Groupsects’ Nalliah abuse unnecessary

Whatever you may think or say about Danny Nalliah, he is a Christian and a brother, so whilst people can and perhaps should condemn his declaration of God’s judgement being poured out on Victoria, wishing death or injury to his person is both unnecessary and unchristian.

In a post which criticises Nalliah, groupsects has permitted, without rebuke or moderation, commenters to make what could be construed as death-wishes, if not actual death-threats, which can only provoke a claim of persecution by Nalliah’s supporters, of whom there are many.

For instance, in reference to Nalliah, commenter Boris says, ‘This clown should be set on fire‘. This is followed up with weez’s comment, ‘What sin could I commit that would cause JUST Nalliah to burst into flames?‘, to which Lionfish adds, ‘You could commit Murder by flame thrower‘, and throws in the  just-in-case get-out-of-jail-card, ‘For legal reasons Lionfish does not recomend anyone taking this action’.



Does groupsects moderate this, or condemn it? On the contrary, he champions weez’s sentiments, by saying, ‘You’re still up for Comment Of The Week for “What sin could I commit that would cause JUST Nalliah to burst into flames?”’


Nalliah isn’t new to death treats. But fuelling his version of Christianity with these kinds of comment only adds to his ‘resume’.

29 thoughts on “Groupsects’ Nalliah abuse unnecessary

  1. By the same Old Testament passages Nalliah uses to ennoble himself as a prophet, a false prophet is to be done to death.

    Remove the office of prophet, remove the death penalty. Or pick and choose.

  2. Exactly what I was going to say ryno, Nahlia and others use Old Testament law to justify tithing and their condemnation of Homosexuals. To be consistent they must accept the penalty for false prophets – death by stoning. Nahlia of course prohesied falsely that John Howard would win the election and Peter Costello would be his successor.

    The blog comments were a little out of line, but hardly death threats. They were a humourous way of expressing shock and alarm at such an opportunistic, thoughtless and insensitive statement.

  3. But surely if you’re claiming that, as we no longer live under the Old Testament, we no longer act as Old Testament people, then you need to live according to New Testament concepts yourselves, regardless of what Nalliah, or anyone else who focuses on superseded OT principles, says.

    How does it make your judgement any better to say he preaches by the OT so you have the right to judge him by the OT?

    Since you claim to understand OT & NT principles better, surely you should exercise the greater degree of maturity than the person who misses what you claim to know.

    And how does it make groupsects commenters’ calls for fire to consume Nalliah any better than Nalliah’s error, especially since they claim adherence to NT principles?

    Didn’t Jesus rebuke his disciples for wanting to call down fire on people? Does that same rebuke extend to groupsects’ disciples?

  4. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Wazza is right…’The blog comments were a little out of line, but hardly death threats. They were a humourous way of expressing shock and alarm at such an opportunistic, thoughtless and insensitive statement.’

    This just looks like FL taking advantage of an opportunity to have a go at groupsects since FL is angry he can’t comment on the blog.

    I honestly don’t know why you keep reading it FL, as it obviously drives you mad.

    And no, clearly the comments were not in any way intended to be taken literally – only a moron would be unable to recognise the intentional irony. I don’t think you are a moron FL, though others would perhaps disagree, so I can only conclude you are deliberately obfuscating as usual.

  5. Many apologists for leaders ignore the elephant in the room of the leader’s misdeeds and concentrate on making the critics feel guilty. Clearly the leaders should be held to a higher standard because they have greater influence and are rewarded with deference from their followers.

    If the critics stumble when exposing these misdeeds, it may be because of the bloody-great stumbling-blocks put in their way.

    However Kudos must go to FL for making a post which clearly states that the Prophecy claims were wrong. I believe FL invited Danny to his church some time back and gave him a platform to speak. Has he now clearly communicated to his parisioners that he dosent support Danny’s statement? Has he discussed this issue with other Pastors in the network?

  6. When a critic with no established facts wants to continue a speculative argument they can only resort to innuendo and supposition, and hope for a breakthrough.

    Hence your last two sentences in the final paragraph of your last comment. You grant a kudos with a hook.

    And hence Lionfish’s constant pursuit of the elusive. His completely delusional idea of Phil Baker’s financial impropriety, which Lance so ably assisted, eventually driving him out of his church, and potentially out of his mind, all based on what?

    A speculative argument devoid of facts.

    Elephants, you say. That is an elephant. Elusive elephants.

    And if that is also the real elephant in your room, wazza2, it is a mammoth in the groupsects apartment.

    Your difficulty here is that I’m clearly not an apologist for Nalliah, having consistently criticised his brand of prophecy.

    I have never spoken to Nalliah, nor his representatives, or given any invitation for anything on behalf of any Christian organisation, and probably never would, since I have never appreciated his brand of ministry.

    My only contact is to tell him, on various occasions, by email and through his blog, that I disagreed with his prophecy about the last election result, his advocacy of Costello as next PM, his accusation of neglect by the Body of Christ in Australia by condemning them for failing to pray enough for the last election, and his claim that God caused the fires in Victoria as an act of judgement.

