Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Improving the spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development of pupils Departmental advice for independent schools, academies and free schools


How many of the fourty or so Hales Exclusive Brethren/PBCC schools in the UK will remain open if these guidelines are ignored in the typical Hales Brethrenistic fashion?


  1. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church aka Exclusive Brethren are taught and MUST obey the following rules –

    - Not to eat or drink with anyone outside the group, which literally means anyone including family members who aren’t part of the group, or even other Christians not part of the group.

    - To regard and treat any persons not part of the group as ‘worldly’, ‘iniquitous’, inferior’, ‘not fit to associate with’

    - To regard any persons not part of their group (which includes those of any other faith and all those who are Christians but not part of the group), as the ‘infidel’, and coming into contact with such would bring a ‘feeling of contamination’, according to their current leader Bruce D Hales.

    - Certain careers such as Teacher, Doctor, Nurse, Fireman, etc are banned and not allowed and so is attending University

    - Democracy is not taught and is considered wrong and voting is not allowed

    - Having friends or relationships with anyone not in the group is not allowed

    - Many aspects of the National Curriculum are not followed as certain subjects are censored, books and texts and reading materials are censored, subjects such as sex education is restricted

    - Cultural, moral, social, spiritual education is restricted and subject to censure and TV and radio is banned

    - Those outside the group of a different background, social standing, wealth, religious belief, sexual preference etc are considered morally inferior and the group teaches that any such must be ‘separated from’.


    All of the above MUST be obeyed by members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church aka Exclusive Brethren, under threat of being subject to ‘separation’, which is the policy of disfellowshiping or excommunication, which results in being cut off and separated from family and friends for ever for disobeying such rules as described above. Persons who do disobey such rules are called ‘sinners’, it is said they have turned away from Christianity. The problem is, Christianity as taught in the Holy Bible does not justify any such rules !

    All of the above can be verified through the actual reality of the practices of the PBCC Exclusive Brethren and through their own documents and transcribed published books

    All of the above shows an organisation determined to pursue its separatist extremist agenda which has bred generations of prejudiced sectarian individuals. The group clearly is not fit to educate children.


    1. In England at the moment the Department of Education has acted to challenge, and has even closed, schools in the state sector which don't abide by the requirement to teach their pupils to respect and understand all faiths. This has particularly affected those Free Schools (in the state sector) which were founded with a Christian or Moslem ethos. The Department for Education is concerned that their students are not being prepared adequately for life in the diverse society of the United Kingdom.

      The PBCC Focus Schools are not in the state sector - they're private/independent schools, but they are expected to comply with the requirement to teach respect, tolerance and understanding of other faiths and people from all social, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

      I don't know how the Focus Schools are tackling this. It must be a worry for them because they have deliberately set up their schools to educate PBCC children apart from mainstream schools, whether in the state or independent sector.

      I know how difficult PBCC adults have found it to relate to me and my non-Brethren family since the early 1960s - and we are Christians. I've found that most PBCC adults whom I know or have met in the past fifty years have been ignorant about the Bible, lacking in knowledge and personal experience of mainstream Christian churches and their congregations, and committed to the kind of extreme sectarian separation that demands that they won't even share a cup of tea or accept an invitation to a light lunch with non-Brethren people.

      All school inspection systems in England are subject to Ofsted, the DFE's inspection service, and it's expected that those who inspect the Focus schools will report on any failure to integrate and be inclusive. I don't underestimate the challenge this will be for the PBCC, but for everyone's sake I hope that PBCC separation will be faced for the harm it does and that Brethren members, whether children, young people or adults, will be helped to understand others and become inclusive citizens.

    2. Joan - The children of the PBCC are "inclusive citizens" of The United Kingdom. They are also free to choose between right and wrong as shown in the bible. Most Christians also understand the dangers of having worldly and immoral teaching in the classrooms and that is why we will not allow such a thing to be imposed on us or which infringe any other matters of Christian conscience or freedoms we are entitled to in the Western world.

      Better decide whose side you are on Joan. It's either the world descending into apostasy or with those that love our lord Jesus Christ.

      Former member of PBCC and standing
      for Christian values.

    3. Anon 24th Jan 16:44
      Posing as – “Former member of PBCC and standing for Christian values” !

      Interesting you claim to be a so called “former member” yet you use the following words and phrases in your comments –

      “that is why we will not allow”
      “imposed on us”

      Your deceit shows through in what you say in your comments. I don’t know why you bother with the “former member” ruse. Its been tried before and each time has been exposed as a lie.

      Any genuine former member has lost friends and family members in the process of leaving, so certainly wouldn’t be supportive of such a damaging and harmful group who practice such sectarian unchristian separatist extremist behaviour. Any genuine former member who is a Christian will understand that the PBCC EB don’t practice what the Christian Holy Bible teaches, so certainly wouldn’t be supportive of that either. Just a quick read of the post above from ‘john’ at 21 Jan 18:20 will explain that. Any genuine former member who is a Christian will have been told when leaving the group that they are no longer fit to eat or drink with, or have fellowship, worship or sit at the Lords Table with and no genuine Christian could possibly support such unbiblical unchristian sectarian nonsense.

      Your comment
      “The children of the PBCC are "inclusive citizens" of The United Kingdom”

      On paper, yes, in practice sadly not, because the Children must obey the separation rules of the PBCC EB which are not taught in the Bible but are the invention of “men”. So the Children can not eat or drink with any non members, they can not worship, fellowship, or sit at the Lords Table with non members. They can not have friends outside the group, etc etc. That is not being “inclusive” is it ?

      Your comment
      “They are also free to choose between right and wrong as shown in the bible”

      But they are not free to leave the PBCC EB without incurring penalties, such as being cut of from family and friends. The Bible teaches that ALL Christians are part of the One Body, so a Christian is free to worship, fellowship and sit at the Lords Table with other Christians from other Churches, but the children of the PBCC EB are not free to obey that. Nor are they free to eat and drink with non members, where in the bible does it say that ?

      Your comment
      “any other matters of Christian conscience or freedoms we are entitled to in the Western world.”

      Those religious freedoms work both ways, so a person should have the religious freedom to choose to leave a religion, or change to a different church, without being harmed or intimidated or incur punitive penalties. Yet you continue to break these laws because you divide families if persons leave the PBCC EB and bully and intimidate persons who try to leave. Those freedoms you so easily hide behind do NOT allow you to create harm and detriment and family separation, yet you continue to break the law in this regard, why is that ?

      Your comment
      “Better decide whose side you are on Joan. It's either the world descending into apostasy or with those that love our lord Jesus Christ”

      I love the Lord Jesus Christ, I go to a non denominational Christian Church, I am free to worship with other Christians as biblically taught, I don’t support gay marriage nor does my church, BUT I don’t support the harmful sectarian extremist Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Exclusive Brethren, so am I on the right side ?


    4. Dear "Former Member"

      As you are clearly an expert on the school curriculum and teaching methodology could you give some examples of "worldly and immoral teaching in the classrooms".

      I look forward to your response.

  2. The part of these official policy documents that will be most difficult for Brethren schools to implement is that independent school proprietors are required “to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.”

    A Government consultation paper published in June 2014, explaining the new rules, makes clear that even taking children on trips to different places of worship would not be enough to be judged compliant.

    Later in 2014 it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that an unnamed Christian school has been downgraded and could even be closed for failure to promote one of the most important British values. The article said, “In the latest case inspectors are understood to have warned the head that the school, which was previously rated as ‘good’ that it would be downgraded to ‘adequate’ for failing to meet standards requiring it to ‘actively promote’ harmony between different faiths because it had failed to bring in representatives from other religions.

    They warned that unless the school could demonstrate how it was going to meet the new requirements there would be a further full inspection which could ultimately lead to it being closed.”

    So can you imagine a Focus School bringing in Imams or Rabbis to conduct religious education classes or school assembly? Or even a Roman Catholic or an Anglican representative? That would be a bit of a culture shock.

    For the sake of those who don’t want to plough through the official documents, here are a few verbatim quotations from the Government document at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380396/Improving_the_spiritual__moral__social_and_cultural__SMSC__development_of_pupils_supplementary_information.pdf

    “Schools should have a clear strategy for embedding fundamental British values, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in doing so. Actively promoting the values also means challenging opinions or behaviours in school that are contrary to fundamental British values.”

    “encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010;” [these ‘protected characteristics’ include sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief and sex.]

    “encourage respect for democracy and support for participation in the democratic processes, including respect for the basis on which the law is made and applied in England.”

    “Pupils must be encouraged to regard people of all faiths, races and cultures with respect and tolerance.”

    “Pupils must be encouraged to regard people of all faiths, races and cultures with respect and tolerance.”

    “schools should be actively encouraging pupils to:
    • understand why democracy is perceived within England as the fairest form of political organisation;
    • understand why, taking part in democracy is a good thing; and
    • understand why law making on the basis of representation in Parliament is seen as better than alternatives.”

    “[the proprietor] takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils – . . . they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”

  3. The issues faced here face Faith schools of all flavours. Many of us in the Christian Community think the Government through Oftsed have gone too far and are questioning "Whose values?". It seems children were questioned most inappropriately in the school Ian alludes to and the very basis of it's foundation challenged. Interestingly, The Christian Institute who so erroneously supported the PBCC over their rights to 'Holy Communion' are now working to support Christian schools:


    This is not going to be clear cut and once again I suspect the PBCC may wriggle out unaffected.

    1. The PBCC appear to have smart kids and well organised schools with fully qualified teachers.
      Let's leave them to get on with their lives... Live and let live.
      I really like these people around and they are no problem to us.

      There seems to be a lot of bitter talk about these people and
      that it a pity.


    2. Hello Jolene,

      Yes there is a lot of bitter talk about the PBCC. It's very sad. It seems it's because they have harmed so many people over the years with their noxious and un-Biblical doctrines. Leavers seem frequently to be in great pain and torment of the soul as they try to live their lives without the basic support mechanisms of friends, family and finances as these have been stripped away by the excessive and inappropriate application of the PBCC notion of separation. While not condoning their bitterness, it is at least understandable.

    3. Jolene

      The PBCC routinely masquerade as outsiders, but to take you at face value, don't you think it a shame that bright kids are not allowed to realise their full potential in higher education, careers or life?

      Anon 08.58 has answered you regarding your comment concerning bitterness.

      There are lots of harmful groups who do not bother individuals, on a personal level, but that does not mean they should be free of censure and criticism.

    4. Theophilus22 January 2015 at 08:58

      In these modern times,even peoples religious values are now coming under scrutiny as well.Religion should not be made exempt of this process.For that would amount to religion having a kind of protection racket,set in place.

      If it were only Islamic values, or Hindu values, that were being questioned.Then how many Christians would care.Christianity isn't considered to be the sacred cow of the world

      For far too long now, religion has been deemed to hold place of public respect, without question.Has been automatically issued with rights to hold charity status,without question too ,in regards to reality of public benefit issues .

