Loading...

Monday, 17 February 2014

Blake envelopes & Timothy Wyatt Barter


Another 'non trading' PBCC company which purports to be awfully generous to various charities, I wonder if these charities are aware that the Directors have been instrumental in destroying families?CLICK here to view the site; http://www.blake-envelopes.com/charitable-giving

The video a day in the life is quite revealing.....


And a thank you letter from an institute also patronised by Garth Christie;

56 comments:

  1. I note they made a small donation (£100) to the Christian Institute on 29th Nov 2012. Some may view that as great, however there is a big BUT,

    - The PBCC/Exclusive Brethren were activity engaging & lobbying the Christian Institute in 2012, 2013 to assist the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren in the Charity Commission case

    - The Christian Institute were used as another outlet for the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren’s spin, misinformation and cover up of the PBCC’s real doctrines and practices and issues of Detriment and Harm, resulting in the CI becoming another gullible ill informed supporter

    - The description on the website of Blake Envelopes highlights the Christian Institute as -- “A non denominational Christian Charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible and promoting Christianity”

    - However, do the Christian Institute know about the following practices & doctrines, resulting in Harm & Detriment which the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren carry out under the name of the Bible and Christianity

    1. They separate from all those not part of the PBCC/EB which means they refuse fellowship / worship / communion with any other Christian in any other Christian Church as they teach that all churches (denominational or non denominational) are in error and “in the world”

    2. This means the PBCC / EB would refuse fellowship / worship / communion with any of the Christian Institute team which includes Christians from a variety of Christian Churchs, clergy, elders, deacons, vicars, bishops, pastors, reverends etc

    3. The PBCC / EB teach that all clergy, elders, deacons, vicars, bishops, pastors, reverends etc are “Dispensationally a sin against the Holy Spirit”

    4. PBCC / EB teach that you cant be a Christian if you leave the group and any members who leave to go to a different Christian Church are separated from (often from family), withdrawn from (cut off) and classed as “iniquitous”

    5. That a former leader James Taylor Junior who was an alcoholic womaniser who was found in bed with another mans wife is in fact “pure” and “our beloved”

    6. The PBCC / EB refuse to eat or drink with any other Christian outside of the group

    7. The PBCC / EB teach that only they have “The Truth” “The Light” and only they are “The Assembly”

    8. Anyone joining the PBCC / EB would have to stop associating with friends and family not part of the group even if they are Christians, give up living in a semi detached house or terrace house, give up their tv, radio, mobile phone, going on holiday, give up going to any other Christian Church or having fellowship or worship with any other Christian outside of the group

    I could mention much more, but this is a start.

    The point is, none of the above fits in with the Christian Institute objectives and is diametrically opposed to “upholding the truths of the Bible and promoting Christianity” as all of the above practices are NOT found in the Bible and NOT found in the Christian faith.

    My local Churchs were horrified that the Christian Institute would support a group which practices such unchristian unbiblical harmful things. Far from PBCC / EB promoting Christian faith, their practices and doctrines ‘Damage’ the Christian faith, as their real practices & doctrines can not be supported by the Holy Scriptures which are Gods Word.

    Evidence of all of the above practices, doctrines, harm & detriment can be found in the PBCC / EB own documents & published ministry, the actual practices of the group, court documents, ex members, the Charity Commission report of 2014, letters, published books and many other sources

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brother Rev,
      In summary, am I correct in thinking that you are implying that the Christian Institute can be "brought" just by a few donations?? Do you not seriously think that the Christian Institute would not have looked into the practices of the Brethren before lending its support?? After all as you mention in your last paragraph it is very easy to find out who the Brethren are.
      I note that you have been clever enough to not accuse the CI outright of being corrupt but it certainly the undertone of your post that they have been naïve to the point of being the unwitting mouthpiece of the Brethren.
      The CI is a professional, experienced and honest body and I suggest that you should have the grace to actually apologise to them.

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      In answer to your first question,
      I have simply stated facts verifiable through actual evidence; readers can draw their own conclusions from what I have written. It would however show transparency and willingness for truth and scrutiny if the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren could show evidence of donations to the Christian Institute going back to the early 1990’s when the CI was created ? or did donations only start in 2012 ?

      In answer to your second question,
      No, the Christian Institute did not fully look into the practices of the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren before lending support, if they had they wouldn’t have supported them would they !. I have spoken to the CI myself. When some nicely dressed, plausible sounding Christians present “details” of their church to other Christians, ones suspicions are not immediately aroused are they. The excuse the CI presented to me was that they were legally only supporting the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren in relation to the matter of access to Communion. However, when it was pointed out, the issue of access to Communion was only a minor concern of the Charity Commission compared to all the other concerns and matters of scrutiny, the CI seemed a little surprised. They tried to explain they wouldn’t support the other issues and the CI was only hanging its hat on the “access to communion issue”. However, when it was pointed out that in none of their publicity material did they make this point clear and that their support appeared unconditional and appeared to support an organisation which divided families, separated from all other Christians, refused to eat or drink with other Christians, taught that all other churches were wrong etc etc, they became very evasive and defensive.

