Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Reviving from Revival > Freedom Forum Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:02/01/2011 9:54 PMCopy HTML

I've read the article on 'is your Revival Centre a cult', and I welcome it as an RCI member, because I've been to many Revival Centres, and been a member of several, and I've never found one that remotely meets the criteria, or espouses the beliefs he claims.  Therefore, he is a liar in claiming what he does for RCI, but it's easy for anyone who is interested to attend some RCI meetings and see for themselves,
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 4:40 AMCopy HTML

You're referring to the article at http://revival.aimoo.com/Freedom-Forum/Article-Is-Your-Revival-Centre-a-Cult-1-1774306.html and you say you've been a member of the RCI for some time and you don't find any of the criteria remotely fit it? Then, I'd have to say as a person who was a full-time member of RCI-then-TRF that you sir would have to be the liar.

The points on that page are bang on for any reasonable person to see who hasn't got their blinkers on in regards to how Revival sects run their business.

Are you just 'dropping and running' or are you actually able to give a case for the Revivalists and show how they are not a cult according to Troy's criteria adapted from http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm
[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
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 4:44 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Moth and Rust.
After seeing a father of a child in GRC say that Xray results of his child were just a lie of Satan makes me think Troy is more believable than a revival member. Lies are part of their culture.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 5:05 AMCopy HTML

 OMG at that stupid man.
[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
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 5:18 AMCopy HTML

Reply to MothandRust

You're referring to the article at http://revival.aimoo.com/Freedom-Forum/Article-Is-Your-Revival-Centre-a-Cult-1-1774306.html and you say you've been a member of the RCI for some time and you don't find any of the criteria remotely fit it? Then, I'd have to say as a person who was a full-time member of RCI-then-TRF that you sir would have to be the liar.

The points on that page are bang on for any reasonable person to see who hasn't got their blinkers on in regards to how Revival sects run their business.

Are you just 'dropping and running' or are you actually able to give a case for the Revivalists and show how they are not a cult according to Troy's criteria adapted from http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm

Totally agree Moth.   Couldn`t have said it better.  As someone who spent 20 years ` on the inside` of the rci cult this article highlights very strongly the criteria that does exist in that place`.  Man he sure is blind, deaf and stupid if he hasn`t worked that out and to call  tw a liar. Wake up you fool.  
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 5:25 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

I've read the article on 'is your Revival Centre a cult', and I welcome it as an RCI member, because I've been to many Revival Centres, and been a member of several, and I've never found one that remotely meets the criteria, or espouses the beliefs he claims.  Therefore, he is a liar in claiming what he does for RCI, but it's easy for anyone who is interested to attend some RCI meetings and see for themselves,

You can`t be serious! Obviously you haven`t been taking much notice or you haven`t spent much time `in the fold` cause if you did you wouldn`t be writing that ridiculous crap on here. As a long time ex- member of RCI and now out thank god that is exactly what the criteria was. Hang around a bit longer buddy open your ears and eyes before you put harsh and  inaccurate name tags on people.  Oh and you might wanna visit a real church that is christian and does have compassion and some biblical truth to compare the difference between a church and a cult. Wise up. 
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 11:22 AMCopy HTML

I can't speak for every RCI or every person on the planet.  I won't call anyone a liar who claims to have been treated differently to my experience, I'll merely say that all the stories I hear, bear no relation to any RCI I have attended, or the way RCI seeks to be run.  If some other group contains people dumb enough to say that an x-ray is a 'lie of Satan', my suggestion is to leave that group and come to RCI, where no-one would say anything so stupid.  As to this list, I will address the points in order.

 
They do this through the following means, 

1. Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or position of authority given by God. 

The Revival Centres believe that the Church at large (Pentecostal or otherwise) has fallen into apostasy. They openly teach that the ‘truth’ about salvation was re-discovered by Lloyd Longfield or Noel Hollins, (depending on which Revival Centre group you belong to) just after the World War II. They now believe that they promote the true formula for salvation (Acts 2:38 as they interpret it) and those that preach salvation by faith alone are apostate. 



*RCI has never claimed that our group 'rediscovered' salvation, instead talking about other groups before us, going in to the 19th century at least, who preached Bible salvation at least in their early days, having no links to RCI, and preaching the same gospel we do.  We've never said anything about anyone being 'apostate'.  Salvation 'by faith alone' is what we preach, if this is an emotionally loaded way to put words in our mouth, in reference to people who claim salvation by a faith in a Jesus who is not the JEsus of the Bible, then yes, we do say that anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are none of His.  But, the most we say is that these people are mistaken, and we don't seek to attack anyone personally, nor do we ever claim to have discovered anything or to own the salvation message.

2. They believe they are the only true church and take a critical stance regarding the Christian church while at the same time praising and exalting their own group, leader/s and work. 

The Revival Centres leaders will rarely come out and say that their church is the only true church. But this is very much implied and members know that to leave the Revival Centre is to lose your salvation. Much is said in talks from the platform and in official literature which denigrates and disparages other churches, even those that believe in speaking in tongues. 



*Correct - we NEVER say we are the 'only true church', because we don't believe that we are.  We do not say that to leave is to lose your salvation, nor do we seek to disparage other churches.  We DO say there's only one Gospel ( which surely makes sense, if there is a God, does it not follow He knows what the Bible means, and stands by His interpretation ? ), and that people who deviate from it, are in error.  But, the only churches who don't say that what the preach is THE Gospel, to the exclusion of other, opposing views, is a church that has no views at all.

They will even question the salvation of those who leave one Revival Centre splinter group for another, even though they all preach the same salvation formula. The Geelong Revival Centre members are even told that other Revival Centre groups preach a different salvation message to them. This is a blatant lie, as they all teach the same salvation formula. 


