Adventist Online

What are your thoughts concerning the recent public rebuke to the SDA Church?

 [ Note from Adventist Online:  The following post is written by James Prest using the pseudonyms "Jack Rav'n" and "Jak Ravon".  Mr. Prest concealed his identity in the promotion of his own divergent theology.  He misrepresented his identity in this discussion and lied about his identity to site administrators in private messages.  We are leaving this discussion intact for any who wish to see some of the falsehoods that we will be faced with as members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. ]

 -----

 

I am just wondering what people think. I've read the book written in rebuke to the church and it makes a lot of sense, but I want to get the multitude of counselors advice. Here is a link through which you can get ahold of the book: 

answersforadventists.wordpress.com/sda-public-rebuke/

Thoughts? Comments? Anything?

Views: 2618

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

When he started saying I was "OF THE DEVIL", I Googled a few minutes extra. ;-)

Almost no one uses their real name n line for safety reasons. I assume everyone I talk to uses a pen name on line? So what is so condemning here? Do you think someone actually named their child MFG, Timber, or one of the other 150 obviously made up pen names here?

 That's an incriminating matter if he denied this to forum  moderators.

 What is that lie  in a nutshell .

Ok, ok

In the case that anyone is interested. Here is why I did not see what I did as a crime:

“Is Jak Ravon (Jack Rav’n) James Prest?”

We answer this non-Bible question only because it seems perhaps to have been made an issue relevant enough to address.

“False speaking in any matter, every attempt or purpose to deceive our neighbor, is here included. An intention to deceive is what constitutes falsehood. By a glance of the eye, a motion of the hand, an expression of the countenance, a falsehood may be told as effectually as by words. All intentional overstatement, every hint or insinuation calculated to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression, even the statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead, is falsehood. This precept forbids every effort to injure our neighbor’s reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander or tale bearing. Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment.” {Patriarchs and Prophets, 309.3}

There is a difference between intending to deceive, and not revealing information for the purpose of furthering the truth. Example:

“They had not advanced far on their journey when they were joined by a stranger, but they were so absorbed in their gloom and disappointment that they did not observe him closely. They continued their conversation, expressing the thoughts of their hearts. They were reasoning in regard to the lessons that Christ had given, which they seemed unable to comprehend. As they talked of the events that had taken place, Jesus longed to comfort them. He had seen their grief; He understood the conflicting, perplexing ideas that brought to their minds the thought, Can this Man, who suffered Himself to be so humiliated, be the Christ? Their grief could not be restrained, and they wept. Jesus knew that their hearts were bound up with Him in love, and He longed to wipe away their tears, and fill them with joy and gladness. But He must first give them lessons they would never forget.” {Desire of Ages, 795.2}

Later down in the chapter:

Had the disciples failed to press their invitation, they would not have known that their traveling companion was the risen Lord. Christ never forces His company upon anyone. He interests Himself in those who need Him. Gladly will He enter the humblest home, and cheer the lowliest heart. But if men are too indifferent to think of the heavenly Guest, or ask Him to abide with them, He passes on. Thus many meet with great loss. They do not know Christ any more than did the disciples as He walked with them by the way.” {Desire of Ages, 800.3}

Jesus was not intending to deceive His disciples by not revealing who He was. But it was not His intention to come out and do this until a lesson had been learned. He well knew that He appeared to the disciples to be a stranger, and knowing this, He continued to talk to them as the stranger that they thought He was.

Angels of God often appeared in the Bible in the form of men. The men who saw them did not think that they were angels, due to their disguise. Were/are the angels of God being deceptive? Are they guilty of lying? Or are they seeking to further the cause of truth by not letting their identity be known? Were the men to whom these angels appeared in the form of men deceived? Did they believe that these angels were men, when of course, they were not?

Not all truth is for everyone to know. Sometimes the truth can be dangerous, if known. God tried to keep secret the truth concerning the knowledge of sin. (See Genesis 2:16, 17) Does that mean He is deceptive or lying? No, it means He was looking out for our best interest by only revealing that which He deemed good for us to know.

A Hypothetical Situation:

If your friend asks you if you have less than $1000 in your bank account, the answer to which is none of their business (with all due respect to them), I personally do not see it as being deceptive to get them off your back (if you have reason to not want to answer them) by saying something like, “I have a good amount of money in there, and quite enough for what my family needs. We are even planning to buy a decent car soon.” While some would say that that is falsehood, I personally don’t think so. You do have a good amount of money in the bank (of course it would be based upon personal perception of what is a good amount), you do have enough for your family (if you did of course), you are planning to buy a decent car soon (if you were of course), and you have no intention of deceiving your friend (if you didn’t of course), but just wanted to get them off of your back without them knowing how much money you have so that they can go tell the world about it. If someone feels obligated to give out their personal information to everyone who asks prying questions concerning their personal business, they are always free to give out that information. I personally, do not choose to do that.