      Your comment – “that they have been naïve to the point of being the unwitting mouthpiece of the Brethren.” In short, Yes.

      Your comment – “The CI is a professional, experienced and honest body”. Yes, they may well be, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be hoodwinked by very sly, crafty, deceitful, spin, pr, and misinformation from the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren

      Robert,
      Do the objectives of the Christian Institute “committed to upholding the truths of the Bible and promoting Christianity” fit or match with any of the practices, doctrines, harm & detriment from the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren, as listed in the 8 points in my original post ?

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Rev...I think it has been a similar scenario with the Evangelical Alliance.

      #npb

      Delete
    4. Rev,
      I love the way you respond to my first question with one of your own, classic debating tactic!!
      You say that you have stated facts verifiable through actual evidence and yet you admit yourself that you don't know when PBCC donations started. I don't quite follow how you reconcile the two comments?
      Your second paragraph is not clear either - you say "no the CI did not look into the practices etc" but then say "if they had they wouldn't have supported them would they" Forgive me, but to me you are starting as with a "fact" and then contradicting yourself.
      Your 4th paragraph is simply your own opinion, unsupported by fact.
      Your 5th paragraph is irrelevant as I was not asking that, I was asking you to apologise to the CI and I still ask you to now after your attempt to justify yourself. I will have more respect for you if you have the grace to admit being in the wrong.
      The further post be someone rejoicing in the name of npb seems to be an attempt to muddy the water by dragging another respected name into the equation - not supported by a single fact.

      Delete
    5. Robert - Thank you for your clarity of mind.
      You aren't the only one who has detected Rev does not use facts.
      This shows he doesn't have good intentions towards either the CI or the PBCC. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

      Leonardo J Octavianus



      Delete
    6. These alleged contradictions that Rev is accused of are not contradictions. I don’t know anything about the CI, but the statements Rev has made about it do not contradict themselves.

      Delete
    7. Leonardo.....I wish you would stop being obnoxious and abusive towards Rev; I've got a soft spot for him. I've told you about it before and it's getting on my nerves so much you will be pushing those PBCC Ltd divorce statistics, if you don't watch your step. I'm fed up with being your second class subservient spouse; there's going to be a bit of whip cracking around here in future. Why don't you do something useful and take all your empties down to the recycling centre? You insisted on not having the boxes in case the neighbours peeked inside... Sorry to go on, but enough is enough....Your dinner's in the fridge; I'm going out to play Bingo....

      Mrs Octavious (to you!)

      Delete
    8. Mrs Octavianus or Mrs Octavious?

      John Wallis

      Delete
    9. Hi John... Thanks for pointing that out. It's the former, of course. I've been so worried about all those stones being chucked at that nice Rev I can barely write my own name! Actually, it used to be double barrelled ( Octavianus-Salivianus) but Mr O dropped that as takes too long to sign off on blogs. Have a nice day...

      Mrs Youknow-Who

      Delete
    10. Ian, and others, thank you for your comments

      Robert,
      Do you realise your post at 18 Feb 2014 23:59 is so full of confusion and misrepresentation that it’s embarrassingly cringe worthy to read. In the increasingly desperate attempts to discredit & silence me you and your like minded are bringing the name of the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren into further disrepute, as if the evidence in your own internally published ministry wasn’t enough.

      Its sad that you and your like minded don’t seem able to have sensible, honest, straightforward, adult debate and appraisal of the practices, teaching, harm and detriment of the PBCC / EB, without appearing desperate to close down (using whatever tactics necessary), any opinion or debate which contradicts PBCC / EB dogma, or exposes their false teaching & harmful practices. This is despite the fact the group is theologically unsound and Christians are charged to expose false teaching (Biblical Pauline Teaching)

      In order to properly scrutinise and consider such a morass of confusion, I have split my reply into 3 posts.

      Part 1

      You say –
      “I love the way you respond to my first question with one of your own, classic debating tactic!!”

      Robert, here are the relevant comments copied in full –

      Your post at 17 Feb 2014 23:13 - “am I correct in thinking that you are implying that the Christian Institute can be "brought" just by a few donations??

      My answer at 18 Feb 2014 11:23 - “I have simply stated facts verifiable through actual evidence; readers can draw their own conclusions from what I have written”

      Robert, you will see I did answer your question, in a two part sentence. Then I asked a return question in a separate sentence which is entirely different from the picture you try to paint !. If I hadn’t answered your question at all then your comments might be justified, however, I did answer your question, so your comment seems a deliberate misrepresentation.

      You say –
      “You say that you have stated facts verifiable through actual evidence and yet you admit yourself that you don't know when PBCC donations started. I don't quite follow how you reconcile the two comments?”

      Robert, you have taken two separate sentences, one a statement and one a question, then ripped the context out and mixed them together in a deliberate attempt to create confusion. I have copies of posts from Richard Stays old blog made by PBCC / Exclusive Brethren which tried the same tactic

      The first part of your statement - “You say that you have stated facts verifiable through actual evidence” – That is correct, I have only stated facts which are available through current evidence. If you read back in my post of 17 Feb 2014 14:00 and 18 Feb 2014 11:23 you will find I have not gone beyond information and evidence currently available. What conclusions you draw from that evidence is up to you.