*When the split between RCI and RF happened, some people felt the need to attack those in the other group personally.  I was not one of those, and I was involved, with the blessing of oversight, in reminding people that we should let others follow their conscience, and to follow our own, without feeling the need to attack one another.  Obviously, people who speak to a random RCI member, may well speak to someone with a personal view that differs, but the official view has been to let people go if they feel they need to walk a different way, and to focus on our own walk, without attacking others.

3. They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon; being shunned by their family and friends etc. 

As mentioned earlier, all Revival Centre members know that to leave the Revival Centres is to lose your salvation and go to hell. Even people who leave to attend other Pentecostal Churches are said to have ‘fallen away’. 


*Amusingly, we don't believe that people go to hell at ALL.  We NEVER talk about people in other churches as having 'fallen away', if they've never had the full gospel explained to them, how can they 'fall away' ? Either way, we do not believe that no person in any other pentecostal church is saved, I am sure that is not the case.

The Revival Centre preoccupation with Armageddon and nuclear devastation rivals only the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use of the ‘imminent return of Jesus and destruction of the world’ as a means to promote fear and maintain members. Some ex-members of the Revival Centres report having had terrifying nightmares of nuclear holocaust while in the group and after leaving.
 

*We are not responsible for anyone's psychological issues, nor do we seek to cause them.  We've not spoken of nuclear war for a long, long time, and when we did, we were no different to any other pentecostal group in terms of views prophecy through the lens of the state of the world at the time.  Any suggestion of 'intimidation or psychological manipulation' is beyond ridiculous, nothing could be further from the truth and the claim is laughable.

The Revival Centres spread half truths and lies about those who have left even saying ex-members fall gravely ill and die. One ex-member said that he heard a pastor pronounce this upon people who had just left the church. Stories of those who fall into addictions and immoral behaviour (true or not) upon leaving the group are also lauded in front of those still in the group.
 

*I have known many people to leave in the time I've been in the church.  Some, I still speak to, others have drifted away from my life.  I've never heard anyone ever claim this about anyone who leaves the church, in any context, ever.  As I've said before, an ex-member is not a reliable source for unbiased stories about the church, they have obvious reasons for vitriol.  If a pastor did say that, he was out of line.  If members gossip about people who have left, they are not showing the fruits of the spirit, and I personally don't hear that.  I see people from the platform saying how sad it is to lose someone who was a good brother and who has decided to go a different way.

*Shunning is also a common experience for those who leave. Current members are expected to discontinue relationships with ex-members. Both the RCI and RF make their position clear, 


MARK THEM - identify those who cause divisions and offences. The most obvious are former members who left over personal grievances. Their doctrine and practice are not what we have learned from our Bibles. Identify them - don't be sentimental about old fellowships. (Separation - The Revival Fellowship)
16. Any member who has been “disciplined” by the oversight should not be “comforted” by well-meaning friends. This can encourage rebellion and could result in disaster for those concerned. Any member who has been permanently or temporarily “de-barred” from fellowship should not be visited without permission from the oversight. It is most important that their “case” should not be discussed with them or with others. If and when such action is taken, the Assembly will be officially advised of the reason for such measures. (RCI Assembly Guidelines) 

* Those RCI guidelines were written at least 15 years ago, that is how out of date this information is.  Our position nowadays is not as rigid or based on rules, and no rules document exists.  The overarching goal was simply that if someone is looking to cause trouble in the church, it's best to distance ourselves from those issues and let oversight deal with them.  There's NEVER been any suggestion, however, of family members breaking their ties in this situation.  Truth be told, since our fornication doctrine was clarified and made to be in line with the bible, people understand the consequences and are more careful to avoid sin, and we almost never have the situation of people being disfellowshipped to deal with.  If I see ANYONE in the street who has left the church, I'd make a point of talking to them, so they know they are welcome back if they change their mind.

Many an ex-Revival Centre member can tell you stories of having to shun those who left before them and then being shunned when they themselves left. Some are even shunned by family members. One ex-member even reported being ex-communicated herself after a former member’s car was seen in her driveway by a ‘spying’ member of the oversight. 

* Well, again, I can't speak for what happened to other people, presumably 20 years ago from the age of the rest of this 'information', but, I talk to ex members as often as I see them, and have no fear of being excommunicated.  There has NEVER been any policy of family members breaking contact, but, of course, each individual does what they want to do, and some may feel they need to do that, without the church realising, and also, I am sure some people just plain feel uncomfortable and don't know what to do when they see someone who has left.  That is not church policy, that's just humans being human.

4. Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to the group. This could be compulsory tithing (which is checked); signing over all their property on entering the group; coercive methods of instilling guilt on those who have not contributed; selling magazines, flowers or other goods for the group as part of their “ministry”. At the same time bible-based cults may ridicule churches that take up free-will offerings by passing collection plates and/or sell literature and tapes. They usually brag that they don’t do this. This gives outsiders the intimation that they are not interested in money. 

The Revival Centres are staunch tithers. However in fairness to them, they do not usually expect their members to contribute over and above this tithe except in some circumstances such as a fund raising drives for a new project (such as the RCI purchase of the Freshwater Creek Camp in Victoria). They do not force their members to sell books, etc. outside of the church, but there have been some reports of heavy handed tactics over money in the CAI. 


* Well, I am pleased this comment is reasonable.  RCI is the only Pentecostal church I've ever attended where I've not felt pressured to tithe, in fact, Pastor Lloyd used to say 'we have a bag so we can't tell if you're putting it in, or taking it out'.

5. There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the group’s activities. They will have little or no time to think for themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is also a vital part of the thought control process. 

In this way the Revival Centres are not as severe as groups like the Moonies or Hare Krishna. However, the RCI do expect people to attend 2 Sunday meetings, 1 weekly house meeting or mid-week meeting, weekly young people’s meetings (if at an appropriate age or unmarried) and any outreaches or special events. Some Revival Centre groups have a heavier schedule again. These meetings are forced upon members and are not optional. 