      Little wonder then, that our lives have been lived without, any real honest freedom of faith. The idea that freedom of faith was something that were being upheld ,has obviously been built on the foundation of lies. Lies that would then not come under scrutiny,and mostly because traditionally, religious values have demanded the right to exist, without question

      Ofsted might even get a few things wrong along the way. Perhaps in some cases,at some stage, it might even be found to have gone a little to far.

      But the how is that so different, to the way the Christian church has also erred along the way.With the way they had people wrongfully accused as witches, and with burning people at the stake.Or with the way Christian theists have constantly deemed religious tyranny, to be about right of upholding peoples freedom of faith

      Humans have continually used philosophy to help them define human values.Religion still has the right to the continued use of this same kind of practice too.Yet this still does not make religious views, exempt from scrutiny

    5. Dear 17:03 It depends on what some people are trying to censure?

      I think you cannot censure Christian liberty or parents who are expressing their right to protect their children and families.
      Although I think Leonardo may be too strongly opinionated or rigid in some aspects of debate, I'm compelled to agree with his stance about the protection of the traditional family. What is happening in the UK is pretty terrible. In fact it's frightening to see the rapid decline of British values! I don't accept the new values. In fact they seem to be destroying the values and liberty which we have enjoyed for so long.
      Whilst we are on the subject, I detect that there are now elements in
      our government which are encroaching on Christian liberty.
      The Equality act is one of these which seeks to force or impose wrong teaching into schools, the workplace and even the home if they were able to. I then think it very understandable that the PBCC have removed their children from the state schools and opened their own. It make sense.

      Very very tragic to see this country descend from what was once democratic nation into marginalising those of us that are standing up for Christian principles. I was personally dismayed and shocked when David Cameron gave into allowing gay marriage,especially as he was the one who declared he was going to "Fix Broken Britain and spoke up for marriage being a union between a man and a woman. What an utter sham and a shame on the Prime minister.

      Anyone here thought to write to him about this?


    6. Dear Jolene

      You have ignored comment on some of the worse elements of the PBCC, such as the breaking up of families; that is but one example of being a subject for censure. However, I realise you are commenting mainly on the schools.

      I am unclear regarding some of your assertions. What are "British values" as opposed to "new values"? What is "wrong teaching" ? Where is there encroachment on "Christian liberty"? You remark on the decline of this democratic nation. Do you know that the PBCC are opposed to democracy, and do not participate in the democratic process?

      A lot of people are opposed to gay marriage, but they are allowed to hold their prejudice, and join with others, without being enslaved by a totalitarian regime. This is Christian liberty; it seems to be well and thriving.

  4. It's very simple Ian -
    There is the bible and within is the unshakable principles of The Christian faith. Either you support that or you oppose it?
    We therefore may conclude you are against what real Christians hold dear to.

    Male and Female together in marriage only. No Adam and Steve in the book of life.
    Just look at what God created in nature. He set the standard,and that cannot be improved on or changed by any evil doers. The PBCC and other Christians have a right to stand by what is of God and love what is good.
    Christian values are God's values. I see an element of persecution from
    some very wicked people who want to attack the traditional family and bring about further decline and breakdown of society. If you want to talk about and promote human rights, then I suggest you have respect for the family God made to perfection. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The rest is outside of blessing.
    Ever thought about God's rights? It might halt the rot setting into your soul.
    Now's the time to make a stand against the apostasy creeping into over once Christian nation.

    Sadly, wicked people like you have long departed from the truth of scripture and are up against anything that is true and right.

    Leonardo J Octavianus

    1. LJO.....Welcome back! Would this link with the PBCC (of whom you are variously a member, depending upon your mood) being the biggest family wreckers in Christendom? Just asking for the sake of the young.

    2. Mr LJO

      Your comments
      “Male and Female together in marriage only. No Adam and Steve in the book of life”
      “Marriage is between a man and a woman. The rest is outside of blessing”

      Yes, I agree with you, so do many thousands of other Christians in other Christian Churches outside the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church EB. My own church is rescinding its license to hold marriages due to the risk of being asked to perform a gay marriage or a legal challenge. Yet, you seem to give the perception in your Exclusive Brethren propaganda spin that only the PBCC EB support traditional marriage. This is of course nonsense. Outside of the main denominations many thousands of non denominational churches with no connection to the PBCC, support traditional marriage and will not perform a gay ceremony. However, it can ‘not’ be said that simply because many Christian Churches and Christians support traditional marriage that they then by some kind of default support the PBCC Exclusive Brethren. Nothing could be further from reality and truth

      Your comments
      “There is the bible and within is the unshakable principles of The Christian faith. “Either you support that or you oppose it?”
      “We therefore may conclude you are against what real Christians hold dear to.”
      “Christian values are God's values”

      The problem with your propaganda spin LJO is that you and the PBCC Exclusive Brethren don’t follow the Bible so your claims are hollow and without basis. The PBCC EB dont follow the “unshakable principles of The Christian faith” as you call it, a quick read of the list by ‘John’ in post 21 Jan at 18:20 will confirm that for you.

      Your comments
      “I see an element of persecution from some very wicked people who want to attack the traditional family and bring about further decline and breakdown of society”

      Thats typical hypocritical propaganda spin from PBCC Exclusive Brethren when you realise that it is the PBCC Exclusive Brethren who divide families. The PBCC EB have generations of divided families because if a person leaves the group they are cut off from family members left inside. So parents, husbands, wives, children, sisters, uncles, brothers, aunts, grandparents, etc are divided from each other, unable to have normal family relations, not allowed to eat or drink together, go on holiday together, meet for weddings, funerals, birthdays, etc. All these things are not allowed. There are court documents, TV programs, books, witness statements, etc which testify to such breakdown and decline in the traditional family associated with the PBCC EB.


    3. Welcome back, Leonardo. I value your contributions, even when they include sweeping personal attacks, but they make me wonder why your attacks are never directed at what I have actually said. Is it because you don’t have any valid responses?

      You say, “There is the Bible and within is the unshakable principles of The Christian faith,” but you must surely be aware that throughout the Christian era people professing to be Christians have had grossly divergent ways of interpreting and applying the teachings of the Bible, and sometimes scriptural teachings are quoted in support of the most evil and depraved behaviour. I oppose evil and depraved behaviour even when a scripture is used in its support, and even if that makes you accuse me of being anti-Christian.

      Often scriptures are used to draw conclusions that are completely unwarranted. Your Adam and Steve dictum is a good example. The fact that Adam and Eve were inherently heterosexual does not mean that everyone else is, or that everyone else ought to be. You might as well suggest that since God created them naked, we should all be naked too, or since they were given the job of gardeners, we should all be gardeners too, or that since they made clothes out of fig leaves, we all ought to do so too.

      It would be equally easy for people with the opposite opinion to argue that since Jonathan loved David even as his own soul, with a love that was wonderful, surpassing woman’s love, then we all ought to have intense, emotional bonds with people of the same sex, surpassing our bonds with the opposite sex. Two people can play at treating scriptural stories as examples that must be followed, and they would both be wrong.

      As you say, it is important to respect the traditional family. But I have never known of anyone in the Brethren to emphasise is that it is important to respect everyone else too, irrespective of their race, age, religion, sex, wealth, social status, or sexual orientation. That is the moral principle that the Dept. for Education wants to promote, and you can derive it from Biblical teachings without having to torture them.

    4. Ian did I hear you right?
      Diversity? Diversity of what? What are you celebrating Ian?
      Diversity of evil comes in many shapes and forms, but it's not celebrated by God or real Christians. What are you celebrating Ian?

      So don't talk about moral principles if you are against them.
      The Dept for Education has a role in school to ensure academic standards are being met, but doesn't have authority over Christian or non Christian parents as to morality or values.
      Christian values come before anything else and good parents instinctively protect their children.

      What values are British values? There are also wrong values in our society which children should be protected from. Parent's decide what is right for their children to see and do at school.

      Quite right, you have never known the brethren to respect evil practices which are not only threat to our families, but also our whole nation.
      "Sexual orientation" is a politically correct expression which is being used against the family which God created. He will not have evil forced on those who are his. .

      Joan - People who love God will never change their beliefs for you or anyone else. .

      Leonardo J Octavianus

    5. If you loved God, Leonardo, you would obey his commandment to love your neighbour, as yourself. You defy God through your principal of separation and in other ways, too. That you stubbornly propagate your defiance is most regrettable.

    6. Apologies: Principle of separation, of which LJO is a principal apologist.

    7. Leonardo,

      You ask, “Ian did I hear you right?”

      I’m afraid you did not. You appear to be indignant about something you think I said about diversity and about celebrating something, but I don’t believe I mentioned either of these.

      You have put forward the interesting idea that parents have the right to overrule the Government in questions of how a school should ensure the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. Some Muslim extremists and Protestant extremists might agree with you, but the Government does not, probably because of past and recent experience.

      Parts of the UK have suffered many years of terrible social conflict fuelled by sectarianism, and one of the factors that have perpetuated the sectarianism is the existence of religiously segregated schools that have failed to teach an understanding and tolerance of others.

      And sectarianism is only one of several forms of xenophobia, the fear or hatred of those who are different from ourselves. Social cohesion is threatened by several forms of xenophobia, such as racism, sexism and homophobia. These are all dangerous and harmful human traits, and they have all been observed among pupils at a Brethren school. I for one hope all schools will have some success in tempering or eradicating xenophobia and promoting xenophilia of philoxenia, which means loving or caring for people who are different. The very word occurs in the New Testament, and the concept occurs repeatedly. It is a Christian principle, whereas sectarianism is not, especially the extreme sectarianism that disgraces many pages of Brethren ministry.

      There is room for debate about how the problem is best tackled, and the extent to which parents’ views should be accommodated, but there is no room for debate about whether the problem exists. I am glad that at least it has come to the attention of those who can do something about it.

    8. For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

      Paul, apostle to the Gentiles - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

    9. 'People who love God will never change their beliefs for you or anyone else. ' LJO

      What about people who love Bruce Hales more than they love God? People who do what he says despite the fact that it goes directly against the word of God? Or in PBCC eyes, is Bruce Hales actually God? He seems to think he is and his daddy was. Funny how they were never spoken about in the Brethren for a good 20 years!

      Talk about blown around by every wind of teaching!!

      Ephesians 4:14

      Here is the whole verse which is worthy of consideration by every PBCC member, those who believe in God and some who don't ( yes, I have a friend inside and he does NOT believe in God).....

      ......Then we will no longer be little children, tossed like waves and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, or by clever strategies that would lead us astray.

      May God bless the word!

    10. Dear Leonardo J Octavianus - I reply to your brief message to me at the end of your posting on January 23rd at 21.45.

      Because I have personally known people in the Taylor/Symington/Hales Exclusive Brethren since the 1940s, and have spent time in the British Library and at home reading a lot of J N Darby's writings, I know that your group of Exclusive Brethren is firmly positioned in ecclesiastical separation. You don't worship or study the Bible with non-Brethren people and you don't include other Christians in the Holy Communion - although it's the Lord's Supper, not the PBCC's. This sectarian conviction was put in place in 1845 and 1848 and all the PBCC people I know still adhere to it. I don't expect that to change.