      The second part of your statement – “yet you admit yourself that you don't know when PBCC donations started. I don't quite follow how you reconcile the two comments?” – We don’t know when donations to the Christian Institute started because we don’t have that evidence, however, we do have facts and evidence, which amongst other things, tells us donations were made in 2012.

      Its all very simple really, no mystery, or need to reconcile anything, no contradiction, they are two separate statements both of sound reason as one can only comment from the information, facts and evidence available currently, which is what I have done.

      In 18 Feb 2014 11:23, I then suggested PBCC / EB might like to clarify their history of donations to the CI. There is evidence of donations being made in 2012 onwards, of which the one from Blake Envelopes is just one, but there is no evidence currently available which shows the PBCC / EB donating to the CI prior to 2012.

      Part 2 to follow

      Delete
    11. Dear Mr Rev,
      can I please save you a plethora of words. I am sorry that you find me so cringingly embarrassing - I was not wishing to cause you such discomfort, especially a man of your maturity and learning.
      I was merely asking some simple questions because I just couldn't follow your logic - I was left with the understanding having read your first post that you were saying that the CI are basically a bunch of fools that have been hoodwinked by the Brethren. I was interested to know what actual facts, rather than opinion, you had to support this.
      You say that you don't know when Brethren donations started - so how can you say that they only started in 2012?? For all you know they started years previously. I am sorry but you don't make sense to me. I apologise again for raising your ire.

      I know that you are a busy man with responsibilities and so can I just pose you one simple question to which I would like an answer - Mr Rev, do you or do you not say that in your opinion the Christian Institute took bribes from the Brethren and in return gave them their support????? - Yes or No??

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Part 2

      Robert,

      You say -
      ““Your second paragraph is not clear either - you say "no the CI did not look into the practices etc" but then say "if they had they wouldn't have supported them would they" Forgive me, but to me you are starting as with a "fact" and then contradicting yourself.””

      Robert, first of all, you misquote me from 18 Feb 2014 11:23. I did not say “"no the CI did not look into the practices” If you go back and read my comment, I actually said “No, the Christian Institute did not fully look into the practices”. You miss out the important word “fully”.

      The CI looked into the practices they were informed of, through the glossy spin and misinformation presented by the PBCC / EB. That clearly is a fact as the CI supported the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren. However, the CI could not have fully looked into all the true practices of the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren, because they would have then realised certain core practices were not compatible with the Christian Institutes own “Basis of Faith” and “Objectives” !. Hence the conclusion (based on evidence) that the Christian Institute has been naive

      None of that is contradictory; it is crystal clear, based on fact and evidence available currently. Unless of course persons have a deliberate agenda to be obtuse, trying any which way possible to discredit, even if it means going outside the realms of logic, sense and use of English language. However, as you politely ask in your comment “Forgive me”, I will indeed forgive you.

      You say –
      “Your 4th paragraph is simply your own opinion, unsupported by fact”

      Robert, from my post in 18 Feb 2014 11:23 I will quote the full 4th paragraph you appear to refer to which is - ““Your comment – “The CI is a professional, experienced and honest body”. Yes, they may well be, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be hoodwinked by very sly, crafty, deceitful, spin, pr, and misinformation from the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren””

      Robert, the first half of the statement ““The CI is a professional, experienced and honest body””, is actually a quote taken from your own post !! in 17 Feb 2014 23:13 and was actually your ‘own’ opinion !

      Robert, the second half of my comment is supported by evidential fact, although you’re duty bound to say otherwise, because your general comments indicate a person in denial of the real practices of the PBCC / EB which are unbiblical & cause Harm & Detriment !.

      My comment is evidential fact because when the smooth glossy PR of the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren (as presented to Christian & Secular Press, UK Parliament and others during 2012/13), is put under scrutiny, it falls apart like a straw man. It does so because when the PR is examined & compared to the ‘real’ & ‘true’ practices of the PBCC/EB, the published ministry of the Brethren, internal documents, letters, experiences of ex members, recordings of meetings, news reports, court documents, published books, analysis of historical documents and books, etc, the PR is exposed as being completely contradictory, inconsistent, divergent and incompatible with the reality of these evidences. It then becomes very clear the PR of the PBCC/EB is simply, crafty, sly, deceitful, obfuscation, misdirection & spin, designed to confuse and hide the real ugly truth of the harm and detriment of the PBCC/EB and associated false teachings. This is what’s known as evidence based conclusions.

      If the PR of the PBCC / EB is truthful and factual, then why do the evidence sources listed above contradict it and why does the Charity Comms Report of Jan 2014 state -

      "91….that there were elements of detriment and harm which emanated from doctrine and practices of the Brethren and which had a negative impact on the wider community as well as individuals. In particular the nature and impact of the Disciplinary Practices and the impact of the doctrines and practices on those who leave and on children within the PBCC may have consequences for society"

      Part 3 to follow

      Delete
    14. Part 3

      Robert,

      You say –
      “Your 5th paragraph is irrelevant as I was not asking that, I was asking you to apologise to the CI and I still ask you to now after your attempt to justify yourself. I will have more respect for you if you have the grace to admit being in the wrong”

      Robert, my comments re the Christian Institute are fully based on facts, evidence and my own conversations with them, as already detailed. If I were to retract anything I have stated I would be denying the existence of my own conversation with the Christian Institute and available truth & evidence, as a Christian, I can not cauterise my own conscience before God just to placate the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren.