*This is rubbish.  All meetings are optional.  2 Sunday meetings takes up about half the day, and many people choose to stay for one without being 'in trouble'.  However, the church attracts a lot of people who like having that many chances to see other members and to have a meeting, so a lot is put on, and people tend to attend more than they avoid.  That's just a side effect of people being committed to their experience and their in church relationships.  There is no intention to stop people thinking for themselves, in fact, our focus has always been on personal salvation, on people coming to an understanding in themselves of what they believe and acting based on their belief, not by force.

Unknown to most members, lower level RCI leaders even take a roll to check who is and is not in attendance. Missing members are then sometimes questioned as to why they are skipping meetings. Christmas and Easter camps are also usually compulsory unless an adequate reason for not being able to attend is given. This busy schedule leaves little time for meaningful relationships outside the group and brings members deeper into the group dynamic. 


*This is pure drivel.  Perhaps 30 years ago, but nothing like that has ever happened in my experience.  Camps are far from compulsory, I have not attended an Easter camp for a long time, without ever being questioned.  Most of this is speculative, if people being involved stops them from having outside friends, that is against our wishes, we encourage outside interests so people outside the church can see how we live, and hopefully be attracted to know Jesus themselves, apart from anything else.  But, if people are so busy that their life becomes the church, that does not mean we were trying to stop them from meeting anyone outside.

6. There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private lives of members. This control can be direct through communal living, or constant and repetitious teaching on “how to be a true Christian” or “being obedient to leadership”. Members will look to their leaders for guidance in everything they do. 

The Revival Centres have a list of written Assembly Guidelines (i.e. RULES!) that members are expected to strictly adhere to. The preamble to the RCI list states, 


The following guidelines are for the protection of individuals and the assembly as a whole… ...All policies are international and are not subject to local change or variation.
The list contains rules covering things such as private gatherings of members (not allowed without permission from leaders), marriage (again, permission is needed) and the repression of critical comments. The full list can be found here. 

* As stated above, this list was done away with almost 2 decades ago, simply because it involved legalism.  It was based on the bible, and it's advice was all scripturally sound ( these anti cult statements never seem to care if the advice given is correct in the sense of being what the Bible says, but there it is, the guidelines were a way of giving clear advice on how to live inside the Gospel ).  However, nowadays, we see that it's better to have people think for themselves, than to give them a list of guidelines that they may well follow without really thinking about why they are doing it.

A quick read of these rules demonstrates the invasiveness of the Revival Centres groups into the lives of their members. This behaviour by the groups undermines the individual’s personal freedom and eventually their ability to make even simple decisions for themselves. 


* I've never had any trouble making simple or complex decisions for myself, and I briefly lived in a world where I had a copy of the rules in question, although my approach was to read from the Bible where the ideas came from, and apply the Bible principles in my life, which was alway the intent.

7. Bible-based cults may proclaim they have no clergy/laity distinction and no paid ministry class - that they are all equal. 

The Revival Centres members like to point the finger at the clergy/laity distinction of other churches, especially the Catholic Church, whilst claiming that their leaders are just ‘normal people’. However, every single Revivalist knows that the ‘oversight’ are much more than ‘normal members’. Members are forced to address pastors as Pastor (e.g. Pastor Bill) and never by their first name alone and, as mentioned, have enormous power over regular members. They do pay some ministers a wage.

* So, it's bad to not have a clear heirarchy ? How does this gel with the claim above that we elevate some members ? We do call our pastors 'pastor', although we just call houseleaders by name.  However, I've always had pastors for friends and treated them the way I treat everyone else.  That I call someone 'Pastor Bob' is hardly mind control.  No pastor has ever had 'enormous power' over me.

8. Any dissent or questioning of the group’s teachings is discouraged. Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission. This is vigilantly maintained. 

Anyone who has been in the Revival Centres for even a few months knows that criticism and dissension is not tolerated in the slightest. Numerous stories have been reported by ex-members of the harsh and often emotionally damaging ways that the pastors and oversight have treated people who have crossed this line. The guidelines mentioned earlier make the Revival Centres position quite clear: 

5. Members should not enter into any conversation criticising doctrines, practices or beliefs held by the assembly. Again, Pastors and Elders are ready to discuss any such problems that may arise.
10. Any case of disloyalty towards the Assembly or spreading of any discord whatsoever will be viewed as “divisionary” and dealt with severely.
24. Members must not enter into any controversy or criticisms of the beliefs or practices of other persons in other Assemblies. Any “different” teachings should be reported to the home Pastor who can communicate with other Pastors if necessary.

You cannot question Revival Centre doctrine as a member. If the Revival Centres have declared something as true then you must accept it wholeheartedly or be prepared to be ‘dealt with severely’. Once the pastor or elder has discussed the matter with you then the matter is closed whether you accept their explanation or not. 


* This is plain not true.  The point here is, if you disagree, and you go around the church encouraging people to accept your view, you are creating dissent.  This would be true of ANY group of people, imagine how the Australian Cricket team would feel if a new player decided to lobby for rule changes by consensus, by trying to get other members on board as if a vote by one team is all it would take to change the rules for the game, worldwide ? However, I have at times had questions where I disagreed with our position on something, and I've always been welcomed to approach a pastor or houseleader and asked them to explain what we believe from the Bible.  If you don't agree with the pastor, you can decide if it's a small enough matter to sit on it, or you can leave and find somewhere that you can better follow your conscience.  I see nothing wrong with that, people are free to have their views on any topic, and if someone wants to argue on if Adam was the first man, and finds it important enough that they can't stand going to a church that has a different view, then obviously they should find a church where the view is in line with theirs, if it matters that much to them.
 