      What I look for, though, is an inclusive love towards your neighbour, to the stranger and the outcast, and even to those whom you count as enemies. In my experience, since the early 1960s your group of Exclusive Brethren has failed in this unmistakeable biblical requirement. I'm immensely sorry about that. I wish you would change your belief about separating from people and instead love them as one of yourselves.

      It's a loss for me that you choose not to follow this great commandment.

    11. Adam and Steve are very much a part of the book of life. "Just look at what God created in nature" - very well:


      The truth is still the truth even if you ignore it, and hide behind your bullshit.

    12. Leonardo,

      You say a lot of things that leave me puzzled. For instance, you say God will not have evil forced on those who are his.

      Who do you think is trying to force evil on us? What evil, and how are they forcing it?

      It is many years since anyone tried to force evil onto me. Never, in fact, since I left the Brethren.

    13. Mr LJO says

      “He will not have evil forced on those who are his. .”

      That comment just shows how little Mr Leonardo knows of his Christian Holy Bible. Mr LJO’s lack of even basic Christian knowledge and biblical understanding has been exposed before, indeed the whole of the Exclusive Brethren movement is riddled with gaping holes in basic biblical knowledge.

      What about the trial’s endured by Job (losing health, wealth and family)
      What about the abandonment and selling of Joseph by his family
      What about the beatings & killings made by Saul against the Christians
      What about the imprisonment and beatings suffered by the Apostle Paul
      What about the Christian martyrs who died at the stake
      What about the Exclusive Brethren PBCC members who suffer cancer, illness, car crashes and injury through negligence

      Mr LJO, you talk nonsense and show complete disregard for biblical truth, but to be fair that’s not surprising as that’s an endemic trait of Exclusive Brethren

    14. Leonardo has got himself so concerned about "diversity" that he has managed to read or hear the word when Ian didn't use it. This got me wondering. At first I thought that perhaps diversity is a code word for all sorts of depraved behavour, homosexuality and other sin. Reading the rest of Leonardo's post makes me think that diversity with its usual meaning of variety is in fact the problem.
      Leonardo and others like him believe that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. An incredible variety of things, people, places, creatures, languages, cultures etc. Yet at the end of all this his view is that there is God's way and the rest. Despite the variety in the universe only one tiny bit of it is pleasurable to God. Presumably he has hived the rest off to the devil to run. So diversity is itself a sin because it departs from this one path.
      I can understand why Leonardo, if he is British, should be concerned about British values; but why should God? According to my bible he was not and is not British.
      Most of his missive sounds to me like a Daily Mail reader lamenting some lost golden era.


  5. Leonardo J Octavianus - I think you've misunderstood what Ian was saying. He was indicating that in England the Department for Education requires all schools to ensure that they teach their pupils to be tolerant and understanding of different, usually minority, groups within our diverse society. If you are a governor, trustee, proprietor or teacher of a PBCC Focus school you are obliged to demonstrate that your students are educated in that way.

    No-one is asking you to change your beliefs, except where they impact harmfully on other people. Like me and many others, you hold to traditional marriage - but that doesn't mean that I, my husband, children and grandchildren treat people with different views contemptuously, as you have done in your posting above. As Christians, we love our neighbour in an inclusive way, even though we may have disagreements and reservations about some of their views and practices.

    In his 'Bethesda Circular' of August 26 1848, J N Darby expressed the belief that those receiving people from the Bethesda Brethren meeting, which wasn't in accord with his ecclesiology, would be "morally identified with the evil". In a letter on September 16, 1960, James Taylor Jnr spoke about why Brethren shouldn't eat or drink with non-Brethren people. He wrote, "invariably [in italics] we are contaminated when we do go [to eat with outsiders], for uncleanness comes out over the table". On April 24, 2006, Bruce D Hales said, "See, you come in touch with worldly people, if you get a little too close to them, you'll have some sense of defilement."

    These are the requirements of three of the PBCC 'great men' and many of us would prefer that they had talked instead about the Christian obligation to love their neighbour inclusively. The English Department for Education doesn't go that far, but Brethren children must now be taught to be tolerant and understanding of beliefs and behaviour that are different from their own.

  6. Leonardo J Octavianus
    Having just read through this thread I don't have much to add to the comments of John, Joan and Ian.
    However two words come through very clearly - tolerance and respect. I would add another - compassion. No one was more compassionate than the Lord Jesus. When He saw the crowds (Matthew 9:36) it says He was moved with compassion.
    The most common view expressed by EB commentators on this blog about those outside of their sect is condemnation. Do you not see a certain similarity with the attitude of the Pharisees towards those whom they considered were not up to their standard? I would encourage you to read the gospels where you will find "the unshakeable principles of the Christian faith" as taught and exemplified by the Founder.

    1. PBCC Gordon Pollard never showed a hint of compassion or respect when he framed my late father for doing something he hadn't done. In doing so, he undermined the confidence I had always had in my parents and drove a rift between mine and my wife's families.

      He rose to the higher ranks of PBCCdom on the back of this sort of behaviour, including becoming a trustee of the B and GT Trust.

      To this day, despite a call from the Charity Commission to attend to outstanding issues of harm and detriment, the PBCC continue to refuse to even discuss this and many other matters, some of the most serious nature imaginable.

      How can anyone ever have any confidence in what they say or do?

      It's when we repent that we get forgiveness. How can I forgive when there is no acknowledgement of any wrong doing? I would dearly love to move on from all this, but due to the PBCC inability to be open and honest with me, I will in their eyes continue to wear the mantle of a 'disaffected former member'.

      I've even lost count of the number of PBCC apologists who have appeared on here promising to do something, but actually doing nothing.

      I continue to seek justice.

      Mark R Elliott

    2. And I admire your persistence Mark. Hopefully one day this group will realise that their bells and whistles website is simply not good enough and if only enough would speak out the Charity Commission and others would realise that the harm is continuing. We hear these stories almost on a daily basis on Facebook - it is ongoing this nasty treatment of ex brethren.


    3. Thank you Jill. I have been somewhat heartened in the last few days to hear from the Charity Commission who are clearly still on the case. As many know, my local MP has made several representations on my behalf to the Charity Commission and it seems someone there is listening and taking on board our complaints.

      In one way or another I think the next few weeks are going to prove to be VERY interesting.

      Mark R Elliott

  7. I'd like to make one further comment in addition to those made by John, Joan and Ian. Leorardo writes about the canctity of the relationship between husband and wife. Would he came to comment on the long and undistinguished record of the EB in breaking up that very relationship, with all the attendant heartbreak?

  8. 'Sanctity'' and 'care'!

  9. I notice a lot of people here are getting raised blood pressure reading and replying to postings form an alleged Leonardo J Octavianus. Whilst there are clearly some EB spoofers on here, I'm not sure about LJO. I think he/she was to meet up with Joan? Does anyone know if LJO actually exists (under another name obviously) in the EB community? If not, we can dismiss him/her as a spoof and live longer?


    1. No, RLS, I don’t believe for a minute that LJO is a spoof; there is an element of sincerity about his posts and they provide us with an interesting and valuable example of the sort of thinking that only comes from many years of intensive indoctrination. It would take an incredibly skilled spoofer to create such a convincing imitation of dyed-in-the-wool extremism. I don’t believe even “Fred Flintstone” or “Balaam’s Ass” could do it so convincingly.

      Unfortunately, having bravely taken on the job of defending and supporting Hales Brethrenism, which has neither facts nor arguments nor scripture to support it, his only means of defence so far are unsupported, empty assertions interspersed with quite offensive argumentum ad hominem, which make some people think he is a spoof, but I am sure they are wrong; for reasons we can only guess at, he sincerely supports his extreme branch of Brethrenism.

      That is not quite the same as sincerely believing its ridiculous, pretentious claims, of course. We can’t reasonably expect anyone to do that.

      I hope he will live up to his agreement to meet Joan face to face. Perhaps he will be more willing to do so if Joan undertakes to keep his real identity secret.

  10. RLS - just quickly - I'm still waiting to meet Leonardo J Octavianus. If I remember correctly, he said he'd be free to arrange something from the summer of last year, but nothing's yet happened on that score.

    I'm sometimes perplexed that the PBCC allows him to continue to write here as he does because it's so damaging to them. I often want to say to him, "Please read aloud to yourself what you've written before you click your mouse".

    The intemperate nature of some of his postings makes me hope that he's a spoof writer, but I reply when I have time because I know that this blog has a wide range of readers, including PBCC members. On the whole, I've found since the early 1960s that these Brethren aren't neighbourly people nor in the main are they good correspondents - contributing to this blog enables me to express my concerns about their commitment to separation from people, which has caused - and still causes - so much harm and heartbreak.

    1. Do you think his intemperate posts come after deep discussion with Johnnie?

  11. Interesting comment, RLS..... spoofs are usually humourous; this is singularly lacking in Leonardo's contributions. As Ian, Joan and others have remarked, whether he is serious, exists as an individual or is a product of PBCultCentre he does accurately give the party line and therefore, perhaps, needs to be opposed, hopefully without raised blood pressure. Anyone suffering the latter are adivsed to dismiss him in one liners . Those who do set out a rational and sane comment, in reply, appear to be able to do so, calmly and patiently.

    Let us hope, however, that he does not really exist, in this form, and does not have any impact anywhere else.

  12. A reply to Anonymous 24th January at 16.44 - the third entry in this thread.

    This 'Former member of PBCC and standing for Christian values' and other readers may be interested in J N Darby's views in 1848 about temperance societies:


    1. This "former member" also seems to be in some doubt as to whether they are in or out of the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren. He/She describes himself/herself as a "former member yet uses the word "us" to refer to the EBs.
      Please make it clear if you are a member or not.
      I have observed that a number of those who post here in support of the EB describe themselves as former members. Since it is well known from bitter experience that the EB do not regard or treat "former members" with favour I find it rather surprising that "a former member" should support the practices of the sect.
      I would like to know why a former member holds the EB in such high regard particularly if they are now separated from family and friends and in all probability lost their job.

    2. Gal 5.1,

      Try putting yourself for a horrible moment in the position of an EB member trying to defend or support EB teachings and practices on this forum. Would you in that position admit to being an EB member?

      If you admit to being a member, you have five immediate problems to contend with.

      1. You will not be seen as a disinterested or objective observer, so your lavish praise of the EB will be dismissed as futile window-dressing or bragging.
      2. You could be in trouble with your local EB heavies if they guess who you are.
      3. You will be exposing the inconsistency of EB rules, in that most members are forbidden to take part in Internet discussions, or even have general Internet access, while some are allowed. Different rules for different members.
      4. Since you are a member, some ex-members automatically assume, on the basis of past experience, that you will happily tell lots of lies.
      5. You will be seen as personally guilty by association with a long history of nastiness, deceit, gullibility, hypocrisy and cruelty.