      Robert, My 5th paragraph is not irrelevant. You did not ask that question that is true, as it was a question directed at you & your like minded supporters of the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren. However, it seems you and your like minded supporters don’t like being asked direct straight to the point questions, yet you expect others to answer to you, that appears just a little arrogant and hypocritical does it not ?

      Robert, I can of course forgive that oversight, if, now I have answered your questions, you would do the decent Christian thing and answer the question posed in my 5th paragraph -

      Do the objectives of the Christian Institute “committed to upholding the truths of the Bible and promoting Christianity” fit or match with any of the practices, doctrines, harm & detriment from the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren, as listed in the 8 points in my original post ? (as at 17 Feb 2014 14:00)

      Delete
    15. Rev, You can wriggle all day and night, but you seem quite unable to answer Robert's question. Do you have Mulberry bushes in your Vicarage garden?

      Frank Lee

      Delete
    16. Mr Lee,

      If you are fair and consider the arrangement and timing of the posts above you will see that Robert was so impatient and desperate to continue spreading his confusion; that he couldn’t wait for the 3 posts to be finished.

      He saw my 1st response which clearly says the response was going to be split into 3, but couldn’t wait. Perhaps if Robert and his like minded slowed down and read my posts from top to bottom with an open mind instead of one determined to discredit by whatever means required, he and his like minded will find the facts, evidence and answers being asked for.

      I will however respond to his post at 19 Feb 2014 21:58 in due course

      P.S no wriggling here, as you can see from my posts, I have comprehensively answered and responded to Roberts post of 18 Feb 2014 23:59, fully answering in detail all his questions and refuting misrepresenting claims where required

      Delete
    17. Robert,

      In reply to your post at 19 February 2014 21:58

      In order to untangle what is quite clearly deliberate purposeful spread of confusion on your part, through misrepresenting and twisting what I have said, I will split my response into 3 short posts

      Part 1

      Your comment – “I was left with the understanding having read your first post that you were saying that the CI are basically a bunch of fools that have been hoodwinked by the Brethren. I was interested to know what actual facts, rather than opinion, you had to support this”

      Robert, I will break out the statements so its clearer,

      1. “I was left with the understanding having read your first post that” – Therefore that’s your opinion. I can not be held responsible for the way your mind thinks, you are responsible for your own thoughts and conscience.

      2. “CI are basically a bunch of fools” – That’s your opinion not mine. I did say they had been naïve in the sense they had no prior experience of dealing with the PBCC, took what PR and information was presented to them at face value and therefore were clearly ill informed. That does not correlate into the CI as an organisation being a “bunch of fools”, I don’t believe they are, they were duped.

      As I have already stated, its not surprising they were duped when faced with nicely dressed, plausible sounding Christians, presenting slick, glossy, PR describing their church in glowing terms, yet unbeknown to the CI, hidden in the smokescreen of misinformation are practices contrary to the Bible, contrary to the Christian Institutes own objectives/statement of faith and a total whitewash of harm and detriment. That method of deceiving the unsuspecting is how cults operate !.

      3. “that have been hoodwinked by the Brethren” – That’s your conclusion reached from the evidence presented and I concur. The CI have been deceived by clever misleading PR from the Exclusive Brethren.

      4. “I was interested to know what actual facts, rather than opinion, you had to support this” – The facts & evidence (not opinions) have already been presented to you very clearly in my posts above, which you’re choosing to ignore, but they do not support the full context of your preceding sentence (quoted above), which contains your own opinions.

      Part 2 to follow

      Delete
    18. Part 2

      Your comment – “You say that you don't know when Brethren donations started - so how can you say that they only started in 2012?? For all you know they started years previously”

      Robert, do you expect me to take that statement seriously when its such a confused misrepresentation of what has been said, come on, Robert, your getting silly.

      Here’s a breakout of the statements

      1. “You say that you don't know when Brethren donations started” – that is correct as per details in all my posts and in 19 Feb 2014 21:22. as quoted “We don’t know when donations to the Christian Institute started because we don’t have that evidence…”

      2. “so how can you say that they only started in 2012??” – I have not said that !

      In my post of 19 Feb 2014 21:22 I said “We don’t know when donations to the Christian Institute started because we don’t have that evidence, however, we do have facts and evidence, which amongst other things, tells us donations were made in 2012”. Note, it says “donations were made in 2012” it does not say “they only started in 2012”, it does not say that because we don’t know that yet !