*Again, that list of rules has been defunct for nearly 2 decades.

9. Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in some way. This could be in the form of “dobbing” on fellow members (including family) under the guise of looking out for their “spiritual welfare”. They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception) or give up their lives by refusing some form of medical treatment. 

Members of the Revival Centres are encouraged to report any violation of policy or practice by other members to the leaders immediately. This is under the guise of “caring for brothers and sisters”. Husbands, wives and even children are encouraged to report on each other. We have had no reports of deliberate lying being encouraged, but I was present in a Young People’s meeting where we were trained to give our public testimony. In this talk, the oversight member instructed us to leave out any undesirable information about church life such as ex-communication, people leaving to go to other churches or personal struggle with ‘sin’.

*We are encouraged from the Bible to correct one another, and to involve church leaders if needed.  This is not spying on people.  If there is a God, and if His church lives a certain way, then one reason the church exists, is to provide positive peer pressure and encouragement from like minded people.  That's a long way from what's being implied here.  Some people seem to wallow in the details of their past life, their testimony can be 'I had lots of sex, did lots of drugs, tried a threesome once, robbed a store, and then I found God, the end'.  Yes, we would encourage people to not feel the need to wallow in the sordid details of their past, because the focus is on the new life, but no-one is every forbidden from providing any specific detail.  If someone was a prostitute before, that would be OK to say.  But, to give a list of clients and positions and prices, would be too much information, I expect.  However, all this would be given as friendly advice, no-one would be told off for saying the wrong thing.  That's not encouraging.

10. Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that involve their lives or have signed a “covenant” and feel threatened by this. Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by other members with coercion to get them to return to the group. 

Put simply, there is no good way to leave the Revival Centres. There is no valid reason to leave from the perspective of the leadership. When individuals leave they are disparaged, sometimes publicly, by leaders. Half-truths and rumours are spread amongst the members to discredit those who leave. The organisation is never at fault in minor or major parting of ways, it is always the fault of those who have left. Noel Hollins said that he parted ways with the RCI as they ‘no longer wanted to follow the Lord’ and Lloyd Longfield said that the ‘Spirit is weak’ in the Revival Fellowships. Members have reported a heavy handed approach from leaders who were attempting to deter them from leaving the group. 

*If there is a God, and if RCI is doing what God says, how can there be a 'good way' to leave ? How can we ever be glad that someone left ? NO-ONE is publically disparaged, EVER.  If someone spreads stories, true or not, that is dealt with quickly and discouraged.  How individuals deal with someone who is leaving, is really a reflection on them, more than the church.  We'd obviously try to talk to anyone who thinks about leaving to ask why and see if it's not something that can be resolved.  If it can't, then we are sad to see them go, but we wish them well, and will not countenance any people speaking ill of them, even if what is being said is true.

I am amused that I have been in RCI for decades, and yet, I am called a fool, because I speak as a current member, from personal experience, to say again that every claim he has ever made to me, has been the opposite of my experience.  I'm not going to name call anyone ( I did call Troy a liar, but I'm afraid that he is one, I won't call anyone stupid, or a fool, because I'm not interested in name calling. )  I'm happy to dedicate some time over a few days to create a public record of the gap between the claims being made by ex members, who obviously are deeply disgruntled to waste their time year after year in online forums like this one, and who, I am sure, have no idea that their recollections get more and more severe as they compete with each other in tales of woe and seek to find RCI or RF in lists like the one I've commented on here.  My advice to anyone reading who has not been to RCI is to either go to a few meetings, or to simply decide to accept that you have no idea who is telling the truth here, as my word is no better or worse than that of ex members, in both cases, no-one knows the people involved or has any reason to believe one over the other.  My advice to ex members is, if you're happy with what you believe today and where you believe it ( be it a church, or atheism, or whatever ), then show your contentment by not wasting your time attacking people online, enjoy your life and live your conscience.  If you feel you've done the right thing, then good for you, you should have no need to justify your choices by entertaining the sort of discussion that is going on here.  I am not claiming that your choice is right, but I am saying, if you believe it, then you need to do what you think is right for you to stand before God, or even to feel that you're living a life where you don't believe in Him.  

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:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 11:48 AMCopy HTML

Hello again, Guest.

Given your latest post you might be surprised to learn that the notorious 'Rules and Regulations', the 'SITREP', the 'Assembly Guidelines', 'Young Peoples Guidelines', and similar such materials are neither 'dead' nor forgotten. These policy documents are still available to RCI pastors, and they're still consulted by them.

To briefly correct certain other erroneous statements of yours: (1) you don't preach 'salvation by faith alone' at all. (2) No sect ever promoted your 'salvation message' before the late 1930s, which led to the forming of the UPC. (3) What the RCI labels the 'Gospel' is anything but. (4) Calling someone 'pastor' is actually quite an unscriptural thing to do. (5) Your 'fonication doctrine' isn't 'in line' with the Bible. And, (6) your attempted defence of the RCI hierarchy is rather hypocritical given the slanderous comments your leaders still make from the platform about the Roman Catholic Church's leaders! I could wax lyrical on these and a host of other subjects that your latest response has provoked, but for the sake of brevity, I shan't at this stage.

Review your facts. Ask 'pastor' if you must.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 8:31 PMCopy HTML

 And this is why I won't bother.  In the first instance, I have been a member of oversight for years, those rules were generated in the past and have not been referred to for a long time, and certainly have not been handed to people for more than a decade.  If people don't have those rules, then it's irrelevant if some pastors somewhere still read them, they are not rules in force, as no-one has them in hand.  However, again, the core of those rules was scripture, the change is that we encourage people to be led by an understanding of their salvation and their relationship with God, instead of having a list of rules they follow blindly.  This is in keeping with the difference between the Old Testament law and the New Testament walk by faith.