      So it is not surprising that EB defenders on the Internet all say they are not members, though occasionally they make a mistake and let their mask slip. Let us politely ignore these slips and concentrate on the major issues. Let us judge the contents of the posts on their own merits, irrespective of where they come from.

    3. I appreciate what you say Ian.
      At the same time we have the EB still masquerading as something they are not, indeed something they despise the Plymouth Brethren!
      Deception and duplicity seems to be their stock in trade.
      They may not deceive those of us who used to be members.but unfortunately they have deceived MPs and to an extent the Charity Commission. There are also many decent Christian folk who think the Exclusive Brethren are fellow Christians who just happen to be very strict in their interpretation of scripture and have no idea of the havoc the EB have wrought in the lives of people who have decided to leave.
      Postings from supposedly ex-members praising the virtues of the sect do nothing to dispel the mistaken views that some people hold. A few would even be aware of the existence of this site hence my wish to highlight duplicity where it is so obvious.
      Nevertheless like you I have no wish to discourage postings from any quarter and welcome particularly the opportunity to read views from inside the EB.

    4. Ian

      Interesting post; I have wondered why the PBCC often refer to themselves as former members. Their cover is usually blown by the second sentence. Regular named posters , such as Leonardo, started out as being a former member, but soon gave up the pretence.

      I suppose if one is in the PBCC, lies and deceit do not have any significance as long as one is defending the "position". This is the essence of cult behaviour, mainstream inhibitions and values are tossed out the window in the service of the perceived "truth".

  13. Jolene is quite right when she says "The Equality act is one of these which seeks to force or impose wrong teaching into schools". Everyone knows Jolene should be at home having babies, driving her husband where he wants to go, having sex with her husband whenever he wants, making sure his whisky glass is full, feeding him and his male cronies between meetings - and even lying naked under a sheet when the big brethren boss demands it. God forbid that she should ever come close to being equal - let's get rid of that toxic nonsense. Let us blokes all give thanks to God we were born men.

    1. Jolene said, “The Equality act is one of these which seeks to force or impose wrong teaching into schools, the workplace and even the home if they were able to.”

      I think that story must have come from scaremongers. The Equality Act itself in fact says nothing at all about what is taught in schools, or what is done in the home. However, the concept of ‘protected characteristics’ as defined in the Equality Act is used in documents issued by the Dept. for Education to explain what kinds of prejudice and discrimination need to be challenged and if possible eradicated.

      What is special about the “protected characteristics” that make them need legal protection? First, they are all legal and relatively harmless. Secondly they have been the subjects of a lot of bitter and harmful prejudice. Thirdly, most of them are either something you are born with, or something that results from what you are born with. You don’t choose your age, your sex, your sexual orientation, your colour or your race, and most people don’t choose their religion: their parents usually choose it for them. So it is unfair to discriminate against people on the basis of characteristics that they can’t easily change, particularly if there is no good reason to change them anyway.

      The protected characteristic that Paul mentions in his famous declaration of equality look as if they might have been chosen by exactly the same criteria: Jew or Greek, male or female, bondman or freeman: they are all largely determined by an accident of birth, not by a lifestyle choice. He could not have added “gay or straight” at that time because neither he nor anyone else in the 1st Century knew that some people are constitutionally homosexual. The Equality Act 2000 has just extended Paul’s list, adding further characteristics that are similarly constitutional or accidents of birth.

      Yesterday we were celebrating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. If Auschwitz teaches us anything, it teaches us that if discrimination and prejudice are not challenged they can be used to condone the most terrible deeds. We ought to learn that same lesson from the terrible events we have seen in Northern Ireland, in Iraq, in Syria, and more recently in England and Paris. So let us challenge unfair discrimination and prejudice wherever and whenever they occur.

  14. I think the PBCC are really super and should pay less tax because they contribute so much to charity.
    I also really love the street preaching and by spreading the gospel we shall have a better and safer world to live in.

    Jon Corinth

    1. Jon

      I challenge the first statement. I assert it is a lie. The PBCC contribute a measly sum to charity. It may look big to them because they've never done it before and because they love money so much.

      While the Gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ is for the betterment of man, I truly doubt that street preaching makes a contribution to this.

    2. JC at 28th Jan 23:53

      You say –
      “I think the PBCC are really super and should pay less tax because they contribute so much to charity”

      Response –
      In June 2012 the UK Charity Commission challenged and questioned the validity of the Exclusive Brethren being allowed the privilege of Charitable status when in fact they didn’t do any and created harm and detriment. The CC wrote to the Brethren on 7th June 2012.

      Prior to June 2012 the PBCC Exclusive Brethren did virtually no charitable acts. All the current activity on so called Charitable acts, the creation of the RRT, the pie and bible hour, the feeding the fireman, the donating to hospitals, the shovelling snow and cutting down trees etc, happened after June 2012.

      During the leadership of James Taylor Junior (an alcoholic womaniser) in the 1960’s he ruled to the Brethren that “I don’t give to charity”.

      The only reason PBCC Exclusive Brethren started giving small amounts to Charitable acts after June 2012 was because they were under threat of having their Charitable status removed. These post 2012 Charitable acts are done as part of a huge deception and tax avoidance program.

      You say -
      “I also really love the street preaching and by spreading the gospel we shall have a better and safer world to live in”

      Response -
      The street preaching is another con. You try to preach the gospel but it isn’t what you believe or practice. Here’s why -

      - PBCC EB are taught that persons can only be saved and be a true Christian if you become a member of their group which you call “The Assembly”

      - Yet, in order to become members of the PBCC EB persons must separate from family and friends and all other Christians and refuse to eat with them, which no sane person is going to agree to do if they read their Bible. So you cant be street preaching to direct interested persons to the PBCC EB

      - If you are street preaching to direct interested persons to other Christian Churches that is also a hypocritical deceitful con, because you separate from all other Christians and Christian churches declaring them to be iniquitous and evil and unfit to be at the Lords Table. Any person leaving the PBCC to go to any other Christian Church is separated from and withdrawn from under so called discipline

      - If you the PBCC EB really truly believed the Gospel as given in the Bible, which you deceitfully try to street preach, then you would not be separate to all other Christians or Christian Churches. You would not refuse to eat or drink with any other Christian. You would not withdraw from and separate from persons who leave the PBCC EB to go to a different Christian Church. You would not declare all other Christians as unfit to worship with, or to fellowship with, or to have communion with.

      - You would not do these things because the Gospel and the Bible does not teach these things, yet these doctrines are what you practice.

      So you see JC,
      Which ever way you and the PBCC EB try to spin, wriggle and squirm you are exposed as deceivers.

    3. If the PBCC used microphones at the open air preaching, as they do in most of their other meetings, passers by might actually get the gist of what they are doing. I've seen people almost trip over the open air preacher in the street because they didn't even realise they were there.

      They can shout loud enough when their charitable status is brought into question!

      I would call the PBCC open air preaching 'going through the motions'.

    4. Anon 18:19
      That is a valid point, however it still doesn’t remove the serious issues surrounding PBCC EB street preaching as shown in the 5 points by Anon 30 January @ 16:54

  15. Leonardo,

    I have missed you of late. Keep up the good work of insisting on scriptural principles. Were you thinking of Romans 1 as well as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah's obliteration? I think I may have seen some comment to the effect that you are incapable of reasonable discussion. Sometimes your posts cause some to wonder if you are sane, but you wouldn't be the first considered out of his mind. Did you know that there is no evidence for the so called chemical imbalance that allegedly causes certain mental illness?
    Some feel that the spiritual darkness under which the brethren exist cannot be overcome while remaining among brethren, but please consider this. You are what you eat right? So if you spend some time and have some discussions with a few who were out for many years and have returned, you actually can arrive at a clear judgment while remaining in. Have you ever noticed or heard it commented about how much help so and so got while out?
    You may be funded by Caesar so to speak, but it is far better to be in the pay of Pompeii if you get my drift.
    Do tell me: How do you know that the term sexual orientation is a politically correct expression?

    1 2 Mini

    1. 1 2 Mini
      I have re-read your friend Leonardo's postings on this thread but have been unable to find him quoting any scripture to support his views.
      Perhaps you or your friend LJO could let us have the scriptures which support the rules mentioned on the first posting on this thread. These rules (perhaps EBs might call them scriptural principles) are considered vitally important to the EB since many individual Christians have been withdrawn from (excommunicated) for failing to adhere to such rules.

    2. Epistle to the Corinthian,

      A typical, naive and silly bit of deceitful spin which, as usual, is a downright lie. Liars are not pleasing to God.

  16. 1326,
    You mean Johns comment up top?
    I can't speak for my friend, but 2 Timothy 2 v 19 would be a guiding verse generally speaking. It was said of JND that his great strength lay in the fact that his mind was dyed by scripture. Some may feel that LJO's mind is more sort of dyed by wool. Hopefully he can chime in and give specific scriptures for you. He mentioned something about principles in the Bible, and I think those should be held to. The thing is that when our minds are saturated with truth, we don't need to quote scripture. We can start batting 9000 percent like our beloved. I think one of these great men even said he didn't need to read the Bible anymore.
    I don't want to spoil his chance to bring forward some verses, but for starters, as to Johns first complaint Gen 43:32 should suffice. Particularly the last half of it.

    1 2 Mini

    1. But Genesis 48:32 indicates that the refusal to eat with non-members of your group is an Egyptian characteristic, not a Hebrew or a Christian characteristic. The New Testament in several places indicates the same, and sometimes says so quite explicitly.

    2. Sorry for the typing error. I meant Genesis 43:32

    3. I wholeheartedly disagree that we do not need to quote Bible references. How else are we to learn from each other unless each point can be tested by this absolute litmus test.

      Genesis 43:32 (NIV)

      32 They served him by himself, the brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians.

      Now, do tell me, what is that historical fact anything to do with my life? I'm not a Hebrew. I'm not an Egyptian. I don't have a problem with either. I'm not fond of veggie curries, but I still relate to my Indian neighbours. What's the deal here then???

    4. 1 2 Mini
      Just when we think Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Exclusive Brethren cant sink any deeper into the mire, you make your scripture twisting & confused comment at 31st Jan 07:48

      You say
      “I don't want to spoil his chance to bring forward some verses, but for starters, as to Johns first complaint Gen 43:32 should suffice. Particularly the last half of it.”

      The comment from ‘John’ is in post 21st Jan at 18:20, at the top of this page. The “complaint” is this – “- Not to eat or drink with anyone outside the group, which literally means anyone including family members who aren’t part of the group, or even other Christians not part of the group.” - You mention Genesis 43:32 as justification for this unchristian unbiblical doctrine, it says -

      “32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”

      Any Christian who really understands the Bible & has read the “complaint” from John will realise the following –

      - To draw distinctions between Hebrews & Egyptians, as if the PBCC EB are the Hebrews & all others including all other Christians are the Egyptians, is total nonsense & pure abuse & ignorance of scripture. Are you therefore saying ALL other Christians (The Egyptians) are an “abomination” to the PBCC EB ?.