      Then in my post of 18 February 2014 11:23 I said – “It would however show transparency and willingness for truth and scrutiny if the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren could show evidence of donations to the Christian Institute going back to the early 1990’s when the CI was created ? or did donations only start in 2012 ?” Note, this is clearly a question posed to the PBCC / EB for them to answer !. it doesn’t say “they only started in 2012”, it asks a question “or did donations only start in 2012 ?”

      Asking a question about something, or asking for clarification on something, is very different from making a statement of fact or opinion. A question is just that, a question. In normal use of the English language asking a question about something indicates more information is required. This is very different from the twisted misrepresentation which you try to paint !

      3. “For all you know they started years previously” – That is indeed a possibility, but from the current evidential facts we don’t know if that’s the case, hence why I asked the PBCC / EB the question I asked in my post of 18 February 2014 11:23 which was - “It would however show transparency and willingness for truth and scrutiny if the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren could show evidence of donations to the Christian Institute going back to the early 1990’s when the CI was created ? or did donations only start in 2012 ?”

      Part 3 to follow

      Delete
    19. Part 3

      Your comment – “so can I just pose you one simple question to which I would like an answer - Mr Rev, do you or do you not say that in your opinion the Christian Institute took bribes from the Brethren and in return gave them their support????? - Yes or No??”

      Robert, now you appear to want my opinion yet all your previous posts give the distinct impression you dismiss evidential facts as just my opinions. Quite a strange handbrake turn.

      Robert, here’s a breakout of the statements

      1. “do you or do you not say that in your opinion” – In my post in 17 February 2014 14:00 and 18 February 2014 11:23 and others, I have simply tried to set out evidential facts. I have already explained to you numerous times what I do and do not say. You are repeatedly trying to implicate me into something I do not actually say and which originates from your own mind, your own assumptions and conclusions. I can not be your mind and conscience, you are responsible for that not me.

      2. “Christian Institute took bribes from the Brethren and in return gave them their support?????” - I have not said that, that statement is your own opinion. In my post in 17 February 2014 14:00 and 18 February 2014 11:23 I do not say that. I can’t agree with your statement because it would be going beyond the information & evidential facts currently available, as presented through all my posts. You are clearly desperate to put words into my mouth, words which originate from your own mind, your own assumptions and conclusions. I can not be your mind and conscience, you are responsible for that not me.

      If you look back at my post of 18 February 2014 11:23 I have already answered a similar question from you, my response was “I have simply stated facts verifiable through actual evidence; readers can draw their own conclusions from what I have written.” That response is still applicable to your latest question.

      If you look back at my post of 19 February 2014 21:22 you will see the following comment – “If you read back in my post of 17 Feb 2014 14:00 and 18 Feb 2014 11:23 you will find I have not gone beyond information and evidence currently available. What conclusions you draw from that evidence is up to you”. That response is still applicable to your latest question

      If you look back at my post of 19 February 2014 21:22 you will see the following comment – “We don’t know when donations to the Christian Institute started because we don’t have that evidence, however, we do have facts and evidence, which amongst other things, tells us donations were made in 2012” . That response is still applicable to your latest question.

      Robert,
      I’ve now devoted enough time to refuting and cutting through your deliberate purposeful spread of confusion, now its your turn to answer the question posed to you and your like minded, in my post of 18 February 2014 11:23, and repeated but still not answered in my post of 19 February 2014 23:26, here is the copy –

      - “Do the objectives of the Christian Institute “committed to upholding the truths of the Bible and promoting Christianity” fit or match with any of the practices, doctrines, harm & detriment from the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren, as listed in the 8 points in my original post ?” (as at 17 Feb 2014 14:00)

      Delete
    20. Good Evening Mr Rev.
      Thank you for your time spent in answering my simple question - I dread to think what you would have expended had a thrown a real curve ball at you!!
      It is interesting that my reply to you that I posted yesterday has been taken down.
      In answer to your last question which is in essence - is their any similarities between the CI and PBCC, I would say unhesitatingly - Yes. They both promote Christianity and uphold the truth of the Bible.
      I expect that at this point, your jaw has hit the floor but the fact that you don't understand it or like it is neither here nor there. The fact that you have ridiculed and belittled me over the past few days, when you are I presume a man of the cloth is very telling.
      Now I have answered your question -I will now terminate this post with one final question to you - Dear Mr Rev, have you ever been a member of the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren (as you call them) or not??

      Delete
    21. Coooeee Rev?? Anyone at home???

      Delete
    22. Rev was likely a disgruntled member Robert, but now drinks tea in his Vicarage garden (Devil's Brew) dreaming of overthrowing the PBCC/EB.
      Rev - Your efforts are very sad and will come to nothing.

      -Have you ever tried to understand why the PBCC are here?
      -Have you asked God to help you to see where you've gone wrong?
      -Do you feel happy about what you are doing against the PBCC?
      -Did you know that Hell is a real place and not a fictional story?
      -Are you a Christian or just claiming to be one?
      -Do you think it's important to be truthful when writing about the PBCC?

      John




      Delete
    23. One of your questions, John, is rather an important one. You ask, “-Have you ever tried to understand why the PBCC are here?”

      There are whole books, whole scholarly journals and whole learned societies largely devoted to finding the answers, so a lot of people think the question is important.