    I have also posted and commented on these things here and elsewhere.

    However, I stand by what I say about the conduct of Lionfish and others on groupsects blog. They are in agreement, as are you, that Nalliah should be judged according to OT law, whilst at the same time criticising his use of OT principles. Does this make anyone hypocritical at all, do you think? If not hypocritical, they, and you, are fully unchristian, and lacking in NT understanding.

    And the judgement reached? That Nalliah should die by fire, since he should be judged as an OT false prophet.

    Claims of tongue in cheek are now being bandied here, but the sentiment expressed is far from jest. And you’re the chief apologist, ably assisted by RP, here. You’d better put away the best china! The elephants are gathering. But far from joking, there is a certain seriousness to their comments. In fact, I think they would have condoned a lynch-mob mentality, if not joined the mob.

    And I’m no less angry about Nalliah’s insensitive claims. Seething would apply to my demeanour when I heard. But I, as a NT believer, not under OT laws, have no Christian right or access to wishing Nalliah dead by fire, anymore than you do, or Boris, or weez, or Lionfish. Including in jest. Coarse jesting is not acceptable for saint according to Eph.5:4. I guess murder would be included as coarse.

    But you have a herd on your room.

    Another elephant tramping on your sensibility is the need to be an apologist for groupsects, who, as you fully know, has no mercy towards Pentecostals, Pastors or, separately, anyone who takes Biblical criticism of homosexual lifestyle seriously. You consistently back up his arguments on this score. Knowing he must be wrong but saying nothing.

  7. Shock horror … amazement even.

    FL and I are singing from the same hymn sheet.

    Listen guys, we do need to be NT about stuff. Therefore we should certainly be careful when we condemn one another or those who aren’t in the same ‘room’.

    (I know … pot/kettle and all that)

    Just need to be careful to not step over the line. Do we? Do I?

    (Bull trying to go for some measure of spiritual maturity here.)

    Look, when it comes to false prophecy, we need to be strict. Discipline is very important. BUT. We do not condone murder, even in jest.


  8. Pointing out to someone that a body of law includes the death-penalty and to be consistent one must accept the whole of that law … is not a death-threat.

    Predicting that a gun-man will come and there will be massive fires if people do not take certain actions .. is a death-threat.

    Just so you know.

    I thought FL had Catch-the-Fire representatives at his Church to discuss Islam at some time? Correct me if I am wrong.

  9. Re the pot/kettle…

    “…But far from joking, there is a certain seriousness to their comments. In fact, I think they would have condoned a lynch-mob mentality, if not joined the mob…”

    This is a serious accusation, FL. Or are you only joking?

    I recommend anyone interested read the thread in question on the groupsects blog, and see for themselves.

    And the SMH had a little Youtube video yesterday, which gives a great visual example of an over reaction:

  10. I’m serious, because I think they were serious. And it’s not an accusation, but an observation.

    Pot/kettle? A lynch mob calls for harm to be done to an accused person. Where have I called for harm to be done to anyone?

    In fact my post calls for a more sensible approach. These comments could be misconstrued as death threats by CTFM, and used to rally their supporters. If you read my comments carefully, you will see this is what I am saying.

  11. Implying that someone deserves to die horribly is a nasty accusation, though one has to take into account the intent to amuse rather than harm. There’s a difference though between that and an actual serious death threat.

    Accusing someone of actually being willing to murder someone in a horrible fashion (aka a lynch mob) is also a horrible accusation.

    You are the only person who is implying the comments on the other blog were in any way serious. In case there is any doubt, groupsects has now also stated that the comments were not intended seriously but as hyperbole echoing the tone of DN’s own comments.

    Your comment re the lynch mob is worse as you say you really mean it. To accuse other Christians in all seriousness of being potential murderers is much worse than people making comments that are construed by any thinking person as jest, even if they are in bad taste.

  12. So let’s get this straight.

    Groupsects, and his cohorts, are OK with you because he now claims hyperbole, even though he backed up the suggestion of a fiery murder, in, what is now revealed as mere jest of course, but I’m in the doghouse because I think they’re unchristian in their assertion that Nalliah should be judged according to OT law because he used OT principles, and because I liken their response to support of a lynch mob?

    So eye for eye and tooth for tooth is now back in vogue?

  13. Straw man argument rejected, FL.

    When you stop distorting events, then I will discuss them.

    But I note: Now you are ‘likening’ their response, but before you were ‘serious because I think they were serious’.

  14. I said they would have ‘condoned a lynch-mod mentality’, which is vastly different from calling anyone an actual lynch mob.

    All agree that Nalliah should be judged according to OT law, which is no joke, and, in fact, means they believe he should be stoned to death. I’m sorry, I love a good laugh, but I can’t see the humour in that.

    Groupsects claim of a returned joke doesn’t cut it, either, because, in fact, Nalliah was/is deadly serious, even if groupsects thinks he is a joke.

    People have died in the fires, and this is a hugely serious business. There’s nothing funny about any of it.