      - If you use Gen 43:32 as justification for not eating with other Christians & other Christians are therefore an “abomination” to PBCC EB, then why does your PBCC EB website contain the following statement – “DO BRETHREN BELIEVE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE SAVED? No, not at all. The Brethren believe the Lord knows those that are His, and everyone who shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10v13). They believe there are many true believers along with the Brethren who will be eternally with Christ in heaven.”

      - Genesis 43 was long before Christ came on the earth, or the New Testament, or the biblical apostle Paul explained in great detail the operations of the Christian Church.

      - ALL Christians are part of the One Body, The Assembly, The Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, Galatians 3:28 says there is no differences in the persons in the Body of Christ for they are ALL one in Christ. The PBCC EB are not ‘THE’ Body

      - What about Romans 15v7 “accept other Christians as Christ accepted you” & what about Romans 14 v1 “him who is weak in faith receive”, & what about Ephesians 4 speaking of how the One Body works. What about the example of Jesus eating with tax collectors & sinners in Matthew. What about the rebuke of the disciple Peter in Acts 10 -27-37 where he refused to sit at table with others, yet, he had to accept - “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”

      - Gen 43 gives no authority for the no eating rule. You are ripping scripture out of its context & ignoring other scriptures & historical Christian Church teaching from the NT & ignoring factual reality. You are wresting & twisting the Word of God to try to justify a 'man made' unbiblical whim invented by a womanising alcoholic former leader James Taylor Junior

      - Such actions are completely unchristian & show no moral restraint or conscience or respect for the Word of God

      1 2 Mini

      The confusion and abuse of the Word of God in the PBCC EB is truly shocking

      You mention ‘biblical principles’ yet you don’t follow them.

      You mention being ‘saturated with truth’ yet its clear your saturated with a thick fog of confused scripture twisting, which is not ‘biblical truth’ but darkness.

      None of this is a surprise because as you admit yourself the PBCC EB – ‘don't need to quote scripture’ because they have the example of ‘ one of these great men even said he didn't need to read the Bible anymore’

      How dark & unchristian


    5. 1 2 Mini
      Further to my response above, which you need to respond to

      When you say –

      “we don't need to quote scripture”
      “these great men even said he didn't need to read the Bible anymore”

      How do you then follow the principles of scripture (which you say “should be held to”), when the scriptures say the following –

      Acts 17:11 - Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

      2 Timothy 3:15 - And how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

      Acts 17:2 - And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures

      2 Timothy 2:15 - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

      Romans 16:26 - But has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith

      1 Peter 2:2 - Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation

      1 John 4:1- Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

      Romans 15:4 - For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

      Ephesians 5:26 - That he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

      Matthew 4:4 - But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

      1 Timothy 4:13 - Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

      2 Peter 1:5 - For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge

      So, 1 2 Mini

      Some questions for you,

      You claim that scriptural principles should be followed, therefore how do you follow the scriptural principles listed above, when you also claim “we don't need to quote scripture” and “these great men even said he didn't need to read the Bible anymore” ?

      Where are you putting your personal faith and salvation, is it with Christ and Gods Word (The Bible), OR is it with Bruce Hales and James Taylor and the false teaching of the Exclusive Brethren ?


    6. Part 1

      My dearest R,

      In utmost sincerity and friendliness, please don’t have a heart attack! Possibly you should go tip back a few drizzles of Johnny Red before you read the rest of this post. I don’t want to learn they had to come scrape you off your living room floor due to a heart attack pursuant to reading my comments. Laughter they say, is the best medicine, an probably not more so than when it is directed at oneself. I sense you might not have discovered that yet. Try it out and report to Ian's data base of scientific proof for consideration by future generations of aberrant groups born of foggy minded opiate indoctrination. I am hoping to get my friend in to see another friend by the name of Getafix. I fear that Lion Heart the Eighth is suffering from a certain malady for which those in his camp prescribe neurological pharmaceuticals. In my camp is the trusted Getafix as I have mentioned, and our aim is to include Lion Heart and those of his ilk as additional asterisks upon the nebulous nimbus of Godly internal revolt prior to mass exodus from religious despotism.

      Now that you are happily Johnied up I shall proceed…
      First of all, I cannot take time to address everything you ask or say up yonder, but I will take up two of the items, those seeming to me of the most importance. --But first, do tell me: How is it that I "must" respond to your lengthy posts when you don't seem compelled to answer one simple little question in my last post in our talk on the caught up? Believe me, no offense meant, but I do mean that.

    7. Part two

      The item of most importance is your question as to my salvation or belief source regarding it. I suppose I could retort that I have already been very clear about that, but am happy to oblige anyway. It seems you harbor a little incredulity as to my salvation and this phenomenon bears directly on my single question referred to a moment ago. My belief or faith is that I have a secure and permanent place and relationship with our heavenly Father, and that I will not suffer the pains of the "second death" of scripture. -- Born once die twice, born twice die once as they say.
      I do not place my faith for this eternal blessing in Bruce Hales, nor the brethren, nor their correct doctrines, nor their incorrect doctrines. I do not place my faith for it in my works, nor in a "salvation experience". I do not place my faith for it in the Bible.

      Having then "been born, not of blood, nor of flesh's will, nor of man's will, but of God" and found among "those that believe on his name" as a result of being "saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God's gift", I place my faith for eternal blessing and soul salvation in our Lord Jesus, Son of God His anointed, because He suffered and died taking the judgment due me, and God has accepted this sacrifice as satisfaction for my offenses.

      I dear brother "invoke as Father him who",--"judges according to the work of each,"-- "knowing that"-- I --"have been redeemed, not by corruptible things, as silver or gold,"--nor by --" vain conversation handed down from" anyone--"but by precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ,"
      "For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified", and I am found (thanks and worship be to God for the unreasonable fact) among that number.

      Simply put I believe that Jesus died in my place and God receives me back into his presence because he accepts that sacrifice. What else do you want me to say? Read my lips--- I believe that Jesus died for me and that I am saved. I do not believe in the Bible for my salvation, it simply is the inspired source where I learn, however imperfectly I do so, these truths. ---"Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me;" Thank God that a grain of truth is more powerful than a world of error. Were it not so, who could be saved? Pardon my observation, but it seems I am damned if I quote scripture, and damned if I don’t simply based on whether or not I am PB.

      Have you ever taken a look at blogs and web discussions among other recovering cult addicts? An interesting study for someone like Ian might be to discover the overall bent of mind of various recovering groups. A quick look builds a suspicion that at least the others are talking about truth and love instead of continual "brethren bashing". I will give you a challenge you cannot refuse (and myself). Looks like Darbyite DNA includes an Irish disposition to argue and win at all costs. Does this Darbyite malady affect your ability to hear what is being said by someone who you now disagree with on some other point than before? In reality it cannot be placed on Darby, but…

      Second point:

      You or someone above says that the Genesis verse doesn’t count because it is not from the Christian era or teaching. Ok, I suggest that Jesus eating with sinners is not from the Christian era or teaching either. He was Jewish and the Church came about later.--- Thoughts?

      My friend Getafix by the way, works on the premise of Romans 12v2. Especially the second clause.

      1 2 Mini
      An Ire Ish Darbyite contender. (just for today)

    8. 1 2 Mini,
      In reference to your last two posts - 1 Feb 2015 at 22:39 and 1 February at 22:43).

      1st Paragraph post 1 Feb 22:39
      Your comments don’t make sense, it reads as if you have been on the sauce !. I don’t know if you are saying your post at 31 January at 07:48 (the blatant attempt to twist the Word of God to try to justify the no eating doctrine), was just a laugh, or not !. For me, as a Christian, I cant mock & twist the Word of God in the out of context flippant manner of you & the Exclusive Brethren, to me that is heresy & blasphemy.

      2nd Paragraph post 1 Feb 22:39
      This is a pretty low devious attempt at trying to discredit me. I did answer most of your questions directed at me in the other blog, & was patient & thorough in my answers & explanations. As blog’s move on conversations do stop & I have a life to lead outside of these blogs. If readers want to check the evidence, the link to the blog 1 2 Mini mentions is here -


      Paragraphs 1 – 4 of post 1st Feb 22:43
      Thank you for clarifying your Christian faith foundation, its encouraging to hear you don’t place your faith in the doctrines & teachings of Bruce Hales or James Taylor Junior. However, I also observe the following -

      Your comment
      “I do not believe in the Bible for my salvation, it simply is the inspired source where I learn, however imperfectly I do so, these truths. ---"Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me;”

      You quote John 5v39, Yet, your earlier post at 31 January 07:48 you said – “The thing is that when our minds are saturated with truth, we don't need to quote scripture…I think one of these great men even said he didn't need to read the Bible anymore.” . 1 2 Mini, the clear implication from the earlier comment was that “you don’t need the Bible”, yet now you say “it’s the source where you learn” !

      The final part of the sentence started in John 5v39 (which you don’t quote), goes on to say “and ye will not come to me that ye might have life.”. My point is that just because you are saturated with your so called “truth” does not mean your following Christ or the Word of God. Christ himself had to teach the Jews & the Pharisees that fact.

      Your comment
      “Pardon my observation, but it seems I am damned if I quote scripture, and damned if I don’t simply based on whether or not I am PB.”

      That’s a very petulant ignorant comment. When persons quote scripture it should be appropriate to the discussion/question & take into account the original intended meaning, historical aspects & original intended application. To use scripture outside of that is to abuse, wrest & twist the Word of God. When persons from whatever church, rip scripture out of its contextual application & meaning, scripture can be used to attempt to validate any kind of action or whimsical doctrine. It is a Christians responsibility (as detailed by Apostle Paul eg 2 Timothy 4v2) to challenge, refute & correct such false teaching where ever it comes from (peeb or no peeb)

      Exclusive Brethren try to validate all kinds of bizarre unchristian whimsical doctrines from the Bible, they try this by ripping scripture out of its contextual application & meaning, ignoring historical aspects, cherry picking one verse above another etc, this methodology is a deeply ingrained character trait of Exclusive Brethren PBCC.

      Your comment
      “A quick look builds a suspicion that at least the others are talking about truth and love instead of continual "brethren bashing””

      Are you saying that you & other members of Exclusive Brethren PBCC want to be able to post all kinds of unchristian, unbiblical, nonsense, all kinds of misapplication & twisting of Gods Word & all kinds of Brethren propaganda, spin & lies, without any of it being challenged or refuted ??


    9. 1 2 Mini
      Response to the last paragraph of your post 1 February at 22:43

      You Say
      “You or someone above says that the Genesis verse doesn’t count because it is not from the Christian era or teaching. Ok, I suggest that Jesus eating with sinners is not from the Christian era or teaching either. He was Jewish and the Church came about later.--- Thoughts?”

      1 2 Mini, if you want my blunt thoughts, they are that you are playing and toying with the Word of God, even to the point of calling into question the actions of Christ Jesus as somehow not being ‘Christian’ or of ‘Christian teaching’ !. I will not be drawn into such base behaviour.