      For any one denomination the answers are bound to be partly historical. There are hundreds if not thousands of new religious movements rather like the Hales Brethren currently operating, and none of them started in a vacuum: they all grew out of older religious movements or out of existing schools of thought in society.

      But the answers are not all historical. The answers must also lie partly in the psychology and motivation of the people who organise and support these religious movements.

      Some of the answers are examined thoroughly in the light of evidence in the book “Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought” written by the anthropologist Pascal Boyer. I recommend the book for its clarity and the insights born of experience and careful study, but don’t expect to find in it a single simple answer. There are many sociological, financial, psychological and historical circumstances that are all necessary for the continued existence of groups like the Brethren, so it is unrealistic to expect to find a single cause of Hales Brethrenism.

      Nevertheless, the question is important. If we can understand better why HEBism came to exist and how it continues to survive we will be better able to mitigate its effects, deter the worst of its abuses, care for its victims, and at the same time a better understanding may lead us to a more forgiving attitude towards its protagonists.

      Delete
    24. John, perhaps you could expound on your view on why the PBCC are here? I'd love to understand your thinking here.

      Delete
    25. Ian - if you want to believe in that bunkem, just be my guest.
      All those lists of books and people are of no consequence to real believers in Christ or God. What an utter load of empty waffle. Just saying.

      John

      Delete
    26. John, you wrote, “All those lists of books and people are of no consequence to real believers in Christ or God.”

      If you spoke to more real believers you would discover that they are of very considerable consequence to real believers, particularly those whose faith is soundly based and can stand up to honest, open discussion.

      “What an utter load of empty waffle.”

      You can’t possibly know that the literature on cultic and religious studies is empty waffle and bunkum before you have read it. A good definition of prejudice is making up your mind before you have enough information, and that is what you seem to have done.

      Groups like the Hales Brethren often seem to dismiss and condemn out of hand any writings on religion that do not come from their own camp, without even reading them. This is a clear manifestation of prejudice and one of the signs of extreme sectarianism. People who are honest about searching out the truth are usually willing to examine and discuss a wide range of views.

      Delete
    27. Robert, do you believe in The Bible?

      Vic R Paul

      Delete
    28. John 26 Feb 2014 14:39.
      Do you believe in Christ?

      Vic R Paul

      Delete
    29. Yes- and you?

      Delete
    30. Rev dear boy,
      We understand you have a considerable number of Mulberry bushes in your vicarage garden. Which one will you go round today.

      Just asking because you have bottled out of answering Robert's questions honestly. May I ask you a few questions please?

      1 - Why do you take the scriptures out of context.
      2 - Can you manage to answer questions honestly?
      3 - Do you remember what meeting were you Frog-marched from?
      4 - Do you think it's better to be factual in your statements?
      5 - Does your congregation know you are against the PBCC?
      6 - Are you really a genuine Christian?
      7 - Do you drink Scotch, Mulberry wine or Earl Grey tea?
      8 - Can you please make your posts much longer?We just adore them.

      John

      Delete
    31. I expect Bro-Rev will answer this in his own good time, but I did laugh wryly when I saw someone from the Hales Exclusive Brethren accusing someone of taking scripture out of context. 1Cor 11:16 But if any one think to be contentious, *we* have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God. And much more besides ...

      Delete
    32. Rev CONTENTIOUS?? Ahhhhhhh far be the thought my noble friend.
      A learned Man of the cloth and of such integrity.
      What about his starched dog collar and fine robes? Are you sure Theo? Never have thought it myself , nudge nudge - wink wink - say no more, say no more.

      John The Divine

      Delete
    33. Again you in classic Brethren blog style have twisted what I wrote to create confusion. I was illustrating how the HEB abandon context to suit their own ends. Again. Not impressed.

      Delete
    34. Robert
      It is good you believe in The Bible

      My JND Bible has in it :-
      Matthew 19v 5,6
      On account of this a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh? so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate

      Do you accept this scripture as the Word of God?
      Vic R Paul

      Delete
  2. It is noted that PBCC companies always trumpet their small charitable gifts; "worldy" companies are usually more circumspect. Hazel products also proclaim a donation to the Christian Institute. I would be interested to know why PBCC companies appear to slip in and out of trading and what it means in terms of revenues, tax and their employees.

    #fakecharity4profit

    ReplyDelete
  3. Most enlightening to see a Brethren owned company celebrating the death of Jesus Christ and his subsequent arising by giving customers chocolates and wine.

    'Many thanks for the kind Easter gifts. My girlfriend was very happy with both chocolate and wine so thank you! - '


    Blake's Testimonials

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alcohol is at the heart of everything we do, and eating isn't so far behind, it just comes naturally to us.

      Jiffy Bagge ( Director, Corpulent Affairs)





      Delete
    2. What happened to Rachel?
      I don't think she had a problem with chocolate

      TW

      Delete
  4. Wow... when I was a Brethren I was told we did not celebrate Easter... as it was "worldly" and we were to have nothing to do with the world. It must be another one of those corners the Lord has turned, or is it actually all just about fake charity and the appearance of pretend Christianity for profit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting to see how the old local enforcers' families, in most locations, spawn into the local, wealth orientated, new business models. Still keeping their dominant position, but using a more discreet stick. That's genes, for you!