1. Of COURSE we preach salvation by faith alone.  This is ridiculous semantics, because we have faith in the promises of God, which include His promise to answer, critics claim we preach salvation by works, when it's God who gives the ability to speak in tongues, as per His promise.  Again, this is exactly why I won't bother with this place, the nature of any place that consists of words only, is word games and legalism for self justification.  I refuse to play.

2 .I have no idea how you claim to know the details of every church that existed prior to 1930, but, you're welcome to hold to your view, it's really irrelevant, all that matters is what the Bible says.

3. Again, I encourage you to live your life with integrity by your beliefs, if you hold them with sincerity.  You're welcome to your opinion, although, of course, I disagree.  The salvation message that delivered me for a downward spiral of drugs, alcohol, self loathing and suicidal thoughts when the mainstream 'give your heart to Jesus' proved powerless in my life no matter how sincerely and whole heartedly I followed it, was and is good news to me.

4. I am well aware that we're told to call no man 'father', I assume this is what you refer to.  I don't know of any church I've ever attended that didn't show respect for the role of a leader by calling them 'pastor' or similar.  I know that Catholics called people 'father' still in the 1980s, I read a book then where they claimed that as the Bible was written in Greek, it was only the GREEK word for Father we were not to use.  I'd say they were nitpicking more than you could ever claim that we are.

5. I could debate this with you from the scriptures, if I thought you were remotely interested.  I know you're not, so I won't.  At the core, no-one is saved by their policy on fornication, or any other thing, they are saved through the Holy Spirit experience and walking in faith with God, so in that sense it's somewhat irrelevant to discuss in a place where the nature of salvation is disputed.

6. I am not sure why it is hypocritical of me to defend the leadership of my church from false claims, whether or not any members of my church make statements about the false nature of Catholic doctrine.  Did you know that the Pope requested clemency for Hutu nuns who lured Tutsis in to a church for sanctuary, locked them in, covered the church in petrol and lit it ? I take this from a non religious book on human rights, I may well be the only person in RCI who knows it ( and I have no intention of ever mentioning it from the platform ).  The Catholic church is not an organisation set out to do evil, but it is an organisation that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that has more than it's share of hypocrisy.  I would never attack any catholic on a personal level, from the pope down to the guy who lives next door, but, as a religion, it is deeply flawed.  I am sorry to hear, however, that people anywhere in RCI take the time to criticise one group, because, at the end of the day, that we do what the Bible says is all that matters, that's kind of my core point here.  If you've found the 'true' Gospel, why do you need to define it in terms of attacking what I and other RCI members preach ? How does it do you harm that I am happy with a Gospel that includes an experience from God ? Why do you need to tell these lies to back up your views that your new way is 'better' ? I'm sure you believe every one of them, but that is only possible through groupthink, through ex members getting together to convince each other of these things, because, again, I stand by my claim that no claim made in the document I commented on, reflects RCI policy or official conduct ( that is, how the church is expected to run ).  In any case, what's missing from all such documents, is any sort of examination of if what RCI does is in line with the Bible.  Anti cult sites don't care what the Bible says, and if you want to stand by such attacks, you value man's wisdom over the Scriptures.  They are still false claims, but some of them have a small basis in truth, and that small basis revolves around our doing what the Bible says, not what the latest panel of experts thinks an acceptable religion ( that is, one that doesn't change any aspect of how anyone lives their life ) should be.  If I want to claim that I am 'born again', where would the point be, if I was still the same as everyone else ?

Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

That is the sum of my advice to you from the Bible.  I have no interest in seeking to personally attack you, or your church, or what you believe.  God will prove the nature of your work and mine, at His return if not before, in the meantime, I need to follow my conscience, and you should follow yours.  Of course, if we knew each other personally, or if you were genuinely interested in what I believe, I'd be happy to share it with you, but, there is no value for anyone in an online slagging match.  So, for that reason, this is all I intend to post here, and I'll come full circle by saying again, no group on earth, of any nature or origin, is best represented by the one sided reports of those who have decided to leave it.  If anyone wants to know what a Revival Centre meeting is like, they should attend one.  If anyone wants to know if God answers by filling people with the Holy Spirit, they should ask Him.  My word, and yours, are just a stream of bytes over the internet, and like so much that is online, they amount to heresay and personal opinion.

Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 9:46 PMCopy HTML

 1. Of COURSE we preach salvation by faith alone.  This is ridiculous semantics, because we have faith in the promises of God, which include His promise to answer, critics claim we preach salvation by works, when it's God who gives the ability to speak in tongues, as per His promise.  Again, this is exactly why I won't bother with this place, the nature of any place that consists of words only, is word games and legalism for self justification.  I refuse to play.

The RCI belief that speaking in tongues is the initial sign that one has received the Holy Spirit is fundamentally opposed to Scripture and is the reason, when I eventually woke up to it,  that I left RCI/RF after 30 years involvement and speaking in tongues. BTW "salvation by faith alone" refers to faith in(to) *Jesus*
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:03/01/2011 10:24 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Guest.

And this is why I won't bother. You 'won't bother'? Given that you've been happy enough having your say and expressing your views until now, why the 180 degree change of heart?  In the first instance, I have been a member of oversight for years, those rules were generated in the past and have not been referred to for a long time, and certainly have not been handed to people for more than a decade.  If people don't have those rules, then it's irrelevant if some pastors somewhere still read them, they are not rules in force, as no-one has them in hand. If you were a 'pastor', then you'd be better informed about access to these policy documents. Put simply, the situation is not as you maintain. However, again, the core of those rules was scripture, the change is that we encourage people to be led by an understanding of their salvation and their relationship with God, instead of having a list of rules they follow blindly.  This is in keeping with the difference between the Old Testament law and the New Testament walk by faith. Excepting, of course, for the small fact that your sect skews the teachings of both Testaments. And then there's the problem that you fellows don't 'walk by faith', you 'walk by sound'.