      The paragraph as quoted above shows you haven’t read the post by R at 31 January 2015 at 10:39. If you had really honestly & truly read it & researched the biblical references given, you would not have made your comments above

      Its clear your agenda is to attempt to justify whimsical rules invented by the former leader James Taylor Junior (an alcoholic womaniser) even to the point of twisting & playing with the Word of God. You have claimed earlier that you are a Christian, yet your actions and flippant treatment of the Word of God do not harmonise with such

      I pray that you will read the post by R made at 31st Jan 10:39 and follow up the biblical references. You will even get an indication to the answer to your last point.


    10. !!!SPLUgSPLUTSPLUt*)*%@&W($%^*#! R? R?? thems fightin words Revrend! Yous is fortunate my 4 hour pass is nearly out for today else I would give you an ear full!! I am reminded of John 21v23.

      More later brother.

      1 2 Mini

    11. 1 2 Mini

      Here it is - John 21:23 Darby Translation

      23 This word therefore went out among the brethren, That disciple does not die. And Jesus did not say to him, He does not die; but, If I will that he abide until I come, what [is that] to thee?

      Whatever does that have to do with your discussion with R? Please not another out of context Brethren proof text? Please explain in simple language what you mean.

    12. Theophilus,

      I was reminded of that verse just because R appears to have put words in my mouth. The disciples spread a mistaken report based on what they thought they had heard. The verse reiterates plainly what Jesus (the literalist in this instance) had said in contrast to what they had jumped to conclusions about.

      1 2 Mini

    13. 1 2 Mini

      Thank you for reply. I would never have guessed in a thousand days that's what you were getting at. I suppose it's a result of the narrow 'in-speak' in The EB/PBCC that outsiders like me struggle to follow conversations.

    14. 1 2 Mini Please explain with examples where R has put words in your mouth ?

    15. 1615,

      Happy to fill you in, but short on time again. The men in little white coats will be here soon. The following comment may help you discover for yourself.
      I did not say that R has put words in my mouth, but that it appears that way.
      1 2 Mini

    16. 1 2 Mini, Lets try this way then - Please explain with examples where R has ‘appeared’ to put words in your mouth ?

      Thank you and await your reply

    17. R
      (I will assume it is you for ease of reply)
      Having just made a longish post to Gal 5.1 elsewhere, I am short on thyme, so have not read through our posts above. I am quite certain that you are attributing to me what I said about one or some of the leaders. If i say that so and so said such and such, that is not the same as saying it myself is it?
      Or is the blindness of party association so deep that this can not be observed?
      1 2 Mini

    18. Glad to oblige Theo,

      Trouble is that I see once again the presumption that somehow the "in" are affected with some sort of malady that those "out" or not "in" are immune to. I myself have received hint like and shadowy indistinct or non answers to my questions and have no idea what is meant by those who provided the same.

      Cannot dig through them to fill you in, but it happens all the time.

      1 2 Mini

    19. 1 2 Mini

      No I am not R, but yes I did write post 5 Feb 09:41

      Thank you for your post at 6 Feb 04:28

      “I am short on thyme, so have not read through our posts above.” – well well, so that’s why you ask questions then belittle and criticise those who reply to you, or you ask the same question in different ways, or you feign ignorance or be obtuse in your reply – its all because your not actually bothering to read the replies given to you !!

      No wonder you keep on trying to spread confusion !

      “I am quite certain that you are attributing to me what I said about one or some of the leaders…….” No R has not done that, but then if you bothered to read what has been written you would know that.

      Instead you try to make spurious silly accusations which have no basis in fact. Your obvious attempts to smear persons and discredit are insidiously devious.

      If you’re an example of the so called christians in the pbcc, then your chrsitainity and teaching must be very dark

    20. 1 2 Mini

      In your post to Theo

      “Trouble is that I see once again the presumption that somehow the "in" are affected with some sort of malady…..”

      Well that would be obvious wouldn’t it. To deny that would be to deny all reasonableness and common sense. If your “in”, then you have to obey and submit to a vast array of false teaching, scripture twisting, immorality, non-biblical rules, unchristian behaviour, family separation, deviousness, falsehoods, out of context and baseless irrational fearmongering, deep sectarianism, inability to accept the EB position is completely unchristian, fear of non members, complete lack of morals, fear of being contaminated by other humans and other Christians, etc etc. All of which originates from years and generations of indoctrination and imbibing toxic extremism and having it drilled into your heads that ‘the brethren is the only position’, ‘the brethren are always right’, ‘the brethren are superior to all others’ etc etc.

      That is a perfect storm of a malady

      Those who leave have to slowly deprogram themselves from such extremist sectarianism, often with the help of professionals. Those who leave have to unlearn all the extremist nonsense and re learn what it is to be a Christ focused bible focused real genuine Christian, because you cant be that when you inside the pbcc, as you have to submit to all the false teaching and non-biblical rules.

      “received hint like and shadowy indistinct or non answers to my questions and have no idea what is meant by those who provided the same….”

      Well 1 2 mini Ive only seen amazingly detailed and thorough answers to your questions, but of course it would help if you actually read the answers !

    21. 1 2 Mini

      "Trouble is that I see once again the presumption that somehow the "in" are affected with some sort of malady…..”

      For me as a committed Christian outsider, my mind often boggles at the poor quality of Biblical knowledge, the easy application of texts out of context as though they were a commonly heard mantra or proof to ensure good behaviour, and a bullying attitude to attempt to win consent. So yes I do think there is a certain malady affecting the PBCC. To me as an outsider they look and act like a Christianese religious cult, holding firm to a form of goldliness but denying the power.

      As written in 2 Tim 3: (Darby)

      1But this know, that in [the] last days difficult times shall be there;
      2for men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, evil speakers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, profane,
      3without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, of unsubdued passions, savage, having no love for what is good,
      4traitors, headlong, of vain pretensions, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God;
      5having a form of piety but denying the power of it: and from these turn away.
      6For of these are they who are getting into houses, and leading captive silly women, laden with sins, led by various lusts,
      7always learning, and never able to come to [the] knowledge of [the] truth.

    22. Theophilus,

      Thank you for your measured, simple, thoughtful reply. I agree entirely with what you have just said. I am not certain what you mean by "outsider", nor do I in fact have a need to know.
      Maybe you and I can have a reasonable exchange. May I ask what it means to you to be a committed Christian?
      For your interest, one of the big questions in my mind revolves around how to trigger or advance change among those I love with the least amount of negative fallout in all aspects. I applaud the owner of this site along with all of the other brethren bashing sites as well as all of the regular posters. Perhaps the following quotes from Winston Churchill say it better than I can.

      "Laws just or unjust may govern men's actions. Tyrannies may restrain or regulate their words. The machinery of propaganda may pack their minds with falsehood and deny them truth for many generations of time. But the soul of man thus held in trance or frozen in a long night can be awakened by a spark coming from God knows where and in a moment the whole structure of lies and oppression is on trial for its life."


      "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

      1 2 Mini

    23. I became a Christian in my teens after hearing the Gospel preached and responding to the prompting of The Holy Spirit. My response was faith towards God and a repentance from my wrongdoings (sins). I'm now walking on with God, my Heavenly Father year after year.

      I'm an outsider as I've never belonged to the EB/PBCC.

  17. Interesting how easily slang terminology for alcohol, such as I suppose you might hear in pubs and clubs, comes so easily to the EB(PBCC). I wouldn't have had a clue what "Johnnie Red" was all about until I noticed an earlier reference from a PBCC commentator. Sadly, dependence on alcohol is very much part of the culture of the PBCC. Those Brethren, of former days, must be very dizzy, by now.

    Note to 1 2 Mini

    1. "Johnnie Red" is not slang - it is an abbreviation for "Johnnie Walker Red Label" the tipple of choice for JTjr. It was therefore the approved whisky in the late 60's & early 70's for any Peeb who aspired to status. It didn't quite warranty a "priestly" if you were caught supping another brand, but you certainly weren't considered to have got the full gain of the spirit. (In the other sense).


    2. Dem's my sediments ezacly Ricardo.

      1 2 Mini

  18. Ian,

    You comment that "refusal to eat with non-members of your group is an Egyptian characteristic, not a Hebrew or a Christian characteristic. The New Testament in several places indicates the same, and sometimes says so quite explicitly."
    This is an interesting comment, but I can't think of which New Testament verses you mean. Could you elaborate?

    1 2 Mini

  19. 1 2 Mini
    It would seem that the Apostle Paul was quite happy to eat with the sailors involved in the shipwreck in Acts 27.
    I am also aware of two members of the EB who shared tea and biscuits with a Member of Parliament they were lobbying about the Charity Commission. I know this because the MP contradicted me when I told him that the EB do not eat with those outside their fellowship.

    1. Thanks Gal 5.1,

      Sorry you are not here sharing some wine and cheese with me. It makes you live longer. Keeps the blood pressure down.
      What is your opinion of when the Christian era or (Heaven forbid the use of the word) dispensation began?

      1 2 Mini

    2. Do folk still do wine and cheese? How passé! Not to be encouraged since cheese swamps a good wine. Cheap plonk can be used to rinse the salt of the cheese, but the long term health results are not good.

      Alcohol reducing blood pressure? Not known in medical science. More likely, increased weight problems ( tummy over or under the belt - that daily dilemma) plus, the onslaught of various diseases. As I recall, the body is the temple of the spirit; but I don't think this means the PBCC version of the last half century.

    3. 12mini

      Christianity began as a form of Judasim, the Jews looked for the Messiah but then rejected him when he came. Christianity as we know it today through the Holy Bible originated in the life and teachings, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. However, the Christian church, (consisting of those who love and put faith in God) was always in the mind of God ever since Adam and Eve. We only need to research the history and promises given by God to Abraham in the OT and reiterated in the NT to see that and the repeated indicators in the OT which point to Christ himself.

      As humans in the flesh we have a selfish need to want to label things and often try to compartmentalise God, that is to put various bits of Him into various categories and boxes. So some say Christianity only began after the resurrection of Christ, yet the Christian faith is crucially centred and focused on the life, teachings and death of Christ as well as the resurrection. If Christianity only began after the resurrection of Christ then what he taught in his life tends to become secondary, which is not what the Holy Bible teaches. Some of the practical workings out of the Christian Church are found in the ministries of the Biblical Apostle Paul, who always based his teachings on those of the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ. With the Apostle Paul, Christ is always the model in whose steps we follow. True Christian doctrine, actions, theology and practice are always found to be rooted in Christ and anything outside of that is not Biblical Christianity

    4. 11:52

      Thank you for a reasonable perspective in plain language. Refreshing. Yes I in my smallness am guilty of attempting to make neat little boxes around our Creator God, our Father, Source and Friend. Thanks be to Him that Abraham is not alone in that box. Forgive my inability to be so plain but I am learning.
      Is not the Resurrection of our Lord one of or the most basic fundamental truths held by all the redeemed?