    #notapublicbenefit

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wish the EB were my neighbours. They are really generous people.
    I would like to live close to them and go to their church services.

    Roland Chaplin

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not live in a semi-detached house next to them and share a common wall? Or a terraced house and share two walls? Or a flat and share walls, floors and ceilings? Or rent a room in one of their homes?

      If you tell us where you live, we will help point you in the right direction.

      Regards to Charlie

      Delete
    2. Well, you will have to be pretty rich to live close to them, Roland, as it probably needs to be a a large, detached house in a leafy neighbourhood. No problem about the services though, all are welcome these days, so just get into your people carrier and drive 60 mph through a built up area (best with a hang over, if not actually over the limit) be searched, find a roped off area to sit with other unclean folk and maybe you could get some advice from one of the blubbers about claiming for the fuel against tax. It would be courteous to phone ahead, though, as it saves the Blubs having to hastily improvise the main thrust of the meeting, as it were, currently in our time, so to speak. I find that quite attractive, don't you?...Very attractive....

      #npb

      Delete
  7. Dear Mr Rev,
    Thank you for your epistle. I feel exhausted having read it, I dread to think how you must feel after having written it!!
    I digress but I am reminded of Zophar the Naamathite in Job 11 v 2.
    I only asked a simple question of you as I thought you were a man of understanding and in return I get an avalanche of prose saying that I have "ripped the heart out of your comments" - that I am "arrogant" and "hypocritical" - all very strong language for a man who purports to wear the cloth and possibly preaches the Gospel.
    still I am happy to forgive you of all this if you can just answer my question (which I asked first) "am I correct in thinking that you are implying that the Christian Institute can be "brought" just by a few donations?? "
    Or may I make it even simpler for you - Dear Mr Rev, do you believe that the Christian institute gave its support to the Brethren because they receive donations from them - Yes or No??? I look forward to your one word answer and thank you in advance for your time and help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert,

      I can only assume the post above is by Robert, but he does not say,

      Yet again rather than wait for the 3 part reply to be posted up which fully answers in detail all your questions and refutes misrepresenting claims where required you continue your impatient and desperate attempts to spread confusion. Robert, if you and your like minded slowed down and read my posts from top to bottom with an open mind instead of one determined to discredit by whatever means required, you will find the facts, evidence and answers

      Part 1

      You say – “Thank you for your epistle”

      Robert, you created the length of the responses because you created such a twisted confused morass of confusion and misrepresentation, which I have had to untangle and refute.

      You also did not wait for the full 3 part response, if you had it would have saved you the time of making yet another post full of deliberate misrepresentation and confusion because you would then have had answers to all your questions !

      You say – “I only asked a simple question of you as I thought you were a man of understanding and in return I get an avalanche of prose”

      Robert, all your questions have already been answered in my posts above, your original question posed back in your post of 17 February 2014 23:13 was answered in my post of 18 February 2014 11:23

      You yourself created the length of the responses because you created such a twisted confused morass of confusion and misrepresentation, which I have had to untangle and refute.

      You say – “saying that I have "ripped the heart out of your comments"

      Robert, I have not used the phrase "ripped the heart out of your comments” I have said you have misrepresented, twisted them and tried to create confusion

      You say – “that I am "arrogant" and "hypocritical"”

      In my post of 19 February 2014 23:26 where those words are used they were made specifically in relation to you not answering my own question and claiming my question was irrelevant. It was not in relation to anything else you have said. All of which is very different to what you try to paint !! The context was a rhetorical question not a blanket statement, here is the context for you from that post –

      “Robert, My 5th paragraph is not irrelevant. You did not ask that question that is true, as it was a question directed at you & your like minded supporters of the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren. However, it seems you and your like minded supporters don’t like being asked direct straight to the point questions, yet you expect others to answer to you, that appears just a little arrogant and hypocritical does it not ?”

      You say – “all very strong language for a man who purports to wear the cloth and possibly preaches the Gospel”

      Robert, those are the conclusions of your own mind. You have made assumptions about the words Brother and Rev. You do that because in the closed sectarian world of Exclusive Brethren the abbreviation Rev is automatically taken to mean Reverend, a person of the Clergy who has studied theology and wears robes and symbols. The doctrine of Exclusive Brethrenism teaches that any clergy (vicars, pastors, elders, deacons etc) are a sin against the Holy Spirit, so there is automatic distrust, dislike and denigration of that role.

      However, outside the closed sectarian world of Exclusive Brethrenism, in the main, clergy only wear robes and symbols in the core denominations such as CofE. Outside of that (Baptists, Evangelicals, Non denominations, Open Brethren, etc), most pastors don’t wear any distinguishing robes and symbols.

      Part 2 to follow

      Delete
    2. Part 2

      You say – “still I am happy to forgive you of all this if you can just answer my question (which I asked first) "am I correct in thinking that you are implying that the Christian Institute can be "brought" just by a few donations?? "

      Robert, you did ask the question first in your post of 17 February 2014 23:13, and I answered it first, in my post of 18 February 2014 11:23, then at the end of that post I asked you a question which you didn’t answer, instead, you replied that my question was “irrelevant” !

