  • Posts:82
  • From:Australia
  • Register:06/10/2008 5:55 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:24/06/2009 3:14 AMCopy HTML

 Afternoon Major

Can you stop needling Galien and review these comments you made earlier in the thread:

1) marital unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse. (2) Failure by one party to meet the physical needs of the other. (3) Failure by one party to meet the emotional needs of the other, i.e. "abandonment".

Points 2 and 3 are fairly broad - I would contend that they offer scope for divorce under almost ANY circumstance.... How can the emotional or physical needs of one party be objectively determined?

Tommo
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:24/06/2009 3:27 AMCopy HTML

Thommo,

Afternoon Major. Can you stop needling Galien and review these comments you made earlier in the thread:

First, the name is Ian. What I do for my "bread-and-cheese" is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Second, perhaps you should be directing your request to "cease-and-desist", to Galien? After all, she is the one who apparently wishes to personalise matters, largely given, I suppose, to the fact that she lacks the capacity to discuss the issue in a moderate, informed, and temperate fashion.

(1) marital unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse. (2) Failure by one party to meet the physical needs of the other. (3) Failure by one party to meet the emotional needs of the other, i.e. "abandonment".

Points 2 and 3 are fairly broad - I would contend that they offer scope for divorce under almost ANY circumstance.... How can the emotional or physical needs of one party be objectively determined?

Well, I guess God understood that life itself is "broad", and so he took this important factor into consideration when extending his grace towards us. But the fact remains that Jesus' response to the Pharisees on the point of "divorce under ANY circumstance" made it clear that such wasn't to be tolerated, as it seems that they, too, had made the same mistake in considering the matter as you apparently have. However, I won't respond to this point at this time. I think I'll leave this question to Eric to answer. You'll see why, soon enough. I do recommend to you; however, same pre-reading from Drs David Instone-Brewer and B. Ward Powers. Both have published extensively on this subject.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:24/06/2009 9:59 PMCopy HTML

Reply to the Major 

And with respect to the "suffering" that you referred to, given what you've demonstrated thus far here, it's clear that you largely bring such upon yourself.

I was referrring Major to the collective suffering of all those wounded by the revival churches.


Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:01/07/2009 4:23 AMCopy HTML

Galien and Tommo,

 

I find it incredulous that such disrespect is emanating from you. I shake my head as I try to understand your intentions and motives. I for one visit this forum to learn, digest, and ultimately grow in my faith walk.

 

As would be the majority of posters here, Revival has indeed adversely scarred; only leaving them questioning their belief and ultimately their faith…I one of them!

 

For whatever reason your quest to disrespect certain members here on this forum saddens me. Ian (Didaktikon) has been a pillar of strength for me and towered well above both of you with his knowledge and rhetoric. Ian has helped me immensely and I have grown in Christianity since God lead me to cross his path…more than the many years I was associated with Revival.

 

Why do you not recognise that God is in control, not you or Ian? As God used Cyrus to wield his power, then have you ever wondered if the same is true with Ian?

 

How sad is it when a sparrow disrespects an eagle to bolster up their own minuteness.

 

Regards

Akriboo

 

tommo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Rookier
  • Score:1640
  • Posts:82
  • From:Australia
  • Register:06/10/2008 5:55 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:01/07/2009 4:54 AMCopy HTML

 Akriboo

In what way have I shown ANY disrepect to Ian on this forum? I have engaged in discussion/debate which is something Ian seems to enjoy. I have never attacked him personally. We dont agree on some/many points but so what?.. the world is full of different opinions... Thats what makes life interesting!

This is a discussion forum for ex-revivalists, of which I am one and therefore entitled to post and discuss the issues which come up... The fact that I take a humanist view-point rather than that of a christian does not preclude my involvement.

to quote another half-wit... please explain!
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:01/07/2009 5:05 AMCopy HTML

REPLY TO AKRIBOO

I find it incredulous that such disrespect is emanating from you. I shake my head as I try to understand your intentions and motives. I for one visit this forum to learn, digest, and ultimately grow in my faith walk.


That is why I returned to this forum Akriboo, not to be insulted and spoken down to by Ian. I have been christian of whatever ilk for 40 years, I don't need Ian Thomason to tell me how it works. I am disgusted by the way Ian chooses to speak to people who don't think the sun shines out of his bottom.
 

As would be the majority of posters here, Revival has indeed adversely scarred; only leaving them questioning their belief and ultimately their faith…I one of them!


A revival pastor told me god had abandoned me and I believed him for about 3 years. Pretty devastating stuff. I thought it was true so it was like being in hell. I did work out though that Revival know pretty well nothing about loving or serving god. I'm sorry that you have had a hard time with your faith and your belief Akriboo. It's pretty primal stuff.
 

For whatever reason your quest to disrespect certain members here on this forum saddens me. Ian (Didaktikon) has been a pillar of strength for me and towered well above both of you with his knowledge and rhetoric.

I don't CARE about Ian's knowledge and his rhetoric. I'm not here to prove how clever I am. Ian is. If you have been helped by him, then good. I have just been insulted and bullied. How is the way he speaks to people any different from revival pastors? They had all the answers too remember. What I care about is that even after Ian has been told he is hurtful and insulting he refuses to stop doing it. He ENJOYS talking down to people. He ENJOYS feeling superior. He has been told these things by numerous people but simply chooses to ignore them. He is happy with who he is, even if it hurts others. You can take the boy out of revival, but not always the revival out of the boy. Just like the moronic revival leaders Ian believes he has been called by god into some special kind of ministry here, so anything goes. Wouldn't suprise me if he also believed any kind of criticism was the devil attacking him to stop him dragging ppl out of revival, which would probably explain his delight in hurting others.

Ian has helped me immensely and I have grown in Christianity since God lead me to cross his path…more than the many years I was associated with Revival.


Cool, if you have never known any other kind of christianity but revival I can see how he would. I am out the other side of both kinds. Ian is happy with orthodox christianity, I'm not. I am sure it appeals to his sense of structure and security. Just stifles mine.
 

Why do you not recognise that God is in control, not you or Ian? As God used Cyrus to wield his power, then have you ever wondered if the same is true with Ian?

Oh give me a break.  That is exactly the same crap the revivals used on us. The point of being a christian is to realise we don't need power. Ian still hasn't had that epiphany yet. I know who is in control, and it isn't Ian, even though he would dearly love to be.
 

How sad is it when a sparrow disrespects an eagle to bolster up their own minuteness.

God is the only eagle, we are ALL sparrows in his sight. The very fact anyone needs to think of other people as eagles, or have an eagle to "look up to" suggests to me a very immature take on life. My intent is not to offend, but neither is it to sit back and be abused by yet another know all who thinks it is in any way godly to treat other adults like they are his inferiors. I had enough of that crap in revival, didn't you?

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:01/07/2009 5:15 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Akriboo.

Don't sweat on it. I've enjoyed discussing matters with Thommo, and most people are intelligent enough to see Galien's offerings for what they are.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Date Posted:01/07/2009 7:04 AMCopy HTML


Ian:
Don't sweat on it. I've enjoyed discussing matters with Thommo, and most people are intelligent enough to see Galien's offerings for what they are.

And thank goodness for that. It's only you and your followers that won't Ian.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.