      1 2 Mini

    5. 10:17,

      I am under discipline pursuant to direction from beloved R, and therefore subdued today. Maybe if Wilma is listening in she will nudge Fred, and perhaps he can break forth in an him to the profit.

      1 2 Mini

    6. Dear 6 February 2015 at 09:45

      What then of the seemingly endless attempts to smear and discredit persons (say BDH or Garth C, or any number of others not to mention blanket coverage of all the brethren) by most of the posters here? Are those insidiously devious or are they cause for rejoicing? Is the unity of the posters on this site based on a common hatred or a common love?
      As far as R and what he and I have said, it was not that I had never read his post, but that at the time I made the earlier reply I had not gone back and re-read it.
      Anyway it is all my fault, and I am dark, unchristian, blasphemous, and who knows what all else. Not to mention that I have been tasked with looking up at least a dozen scriptures in order to draft a reply to him.
      If you like, you can tell me who I have discredited or smeared or whatever else along those lines, but I would have thought that if someone felt that way they would tell me themselves. After all that is the Christian way isn't it?

      1 2 Mini

    7. Dear 1 2 Mini

      Criticism of wrong doing is not a "smear". It is a statement of fact. For example the EB had a makeover to the PBCC , formed the so called Rapid Relief Team, hastily formed "choirs" and had publicity events post 2012 because there was a danger they might lose tax relief. To imply not, or that they had always been like this, would be a lie.Therefore, to point this out is the truth and not a smear.

      I think it is a given that criticism of the PBCC does not, in general, refer to absolutely all the members; although it is a pity that they are so easily led. Commentators cannot state this clause in their comments on every occasion.

      I don't think anyone has accused you of blasphemy. Your blubber Leonardo, and one or two others, usually drift that way in their ill-considered comments.

    8. 1 2 Mini 8 Feb 08:32

      I implore you to check what you are writing and check your facts before you press send, by not doing so you are unfortunately making yourself appear rather silly

      Definition of smear - to damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.

      What Anon 6 February 09:45 said is correct. You tried to make spurious silly accusations against R which are not factual. Therefore you tried to smear R in an attempt to cast doubt on the content of R’s posts. Your silly accusations against R were false and untrue, therefore you tried to smear R. This is a tactic used by those desperate to discredit something or someone because they can not argue or make a case on a factual or truthful basis, so they resort to untruths. That is the correct use of the word smear.

      1 2 Mini

      In your post of 8 Feb 08:32 you say “What then of the seemingly endless attempts to smear and discredit persons (say BDH or Garth C, or any number…….”

      Exposing the truth about a person especially if its based on and substantiated by factual evidence (ie Truth), can not be called a smear, to call it that is to ignore definitions and protocols of basic language.

      So, to expose the truth by using evidence of say the following by BDH or Garth C, is not a smear it is speaking truth.

      Persons who leave are not Christians
      You cant get Christianity outside pbcc
      If you pass information to outsiders you are a traitor and should be shot or hanged
      If you speak to outsiders (wordly persons) you will be defiled
      Garth C evidence to the UK Parliamentary committee was indeed full of half truths, mis information, misrepresentation
      Etc etc

      These are not smears, they are what BDH or Garth C, has said, and therefore factual truth. The evidence of your own printed ministry shows that ! or government records etc. It could be said exposing the nonsense BDH & Garth C say is discrediting because it shows how unchristian, lacking in biblical knowledge and devious they are. It would be correct to say persons can discredit something or someone using factual truth with supporting evidence. But to smear someone is different, that tactic uses false accusations and lies.

      The vast majority of discrediting BDH, Garth C and others that happens on these and other blogs is supported with factual truthful evidence, some of which are your very own printed documents

      Anyway, someone who pompously calls themselves the “divinely appointed minister of truth in the recovery” (Bruce D Hales) deserves to be mocked and discredited such is the ridiculousness of his title !! do you not think ?

      1 2 Mini

      The unity of posters on this site is based on exposing the truth about the sectarian extremist unchrsitain group that calls itself pbcc or Exclusive Brethren. Problem is that pbcc EB don’t want the truth to be exposed or discussed hence why you are trying to fight against it

      1 2 Mini

      R withdrew from the conversation after you chose to make false accusations ( as explained to you in 2 Feb 12:06 and 6 Feb 09:45) and more importantly tried to call into question the actions of Christ as somehow not being ‘Christian’ or of ‘Christian teaching’ (as explained to you in 2 Feb 12:51)

    9. 15:24

      For ease of reply I will again assume it is yourself R. Or is it someone in your employ. How Halesian if so.

      Look if R feels I have smeared him, let him come forward and say so in about 3 words rather than 10,000. I find it hard to believe that someone else would feel so aggrieved on behalf of him.(or her?)

      Join me for a cuppa dear brother, and lets settle up and then talk about something of substance. My inattention to detail surrounding your (R's) posts stems from the simple fact that they are too long coupled with the fact that he (you) does not seem to want to finish a conversation on the subject we started on.

      Maybe if I say the following, you will feel more like I am your friend as derived from a common enemy. I think unity around a common friend is a better choice, but whatever dude.
      Well yes, not so much as a means of belittling BDH himself, but rather as a means of creating cracks for infiltration of light, BDH or more properly his actions deserve to be mocked and discredited. As in "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.

      As Brew elsewhere on this site has noted, it is really so unforgivably disrespectful of the lad who misspelled Lauries name. A short spell in purgatory is no doubt in order. Laurie is after all a salt. Truly an old salt.

      Forgive me in advance for not following up the injunction to proof read my post prior to publishing it.

      1 2 Mini

    10. 1 2 Mini

      Have you ever heard of the scarlet pimpernel ?

      I think Anon 8 Feb 15:24 states it very well on my behalf, I will repeat the appropriate parts for you.

      1. What Anon 6 February 09:45 said is correct. You tried to make spurious silly accusations against R which are not factual. Therefore you tried to smear R in an attempt to cast doubt on the content of R’s posts. Your silly accusations against R were false and untrue, therefore you tried to smear R. This is a tactic used by those desperate to discredit something or someone because they can not argue or make a case on a factual or truthful basis, so they resort to untruths. That is the correct use of the word smear.

      2. R withdrew from the conversation after you chose to make false accusations ( as explained to you in 2 Feb 12:06 and 6 Feb 09:45) and more importantly tried to call into question the actions of Christ as somehow not being ‘Christian’ or of ‘Christian teaching’ (as explained to you in 2 Feb 12:51)

      Good day


    11. 1 2 Mini

      You may it hard to believe that one person should write extensively in support of another, but we do just that. See, very inclusive. I find that most attractive......


    12. R,

      I shall now endeavor to treat your latest post point by point.

      Have I ever heard of the scarlet pimpernel ? No. Tell me more though. It sounds sort of like a Red Herring.

      1. Please forgive me for all the items you cite. Especially any wherein I have offended you personally.
      2. Oh.

      1 2 Mini

    13. Anonrymouse 9 February 2015 at 09:48

      We? We?? And just who might We be? Please squeak up and reveal your affiliations. I don't know whether I like you or not until I know whether you are in or out.

      1 2 Mini

      Oh, by the way. If you know any outgoing innies we are looking for quizzical types interested in expanding their perceptions. Especially in pataphysics. I am in close contact with the Rupture coordinator (he's not happy with his family name having been in the dirt for so long and has a bit of a thorn in his craw) who is holding regular classes on things like Reality and Check and You Don't Really and Believe all that Tripe in the latest White Book Do You and Wake up and smell the Roses and other good stuff. There's even a detox center for the sustenance dependent,(AKA the Big Bellies) but it's mostly educational. We do some music too and even a little Bible study. The north campus is doing a study on FER now and 1Chronicles 21:9 is also current. The seer (who has had just about enough of the Big Dumb Hero) keeps it clean notwithstanding rumors that his clandestine Uni is a den of iniquity. The south campus choir is learning "Up around the Bend" by Creedence, as well as "Maxwells Silver Hammer". The current him is "Hale to the thief" by PC 31. As an aside there are some paid positions but the operation is overtly hush hush, so take care who you solicit or share it with. The primary goal is to demolish the effects of the head stuffing propaganda machine that Mr. Sales (bless his soul) and his gang of thugs has built. The rank and file are already laughing silently and in not so small groups here and there. Money talks and there is plenty. Lies, deceit, double crossing, suspicion and the like are our friends. And stealth. Subtle, smiling, soul winning stealth.

    14. 12 Mini

      It would be so much easier if you just spoke in plain English. What is it with Peebs, either in or recently out that they must talk in riddles and obfuscations?

      Please repeat the above paragraph in plain every day straight to the point English.

    15. 1 2 Mini, re your post at 07:39

      It shouldn’t matter whether someone is in or out !, why do you say that ?

      What should matter in the context of this blog and its discussion subject is whether someone is trying to justify the unchristian position, falsehoods, deceit, false teaching, harm and detriment of the PBCC EB and making comments that bear no relation to Biblical Christianity or evidential reality, but which demonstrate extremism, irrational fear mongering and sectarianism.

      Even then, those who expose such activity on this blogs still have love for those trapped inside the PBCC EB, that’s why we do expose the truth and take time to correct false teaching and deceit, its because we genuinely care

      If it was Jehovah’s Witnesses (almost an exact copy of PBCC Exclusive Brethrenism in many actions & practices), trying to propagate their false teaching, extremist sectarianism and harm and detriment I would do the same thing


    16. Dear Mini Mouse

      You know very well my comment related to the so called "outs" because it related to the post in defence of R's comment. If we, or the outs, if you prefer, see the Halesian dogs of war have been let out of their cages we go to the defence of the good Christians under attack.Oh, we also help humanists, or anyone from any perspective, or none at all, if it helps. We are a virtual rapid relief team but don't wear hi-viz. Now, I am not putting you in the category of a ferocious beast, as you appear to have something of interest to say, except that we, the outs, and quite likely the ins, too, aren't too clear on your commentary; this appears to based on an "in joke" with only you participating. To your credit this blog page is now in three figures; so we look forward to seeing you on another topic as soon as you have regrouped. Do tell us as clearly, if you are able, how goes the revolution
      and whether we will see any blubbers' heads on platters any time soon.

      The Honourable Mouse

    17. In an attempt to reply to several comments above:
      There are certain things that cannot be discussed in plain terms. Double agents and their employers have to keep all three sides more or less confused until the ordered time. The rupture is imminent and when it occurs, many things will be clear, especially the scrambled brains and hopefully the following emotions. Issues of this doctrine or that one can be discussed fairly plainly though. Or can they?!
      Agreed it does not matter if one is in or out. Brethren see this site and others as attack mechanisms where people do nothing but argue, fight, and belittle the brethren. Scared rabbits don't gravitate towards those they are scared by. The observable inability to relate, among people with different points of view is additional reinforcing proof to the brethren that we are united and right. Justifying anything unchristian should not be done, but then different people have different beliefs on what is or is not Christian no doubt. (with any luck this won't trigger another cut and paste of 10 thousand brethren "wrongs" from certain quarters.)