If someone asks me if Jack Rav’n (Jak Ravon) is another name by which I address myself (which it is), and I say, “No it is not,” then I am lying. If someone asks me if Jack Rav’n is another name by which I address myself, and I say, “If I were Jack Rav’n, then…” that means that I am leaving it open. The word “if” leaves an opening through which Jack Rav’n may or may not be James Prest, but evades the question so that I can still get the message across. Unfortunately, people are highly prejudiced these days, and so if I appear to people as James Prest, people may be prejudiced against anything good that I have to say and refuse to listen because they disagree with me concerning one point or another. If I appear to people as Jack Rav’n, people will likely be more able to listen to the message itself, instead of having their prejudice against James Prest shut their ears to anything that I would say. This very thing has happened, which is one reason why this question is being addressed. To impersonate another person is wrong. For instance, if I appeared to people as Ted Wilson, that would be a problem. But Jack Rav’n is a name I made up and applies only to me. It is no secret that I respond to the name Jack Rav’n. Many of my friends know that I actually prefer to be called by that name.

I want attention directed to the principles themselves that I present, not on me. I am not the message. It is the message that is of importance, not me. Some of those who have accused me of deception or intentional deception, did the very thing that my addressing myself as Jack Rav’n (Jak Ravon) was intended to prevent. The record is (at least a this present moment) publicly available for everyone to read and come to their own conclusion. But remember, it is the message that is of importance, not the messenger. I understand that Martin Luther drank alcohol and kept the Sunday as Sabbath, but this in no way exempted people from investigating his claims and accepting the truth that he did present.

I have never claimed perfection of either character or record, and for anyone to do this would be sin. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8. Thus accusing me of being a sinner is irrelevant concerning what I have said or done or written, for all of us our sinners (I am a sinner, my accusers are sinners, and you are a sinner). Thus these accusations bear no weight according to Scriptural testimony as to whether or not people should reject my message.

It doesn’t matter to me if people know that I’m me. I think that that has been made quite obvious by what I have done in public. What does matter to me is people rejecting a message because of their prejudice against the messenger. This is dangerous.

Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, Is it True,—in harmony with God’s word? but, By whom is it advocated? and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas, that they will not examine the Scripture evidence, with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices.

“The Lord often works where we least expect him; he surprises us by revealing his power through instruments of his own choice, while he passes by the men to whom we have looked as those through whom light should come. God desires us to receive the truth upon its own merits,—because it is truth.”  {Gospel Workers, 1892 Edition, 126.1}

Disclaimer: The information/advice contained in this answer is not to be taken for legal use in any government, business, or other capacity.

More on this matter can be viewed at my website in the article titled "Principle Vs. Policy."

Ok, what is his divergent theology ? Let's cut to the chase. Having a pin name that is not your real name is more typical than not.

There is a good deal of divergent theology already on the forum so far as to present that Jesus drank booze  and provided it for others. And yet these people continue off course and it is allowed.

James Prest was not removed from Adventist Online because of divergent theology.  He was not removed for using a pseudonym.  Any falsehood he presented was ably rebutted by the members here.  (That is the case with pretty much all falsehood presented on Adventist Online.)

He was removed because of continued intentional violations of our Site Rules & Guidelines.

He lied publicly here on Adventist Online.  He lied again to moderators as we were counselling him on this issue.

We requested that he not make another member profile on Adventist Online and to speak with us if he wanted to join us again.

Mr. Prest did not do that.  His first post with his new account was justification of his past behavior as well as spam links to his own web site.  That is not acceptable.  It ignored our request for dialog and continued to break our rules.

That's really quite an impressive self-justification. It almost exactly parallels the Jesuitical explanation for why it is ok to lie if you are doing "God's work".

 

You state, "An intention to deceive is what constitutes falsehood". Ok, so when Vincenzo asked "What exactly is your personal relationship to James Prest?" what was your response?

"Close enough. I do know him in person,.."

The true answer would have been, "I am he." But instead you referred to yourself as "him". There is your lie, right there. If there was no intention to deceive then you either would have answered honestly and admitted that Vincenzo's suspicions are true or you could have just not responded.

Vincenzo's question was answered with lies throughout the answer - both implicit and explicit. It is very obvious, whoever you are, that there was an intention to mislead, to continue to portray yourself as someone else in order that others would be deceived into thinking that someone else was independently endorsing your writings.

You even answered in the post above by referring to yourself as "we" - how many of you are there? 

I know, you were lying but your motivation for lying was a "godly" one. Is it really alright to deliberately mislead to achieve your aims? God doesn't mind you breaking His laws as long as you do it for the right reasons?

Following Jesuitical thinking perfectly. But, just to clarify, I am not accusing James/Jack/Betty/etc. of actually being a Jesuit - I credit them with more intelligence. The problem is that when anyone begins a relationship by lying to you, particularly lying about who they are, that person loses all credibility... ALL credibility.

It is also very telling that you put a disclaimer at the end of your post (which, by the way, has absolutely no value except to announce yourself as a liar with potentially criminal intentions).

 

Bye-bye Jack/James/Fred/Lucy... whoever you are. You have just destroyed all your credibility on a global forum.

 

Thank you, Vincenzo. I was about to waste time looking at what he had written.

p.s. For those who think that the only thing that James/Jack/Frank/Mary/etc., did wrong was to give himself a forum "nym", you have missed the point. He was denying who he was when directly challenged and he followed the same pattern of many other liars that have been caught out over the years - obfuscation and self-justification whilst breaking the 10 Commandments. Not a good look.

Seems to me that if someone is so obviously wrong, and so obviously a liar, there wouldn't be a need to delete their comments. Seems to me like someone wants to hide something.

[ Adventist Online admin note:  We agree.  Even though your husband James Prest ignored our request to communicate with us before creating a new profile and posting further on our site, we have nothing to hide.

James comments have been left intact for all to see.

May God bless you and your family. ]

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service