    Nalliah has wrongly and defiantly claimed that God is judging these people. That is not funny.

    He is to be condemned for his timing, his insensitivity, and his incorrect use of scripture, plus the fact he brings the Body of Christ into disrepute. But jokes about burning him in fire, which I think were initially semi-serious at best, are of no use to anyone except to add to Nalliah’s sense of being persecuted by his own side.

    These comments cheapen the circumstances in which this sad story has unfolded, and, furthermore, Nalliah’s foolishness has opportunistically been used by groupsects to once again attack Pentecostals and Pastors, not to highlight the plight of the bush fire victims.

  15. You are going around in circles straining at Gnats. You have even tried RP’s patience and it takes a special type of person to do that.

    The whole thing can be boiled down to a NT principle “Do unto others…”. If you claim that God will allow the killing of other people as punishment for the sins of a few, then it goes both ways, ie. others may claim that you also may be killed by the same principle.

    Has anyone associated with “Catch the Fire” spoken at your Church?

  16. wazza2,
    ‘The whole thing can be boiled down to a NT principle “Do unto others…”. If you claim that God will allow the killing of other people as punishment for the sins of a few, then it goes both ways, ie. others may claim that you also may be killed by the same principle.’

    That’s utterly dodgy doctrine! As wrong, in fact, as the Nalliah doctrine.

    I’m actually surprised you didn’t come back and qualify what you’d said with sound, revised doctrine.

    Doesn’t it go, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

    The passage you quote actually says:

    Luke 6:31-36
    “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”

    Rather different to your interpretation! God is kind to the unthankful and evil, and expects you to be the same, not exact revenge. That is the context.

    That is what makes Nalliah wrong. God is long-suffering towards sinners, not judgemental. There’s a time to come for the judgement, but it is not now. We are in God’s time of grace and mercy.

    But if this makes Nalliah wrong, it also makes you wrong, because you advocate punishment and judgement.

    Romans 12:17 Repay no one with evil for evil.

    How you can claim that ‘others may claim that you also may be killed by the same principle’ is beyond my understanding of Christian values. Perhaps you can show me where this NT principle crops up!

  17. Its the general concept of reciprocity.

    You seem to have missed my other questions – Has anyone associated with “Catch the Fire” ministries spoken at your Church?

  18. General concept of reciprocity? Please explain. Is there NT scripture for this?

    I don’t know1) what it has to do with anyting, 2) what it has to do with this commentary, or 3) what it has to do with you, but, to help you out, I don’t know who, apart from Danny Nalliah, is associated with Catch the Fire Ministries. They’re AOG aren’t they? Can you give me a list of possible speakers, and I see if I can remember any being at our meetings.

  19. Reciprocity: the practice of exchanging things for others for mutual benefit.

    I had to think about it, but I’ve heard of this spoken about as a concept in prosperity teaching circles, and in reference to covenant. I wasn’t aware that you are involved in that doctrine.

    It doesn’t seem to fit the exchange in question, however, does it?

    You say, with Boris and weez, that, because Nalliah uses OT law to establish doctrine, you have the right to apply OT law to his error. Now granted this is reciprocal. But no one is benefited, BUT you claim to be under NT principles, so how can you then justify the application of OT law?

    Can you please show me from the NT where offensive reciprocation is applicable?

    As far as I understand NT practice excludes repaying like for like when an offence is committed.

  20. Lionfish at groupsects:
    ‘RP – You cannot have fun and be a Christian at the same time. If you let fun creep into the Church it will be like gangrene and infect the rest of the body.’

    I hope he is joking, of course, and having a bit of fun with us all, but if not:

    I rest my case!

  21. You have to be kidding!!! FL, I hope you are joking and having a bit of fun with us all, but if not:

    I rest my case!

  22. Of course LF is joking!! I laughed out loud. And I will assume FL is joking too… wazza, you made me laugh again.

  23. My weak attempt at ironic satire! I’m told I’m much funnier when I’m not trying, which may or may not be complementary! I get the impression, sometimes, I’m trying when I’m trying to be funny! I never remember jokes, even when I’m trying my hardest! I’m sure God thinks his kids are funny at times! And trying!

    wazza2, you didn’t answer my question on reciprocity…

  24. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”

  25. Sorry, that was me on the above comment. My daughter was logged in.

    By reciprocity, I meant the Golden rule and the Silver rule. The Silver rule was part of Jewish thought before and after Christ, it is “Dont do to others what you dont want done to yourself”. Jesus gave the Golden rule which I think includes the Silver rule but adds much more.

    Also the above quote which ie you will be measured by the same measure you use for others.

  26. You will know if the same thing happens to me when you see

    adj;ajd’ojvposjdvaij0qiuetr9i’flosndv’snbd “vd

  27. If I was non-believer and I chanced upon these forums what message would I find …..

    “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By THIS all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

    John 13:34-35

    The very fact that you have lawsuits among you MEANS you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.”

    1Cor 6:1-6

    Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

    Col 3:12-14

    We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
    May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, IN ORDER to bring praise to God.

    Romans 15:1-6

Comments are closed.