      Mr Mouse
      Thank you for the kind invitation to another topic. My Bull drippeth under. See you in the sieve. (Papal Bull of course)
      What have I to do with smudging those who are in? Remove the righteous from amongst us.
      I speak not to those In Sane but to those who are Out in their Minds. Allow me to be very plain. Gads den of inequity is where all four character types --- those insane and those out in their minds can learn secretes only from some long out who are now like old Michael Finnegan in that they are backin agin. Begin again. Are you so blind?! Must I spell everything out for you in black and white? The Seer Gad will welcome you. He is just seeking to move as one under direction. Mr. Sales, You See, is a master strategist and has a long range view with the intent of awakening the brethren without splitting them apart. Try as B might, the brethren seem to insist on remaining blind. The virus of stuffed headitis seems impenetrable. Help us help our brethren blow their knows.
      The Head Cheese is in the works, for tis an ill wind indeed that blows no good.

      1 2 Mini

    18. Dear 1 2 Mini,

      Your padding (ton) out of your dialogue remains very confusing, but I do not see you as a bear of little brain. I get the drift you are trying to tell us something, maybe others can decode that and write it clearly. I cannot. Why you cannot is a mystery which seems must remain with you. I do perceive you are seeking to leave/to rupture. That cannot be a simple thing. I pray God's grace and peace as you plan your future, in or out with Him.

      Christianity is indeed a broad church to muddle my metaphors. I can easily understand those from a more literal and conservative background struggling with more liberal interpretations of doctrine and indeed being repulsed and justified in their position as a result. That's very easy to do. While the central core of the good news of the Gospel remains present I can be tolerant and indeed accepting of those with divergent tertiary and in some cases secondary doctrine. We agree to disagree. We can both be lights in a dark place. They have access to a group of people I do not access and vice versa. The good news of Jesus can still be brought and demonstrated and people introduced to Jesus Himself by faith. That's the really important part. Does Jesus love one more than the other? Do I love one of my children more than the other? Does God have favourites? I conclude the answer is 'no'. Even when my children do wrong stuff, I still love them.

      So please accept the divergent views seen here. As they say, people are on a journey. It is not for them to judge me, or me to judge them as to where they have reached. The main thing is, they're on the journey, God loves, them and is looking of others to join them.

      I pray this blessing over you:

      Numbers 6:24-26 (NIV)
      24 “‘“The Lord bless you and keep you;
      25 the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you;
      26 the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.”’

    19. This is so; the problem is, Mini, that not everyone, including me, are knowledgeable concerning what is current among the saints, at this juncture of the testymoney, as it were, so you are likely to have a very limited audience trying to decode your messages. Furthermore, the delicate sensibilities of frightened rabbits may be confused, and even upset, by the criticism they encounter; but as I mentioned, some months ago, satire and dark humour has a' place in a broadsheet of this kind. After all, satire was invented for the likes of persons to whom you have alluded and some of their most zealous followers (no names no pack drill).

      I like your imagery of the ink running off your papal bull and being filtered on through the sieve of leaked information. I wish you well, and perhaps you will be able to lead some out of the darkness. I cannot believe your cover is more in danger of being blown if you spoke less in riddles. Indeed, you might be more secure if you sounded more "ordinary"!

      Honourable Mouse

    20. Theophilus, HM,

      I thought this thread was worn out and bare, but have been back jousting with my newest friend, so:
      Theo, I appreciate your comments and prayers unfeignedly. I don't accept the divergent views, but have no problem accepting the various people who hold the divergent views if that is not too particular a way of looking at it. In fact I think the divergent views are a great learning tool. If only we weren't so easily offended... But then if Mathew 15v12 and Jesus' response are any indication, I suppose I can assume I am in the pharisaical camp of hypocrisy to at least some degree when I am offended. What think?
      I would be further interested in your personal Christian journey if this is a place you can share more of it. I hesitate to ask the standard "what church do you go to" question because that makes it way to easy to start predetermining the essence of who you are.

      I have just re-read your comments and burst out laughing... Thank you. The TestyMoney is indeed a Movement the Currency of which to behold. Buckets...

      Pigster and the Hamstrings are tuning up for a gig in the harbor.
      It all began in Loch Lomond, and everything they have to say about it is to be found in that lovely little tune about "Maxwell Edison, Majoring in Medicine" but one has to become saturated (dyed to the flesh) with the words and tune of that song before it makes cents.

      1 2 Mini

    21. Hello 1 2 Mini,

      I agree divergent views are a good way of learning, of verifying one's own view by prayer, thought and study of the Word of God. At the end, I may not agree with the other's view, but that doesn't mean rejection of that person, rather if we are to walk on together, an agreement to disagree.

  20. Oh dear! What you have to go through when you are out and about serving The Lord. The stench of defilement must have been overwhelming. Perhaps there was special dispensation since there might not have been a table involved? Would a coffee table be allowed as long as the sanctified knees were at a discrete distance? I am sure the business division has to deal with these delicate issues.. What does the CEO direct regarding these matters? Would it depend on the size of the deal, I wonder?

  21. Everything taught in PBCC schools is immoral and unethical; they are the epitome of immoral and unethical. Bible studies for instance, rather than religious education, to name only one comparatively minor problem with these 'institutes'. The children in these premises are actively taught to be immoral and unethical. Ive never met a more sectarian, immoral, unethical group of people, or heard of such in my life....

    1. That’s a bit sweeping! As far as I know, there is nothing immoral or unethical in the maths lessons, for example.

      And most of the immoral or unethical teachings that the children receive is delivered in the meeting rooms or the homes, not in the schools.

    2. It is usually the PBCC commentators who remark on "immoral teaching" in non PBCC schools; I have asked what it might be but haven't, as yet, had it defined. Sounds rather risqué !

  22. 12Mini

    The interpretation of your prophecy is almost fulfilled bro, although confess my limited understanding of pataphysics, however, one of the definitions, which is: 'Pataphysics is patient; 'Pataphysics is benign; 'Pataphysics envies nothing, is never distracted, never puffed up,
    it has neither aspirations nor seeks not its own, it is even-tempered, and thinks not evil; it mocks not iniquity:
    it is enraptured with scientific truth; it supports everything, believes everything,
    has faith in everything and upholds everything that is.
    Some of these qualities are what is needed for God's truth to be revealed to hearts and ears that are ready to receive it.
    Will David listen to Gad though? or will he seek to exterminate and villify him as history has usually shown to be the case.
    We must be prudent as the serpents and guileless as the doves.

    Bro in Christ

  23. Bro in Christ,

    I agree entirely with what you say. Especially the parts that are clear to me, which are almost none of the above. The most important thing as you say, is plainly explained by Morcheeba:
    (Its all part of the Process
    We all Love lookin down
    all we want is some success,
    but the chance is never around
    Its all part of the process
    of Freeing minds
    of those born blind)
    According to John and Paul, Joan was studying that stuff way back in the 60's (Imagine that) and perhaps she can enlighten our darkness on the science in question. Hopefully the crack on the head by Maxwells silver hammer has not proven debilitating in that regard.
    I should undertake a full answer in suitably ambiguous specific gravity, however Lawry's blogosphere suffers from flat Perth syndrome, and this yarn (aka melodic string theory) is about to fall off the edge of his earth.
    David is sin the know regarding the prophet ability of his Seer and it is all part of his master plan to enlighten the brethren without splitting their sides. He (Brew Sales) as we have previously remarked, is a master tactical strategist and is bringing change (sestertii) in copious quantities without upsetting the proverbial apple cart.
    I had been thinking of the scripture that you cite, and am duly admonished. Pardon my diabolical spinnership.

    1 2 Mini

    PS. it is scientifically proven (via repeatable experiment) that dirt born spittle (may I throw dust in your eyes?) applied, heals and restores sight to the eyes of one born blind. -- John 9 v 6 & 7

  24. 12 Mini.

    Ah the mysteries of Christianity, they are somewhat beyond our human understanding, i confess, well, Jesus spoke in parables, why?
    To mask his message from the pharisees who were not ready for it.
    But then, he says, the blind leading the blind, they will both fall into the ditch,leave them alone?
    Well, the Holy Spirit gives understanding.
    Yes, I perceive the discourse must be continued in another part of the synagogue.

    Bro in Christ.

  25. 12 Mini


    I have just been thinking about David and Goliath, I see that one can confuse the two.

    Bro in Christ

  26. 12 Mini

    Sorry to prolong the discourse, it is not yet midnight, the Sprit continues giving understanding, it is painful the first time dust is thrown in your eyes but easier as blind eyes have already become opened.


    1. Hey Bro

      Bro? Bro??
      (Runs to the window and looks down)

      Someone call the RRT!!! Bro fell out the window, and I cannot leave my post. Not done with my weighty words of wisdom yet. So much to say and so little time. (You do the walking, we'll do the talking.)

      You ask about Mathew 15 v 14. That does not apply at the current juncture of the testimony.
      To be more blunt, it would be a rather bigoted point of view. In other words the superiority complex that attends such a stance is to be neither contemplated nor tolerated. Except when it is stated by the only One who has the knowledge and authority to say such things.
      Brother R has weighed in on this in pointing out that Jesus alone knows those that are His. A flip side is that He alone knows those who are not planted of His Father, hence I say I cannot assume I should leave them (whoever they are) nor would I want to be left alone. I think (though I am not learned in language arts) that the third person plural present indicative ("they be" KJV) in that verse might support my thought on this. (if there is a teacher out at the meeting tonight, their input on this would be helpful) Namely that Jesus was talking about specific persons to specific persons at a specific point in time. Since He is not standing next to me or us saying such things, I suppose that for me to use that verse as a reason to discontinue an argument or discussion would be a lame cop out coupled with an air of arrogance in judgment.
      BTW. Along with the crowd of young guys foolin around in the corner, neither do we care about no trumpet playin band. It ain't what we call rock and roll.
      I love a jam session with the young folks. They seem to enjoy the bass--
      Bass the wish and waned the endeavor
      here on earth to join a band.
      Till I've tried again I'll never
      Drop my tunes, stay in the land
      In for ever?
      Oh no never
      Rupture we shall still demand

      1 2 Mini

  27. 1 2 Mini

    Thankyou for the sermon, i rejoice with those who have had dirt thrown in their eyes and see!
    God is sure doing interesting things, which I have long sought for, my parable writing and interpreting skills leave a bit to be desired I declare, .
    i have wondered long how a rupture could occur without chaos and heads rolling, but to think so is to doubt what the master can do.

    Bro in Christ.

    1. Bro,

      Get some rest. The Principled Parables were leading men in the assembly, but that is a long story. Perhaps the telling of it will fit in another time. I don't remember how it went, but since I have been reminded of it, I must contact the brother who authored it and get a refresher.

      1 2 Mini

  28. 1 2 Mini

    Yes in pondering it, i agree that Matt 15 does not apply in this case, it is easy to assume a self righteous superior attitude which the Father is not in.

    I am somewhat getting the gist of Maxwells Silver Hammer.lol