      Robert, do you realise in your post of 17 February 2014 23:13 you ask this question then actually answer it yourself all in the same post !!

      Here is the detail from you post of 17 February 2014 23:13 –

      Roberts Question –
      “In summary, am I correct in thinking that you are implying that the Christian Institute can be "brought" just by a few donations??”

      Roberts answer to his own question –
      “I note that you have been clever enough to not accuse the CI outright of being corrupt but it certainly the undertone of your post that they have been naïve to the point of being the unwitting mouthpiece of the Brethren”

      Conclusion,

      As per Roberts own answer to his own question, I have “not accuse the CI outright of being corrupt”, any suggestion of such comes from Roberts own mind, conscience, thoughts and assumptions, which of course I can not be responsible for. Furthermore, to make such assumptions would be going outside the realms of the facts, evidence and detail I have given, but clearly Mr Roberts knows that otherwise he wouldn’t have made the comment he does in answer to his ‘own’ question.

      As per Roberts own answer to his own question, regarding my posts, “but it certainly the undertone of your post that they have been naïve to the point of being the unwitting mouthpiece of the Brethren”. My posts of 17 February 2014 14:00 and 18 February 2014 11:23 simply illustrate, using facts and evidence, the Christian Institute have “been naïve to the point of being the unwitting mouthpiece of the Brethren” due to having been duped & deceived by crafty deceitful misleading PR of the PBCC / EB

      It appears Mr Roberts has made his own conclusions and assumptions about what has been written, then tried to impart his conscience and thoughts onto me, while also accusing me of making him think that way, while also trying desperately to spread confusion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods.

      You say – “Or may I make it even simpler for you - Dear Mr Rev, do you believe that the Christian institute gave its support to the Brethren because they receive donations from them - Yes or No??? I look forward to your one word answer and thank you in advance for your time and help”

      Mr Robert, I have already answered this question please see all of my previous posts

      Mr Robert,
      I’ve now devoted enough time to refuting and cutting through your deliberate purposeful spread of confusion, now its your turn to answer the question posed to you and your like minded, in my post of 18 February 2014 11:23, and repeated but still not answered in my post of 19 February 2014 23:26, here is the copy –

      - “Do the objectives of the Christian Institute “committed to upholding the truths of the Bible and promoting Christianity” fit or match with any of the practices, doctrines, harm & detriment from the PBCC / Exclusive Brethren, as listed in the 8 points in my original post ?” (as at 17 Feb 2014 14:00)

      My question is crucial because it is based on information, detail, facts and evidence as given in my post of 17 February 2014 14:00, of which the 8 points and associated comments are more than 90% of that post.

      Delete
    3. Dear Robert....Nothing unchristian about calling a spade a spade. Jesus referred to hypocrites and detested the pharisaical priests. You are not in a position to forgive anyone; rather, look to yourself.

      #notapublicbenefit

      Delete
    4. Dear Mr Rev,
      sincere apologies - I did forget to put my name on the above entry.
      I have also made the mistake of answering your earlier post further up this thread. Very sorry - I wasn't trying to further confuse you, it was a genuine error. I apologise wholeheartedly.
      I trust that my short reply to your question suffices.

      Delete
    5. Noticed one of Rev's posts has been hastily removed..hmm wonder why?

      #Dr Rottene G Throne

      Delete
    6. Maybe he wanted to improve his phraseology, or correct it in some way, or thought it didn't fit with a more recent reply. Unlike some contributors, he thinks before he clicks.

      U.R.Rotten

      Delete
    7. Anon 23 Feb 2014 12:45

      My post at 19 Feb 2014 22:13 shows as “This comment has been removed by the author” simply because it was a duplicated post, so I removed it, nothing more or less than that.

      In addition to the admin rights of the Blog owner, (who can censor or delete posts if they wish), I am a registered user with Google Account Blogger format and Gmail, so, if I post under my pen name I have the ability to delete posts if I see the need to within a certain time frame

      Hope that clears up any confusion

      Delete
    8. Rev is incapable of giving an honest reply especially if a question was asked by an honest person.
      Enough said eh Rev? .

      Delete
    9. Again attacking by an ad hominem response rather than debating the actual issue. Why are you incapable or rational discussion and only seem to know how to attempt to besmirch, undermine and defile? I am not impressed.

      Delete
  8. Fascinating to see how Laurie's excellent and truthful blog brings out the worst in the PBCC and their supporters. How angry the devil gets when exposed for the fraudster he is. Now an MP with close links to the PBCC comes under scrutiny for possible fraudulent activity. Birds of a feather........

    I'm wondering why the PBCC feel the need to keep a dossier on those who have seen the light and left? Why do they continue to pester people who made it very clear, many years ago, that they want no more to do with them? Snooping around dustbins, following people in the street, vandalising ex-member's property are not the hallmarks of Christianity, but the PBCC do it.

    ReplyDelete