1. Of COURSE we preach salvation by faith alone.  This is ridiculous semantics, because we have faith in the promises of God, which include His promise to answer, critics claim we preach salvation by works, when it's God who gives the ability to speak in tongues, as per His promise.  Again, this is exactly why I won't bother with this place, the nature of any place that consists of words only, is word games and legalism for self justification.  I refuse to play. Really? Why?

'Salvation by faith alone' (sola fide) implies that nothing but faith in God, through Christ A-L-O-N-E (solus Christus), is required to be 'saved'. You don't believe this. You don't teach this. And, you certainly don't practice this. You fellows believe, teach and practice 'salvation by tongues alone'. Big difference. Second, your entire 'speaking in tongues' platform owes less to God and Scripture than it does to sectarian coaching and conditioning. The Bible nowhere teaches what you do about the supposed significance of 'tongues', and yet it remains the 'hinge' for your entire belief system. The hinge for the Christian belief system, by the way, is the crucified Lord Jesus Christ. Again, big difference.

2 .I have no idea how you claim to know the details of every church that existed prior to 1930, but, you're welcome to hold to your view, it's really irrelevant, all that matters is what the Bible says. What is relevant is your earlier claim, the one that you can't substantiate from history. Herein lies another significant difference between Revivalism and Christianity. The former is a-historical and revisionist in its approach; the latter isn't.

With respect to your comment about the Bible, who says your interpretation is even valid? You fellows have a reputation for shying away from having your beliefs examined and assessed by people with training, experience and competence in biblical studies. So far as the RCI is concerned, mastery of the biblical languages is completely irrelevant. Understanding the myriad of contexts that imbue the biblical text with meaning is likewise discredited. Why? Because you people believe that you can 'speak in tongues', of course! And apparently 'tongues speaking' grants much greater spiritual and interpretative insight than does years of patient and consistent Bible study. In the RCI it presents as if personal 'perspiration' counts for much less than does personal 'inspiration'.

So what about you? Are you confident enough that your Revivalist beliefs are correct, that you'd be prepared to have them evaluated by me? You've stated that you're keen to have RCI beliefs properly represented here; such being the case, surely you'd welcome the offer of discussion and dialogue?

3. Again, I encourage you to live your life with integrity by your beliefs, if you hold them with sincerity.  You're welcome to your opinion, although, of course, I disagree.  The salvation message that delivered me for a downward spiral of drugs, alcohol, self loathing and suicidal thoughts when the mainstream 'give your heart to Jesus' proved powerless in my life no matter how sincerely and whole heartedly I followed it, was and is good news to me. So are you now telling me that 'truth' isn't important to you? That getting the Gospel message correct isn't important to you? Are you actually suggesting that what's most important isn't fidelity to biblical truth, but 'pragmaticism'?!

So, as long as someone 'lives their life with integrity, and holds to their beliefs sincerely', then issues of 'truth' are largely irrelevant? How does this approach square with your earlier denunciation of Waller? Wasn't this thread created because you suggested that he didn't present the 'truth' about your sect's beliefs and practices? Can't you see the irony that your latest recommendation creates? And, of course, there is also the fact that the 'live and let live' approach to personal/corporate belief isn't promoted by your sect, and never was.

4. I am well aware that we're told to call no man 'father', I assume this is what you refer to.  I don't know of any church I've ever attended that didn't show respect for the role of a leader by calling them 'pastor' or similar.  I know that Catholics called people 'father' still in the 1980s, I read a book then where they claimed that as the Bible was written in Greek, it was only the GREEK word for Father we were not to use.  I'd say they were nitpicking more than you could ever claim that we are. And I'd suggest that you're back-peddaling, again.

Demonstrating a respect for Church leaders and those in positions of authority is altogether a different thing to demanding that they be accorded titles (so Matthew 23:9), or that they're seated on raised platforms, 'five feet above contradiction' (so Matthew 23:6). The 'call no man father' reference speaks to the general issue, but there are other passages in Scripture that do so just as well. More significant from my perspective, however, is that you apparently aren't aware that ποιμένας more correctly refers to a person being a 'gift' to the Church, than it does a person holding a church 'office'.

5. I could debate this with you from the scriptures, if I thought you were remotely interested.  I know you're not, so I won't.  At the core, no-one is saved by their policy on fornication, or any other thing, they are saved through the Holy Spirit experience and walking in faith with God, so in that sense it's somewhat irrelevant to discuss in a place where the nature of salvation is disputed. Please, I welcome you engaging with me in debate as I am interested! Fascinated, even!

However, I feel compelled to correct another of your unfortunate statements in the interim. People aren't saved by your Revivalist 'Holy Spirit experience'. People are saved as a consequence of the completed work of Jesus Christ that took place on a Roman cross. Noting this, I do agree with you insofar that your sect's policy on fornication doesn't save; how could it? But neither does it redeem, restore, offer hope or reconcile. In short, your sect's policy on fornication actually seeks to undo the effects of Christ's sacrifice! Again, a big difference.

6. I am not sure why it is hypocritical of me to defend the leadership of my church from false claims, whether or not any members of my church make statements about the false nature of Catholic doctrine.  Did you know that the Pope requested clemency for Hutu nuns who lured Tutsis in to a church for sanctuary, locked them in, covered the church in petrol and lit it ? I take this from a non religious book on human rights, I may well be the only person in RCI who knows it ( and I have no intention of ever mentioning it from the platform ). And? Assuming for the moment that such an event actually did occur as yoy claim, then it would be perfectly proper for the Pope to seek clemency for those under his spiritual care. After all 'clemency' equals 'mercy', and mercy is a very significant biblical concept!

The Catholic church is not an organisation set out to do evil, but it is an organisation that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that has more than it's share of hypocrisy.  I would never attack any catholic on a personal level, from the pope down to the guy who lives next door, but, as a religion, it is deeply flawed.
What is 'deeply flawed' is your overall assessment of Roman Catholicism. As an ancient communion, the Roman Church has endured it's share of troubles, failings and setbacks. However, it's also been responsible for promoting Christ's teaching far better and more capably than you've credited it with. 'Johnny-come-latelys' such as the RCI have a much less perfect 'track-record', and then over a far shorter period, so perhaps you fellows should pay more heed to what's implicit in Matthew 7:3 & 4 before arrogating to yourselves the role of arbiter?

I am sorry to hear, however, that people anywhere in RCI take the time to criticise one group, because, at the end of the day, that we do what the Bible says is all that matters, that's kind of my core point here.  If you've found the 'true' Gospel, why do you need to define it in terms of attacking what I and other RCI members preach ? How does it do you harm that I am happy with a Gospel that includes an experience from God ? Why do you need to tell these lies to back up your views that your new way is 'better' ?
If doing what the Bible 'says' is as important to you as you've conceded, then surely any group that makes the claim but then doesn't do what it implies should expect to be corrected? Such is my belief, anyway. From my perspective the thrust of Romans 1:16 seems clear enough. Consequently, false 'gospels' such as that promoted by the RCI need to be confronted, considered, refuted and condemned (so Galatians 1:8).

I'm sure you believe every one of them, but that is only possible through groupthink, through ex members getting together to convince each other of these things, because, again, I stand by my claim that no claim made in the document I commented on, reflects RCI policy or official conduct ( that is, how the church is expected to run ).  In any case, what's missing from all such documents, is any sort of examination of if what RCI does is in line with the Bible.  Anti cult sites don't care what the Bible says, and if you want to stand by such attacks, you value man's wisdom over the Scriptures.
Right. Do you honestly think that I don't care what the Bible says? That I value man's wisdom over Scriptural teaching?

They are still false claims, but some of them have a small basis in truth, and that small basis revolves around our doing what the Bible says, not what the latest panel of experts thinks an acceptable religion ( that is, one that doesn't change any aspect of how anyone lives their life ) should be.  If I want to claim that I am 'born again', where would the point be, if I was still the same as everyone else ?
Such would depend on whether the claims that you've made are valid, and whether they have any basis in biblical reality. A debate just might settle this, eh?

You've waxed rather long on what you personally 'think' about the Roman Catholic Church, about what you personally 'think' the Bible teaches, about what you personally 'think' salvation involves and so forth. But what you personally 'think' seems to be very short on facts and biblical support. 'Spin' doesn't ever compensate for 'truth', and it's 'truth' which stands at the core of this disagreement. After all, it was you who earlier accused Troy Waller of being a liar. Now, it seems, you've inferred as much of me, too. This being the case, please excuse me for not wanting to let you 'off-the-hook' quite so easily.

Act 5:38         And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39         But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

That is the sum of my advice to you from the Bible.  I have no interest in seeking to personally attack you, or your church, or what you believe.  God will prove the nature of your work and mine, at His return if not before, in the meantime, I need to follow my conscience, and you should follow yours.  Of course, if we knew each other personally, or if you were genuinely interested in what I believe, I'd be happy to share it with you, but, there is no value for anyone in an online slagging match.  So, for that reason, this is all I intend to post here, and I'll come full circle by saying again, no group on earth, of any nature or origin, is best represented by the one sided reports of those who have decided to leave it.  If anyone wants to know what a Revival Centre meeting is like, they should attend one.  If anyone wants to know if God answers by filling people with the Holy Spirit, they should ask Him.  My word, and yours, are just a stream of bytes over the internet, and like so much that is online, they amount to heresay and personal opinion.

You've completely missed the point about, and the implication behind, Gamaliel's speech. Gamaliel was an eyewitness to Christ's ministry. Yet in spite of knowing the Scriptures (just as you claim); in spite of seeing God at work (just as you claim), Gamaliel chose not to follow Jesus' teaching! Gamaliel's 'equivocation speech', then, was a rather lame 'cop-out' (kind of like Pilate's hand-washing stuff). In this respect, I see much of Gamaliel's diffidence in your own approach. As you've made a number of accusations and claims here, I'd like to see you substantiate them with something a little stronger and more authoritative than simply personal opinion.

My own position on your sect is well known: that you fellows preach, teach and promote heresy. Consequently, I'll happily continue to warn people against gullibly swallowing the nonsense that your sect dishes up. And I'll continue to do so by demonstrating the nonsense for what it is.

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

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:04/01/2011 10:53 AMCopy HTML

 Hey Guesty

I hope you don't go away so soon. I'd love to hear how the RCI deals with sexual sin nowadays. Are people still ex-communicated for life after it's revealed that they've indulged in various 'sexual' sins? Are they still going with that?
[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
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:06/01/2011 10:39 AMCopy HTML

Nope, still kicken' 'em out and co-ercing young people to get married.

Looks like they're still the four letter C-Word until further notice.
[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
Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:06/01/2011 3:07 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

 And this is why I won't bother.  In the first instance, I have been a member of oversight for years, those rules were generated in the past and have not been referred to for a long time, and certainly have not been handed to people for more than a decade.  

I think RCI oversight's whole post reads like a soft sell to promote the place.  "If anyone wants to know what a Revival Centre meeting is like they should attend one" has a familiar ring to it.  Thanks for the invitation/s, but no thanks.  
Guidelines talks were expected to be and were given roughly every year, usually at the main Sunday meeting. The unified Revival approach, straight down the line stand, discipline etc was proudly proclaimed in contrast to "compromising" and "lukewarm" many/most/all others who change like the wind to accommodate the sinful ways of world in their churches, so it was often said.

If RCI oversight wishes to reply I ask, do you now not steadfastly uphold your own rules?

Epi




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:TW is a liar

Date Posted:06/01/2011 10:48 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Epi et Pete.

Nope, still kicken' 'em out and co-ercing young people to get married. Looks like they're still the four letter C-Word until further notice ... I think RCI oversight's whole post reads like a soft sell to promote the place.

Indeed to both comments. Our friend attempted to introduce a little pro-RCI 'spin' here, pure-and-simple, but I wonder that he thought it would go unchallenged. I wonder that he thought certain posters wouldn't take him to task over his ludicrous claim that we, the former RCI 'folk', didn't really undertstand his sect; its doctrines and practices. In any case I've invited our friend to to dialogue; debate even, but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to engage with me.

Who would've thought that I'd ever side with and 'defend' Waller?! I suppose Lord Byron got things right when he said, 'For truth is always strange; stranger than fiction'.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:07/01/2011 12:23 AMCopy HTML

 Good Morning Ian and Moth,

Yes, Troy's points were well written and accurate.  Quite incredible that our RCI oversight friend couldn't find, as he says, anything that remotely meets the criteria or espouses the beliefs he (Troy) claims  so therefore Troy is a liar.

Being as he says a member of RCI oversight for years I wonder what he's been doing all these years, other than saying yea and amen to everything without thought or question.

Epi  

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:08/01/2011 11:38 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Epios

 Good Morning Ian and Moth,
Yes, Troy's points were well written and accurate.  Quite incredible that our RCI oversight friend couldn't find, as he says, anything that remotely meets the criteria or espouses the beliefs he (Troy) claims  so therefore Troy is a liar.

Being as he says a member of RCI oversight for years I wonder what he's been doing all these years, other than saying yea and amen to everything without thought or question.

Epi  




.... Eric
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:TW is a liar

Date Posted:09/01/2011 8:43 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Epios

 
Epi  


Rules on Marriages and Dating

Hi Epios,

After a little surveying of all the news and gossips etc of my former "fellowship" of many years, I have made a rough "guess -tem-ation" that of all the marriages whether forced or otherwise ( some more than 20 odd marriages or thereabouts), as a general round of empirical data, about 85% or greater have ended in divorce or separation. My reckoning is that my "guess-tem-ation" does fall a little short of what the real figure would be..

And the rule at that time was that you were only allowed to date and marry from within the confines of the fellowship itself and you had to be a member of the fellowship for three months before you could date.. And then only when you had the OK from your Pastor..

Something to really ponder over. Can that "guess-tem-ation" of 85% or greater translate as a general figure for the whole of ALL the revivalist sects put together ???  ... Time will tell.

 .. Eric
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:10/01/2011 11:43 AMCopy HTML

 Right on Eric that`s how it was . And his majesty super sleaze samoilenko in Townsvillevegas made sure of those rules.  What a  creep he is and was. 
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:TW is a liar

Date Posted:10/01/2011 6:57 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

 Right on Eric that`s how it was . And his majesty super sleaze samoilenko in Townsvillevegas made sure of those rules.  What a  creep he is and was. 

Epi et Guest..

Something else that has caught my attention. There appears to be an abnormally high level of mental illness in the form of 'depression' occurring on a all too often regular basis. I haven't enough empirical data to survey from my past group but none the less there is a lot of mention of it in my communications.

Of course we can speculate as to why and draw up some good reason for this but none the less, mental illness as 'depression' is but one dire fruit of the heretic sects we call 'revivalism' .

blessings

Eric
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:TW is a liar

Date Posted:11/01/2011 12:31 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Reply to Guest

 Right on Eric that`s how it was . And his majesty super sleaze samoilenko in Townsvillevegas made sure of those rules.  What a  creep he is and was. 

Epi et Guest..

Something else that has caught my attention. There appears to be an abnormally high level of mental illness in the form of 'depression' occurring on a all too often regular basis. I haven't enough empirical data to survey from my past group but none the less there is a lot of mention of it in my communications.

Of course we can speculate as to why and draw up some good reason for this but none the less, mental illness as 'depression' is but one dire fruit of the heretic sects we call 'revivalism' .

blessings

Eric
To enable yourself to conform and be a 'happy/clappy' member of these groups, you have to deny or suppress your 'true self.'
If you do that long enough then you cause all manner of things to manifest themselves, both physical and psychological.
NO-ONE is in that 'happy/clappy' frame of mind all the time.
You are encouraged to put all doubts aside.
You are encouraged NOT to ask questions and if you ever have the temerity to raise an issue that has been troubling you, with the elders or pastor, then the answer always makes YOU the problem and YOUR Faith is questioned.
As time goes by in the group, you realise that this will be the response and so, you stop 'rocking the boat' and bury things deeper and deeper in your mind, all the while suppressing your 'true self'.
The saying, "to thine own self be true", has no place in Revivalism.
If you were, then the majority of problems wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

Cheers,

Glad

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

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:02/04/2011 3:39 AMCopy HTML

Australia, and the rest of the world, have shut up about these "revival churches", that are so dangerous since, what I have read, 1958. And now you will reap what you have sown. A totally disaster.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:TW is a liar

Date Posted:13/05/2011 2:55 PMCopy HTML

 Troy

I see you are still on the bandwagon for RCI canning. I gave up 20 years ago. You have a good life and work career teaching in China. Just leave it alone. 

 I have been to RCI Melbourne in the last 2 years and it's not the same church you and I went to. Troy just let sleeping dogs go. Remember a lot has changed in the church and you wouldn't ever see the same people.

Michael McDonald 
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.