Doc quote
Emmitt
"I rub prosperity in your face so I can graduate you"
(This really makes a lot of sense Gene. Let me get this straight now.
You want to show how prosperous you are with their money so they will
send you more money. This doesn't make sense to me but it works great
with all the scottites.)
Q...@netcom.net
hog,atleast Scott admits it.Why don't you go after the Pope,he makes
Scott's racket look like small potatoes.
Why may I ask are you so worried about Scott in the first place
Emmitt wrote:
--
Not being lost that concerns me,where I find myself that concerns me
http://home.att.net/~T.ii
http://home.earthlink.net/~tcaii
poisson distribution
Q...@netcom.net wrote:
>
> So please name me one head of any church that does not live high off the
> hog,atleast Scott admits it.Why don't you go after the Pope,he makes
> Scott's racket look like small potatoes.
> Why may I ask are you so worried about Scott in the first place
What does he have to do? Hit people upside the haid? With a 2 by?
Scott says "send me your money and I will do whatever I want to with
it. If you don't like the sound of that, don't send me your money
because I don't want it."
Where is the ambiguity? How can anyone continue to ask this shit?
Request for Comments:
Proposal: a.f.g-s mini faq
<faq>
People willingly give money to Dr, Gene Scott. He promises them nothing
for it. Literally. Dr. Gene Scott and his church are NOT, repeat, NOT
501(c) tax exempt filers. Monies sent to Dr. Gene Scott and/or his
church are NOT, repeat, NOT tax deductible. Monies sent to Dr. Gene
Scott (et al) become the property of Dr. Gene Scott and subject to his
sole ownership and responsibility. They (Dr. Gene Scott, et al)
receive NO special First Amendment protection, and pay taxes just like
the rest of us.
It is the sole responsibility of each contributer to account for their
own income and pay the appropriate taxes on same. No receipts for tax
or any other purposes will be issued for money sent to Dr. Gene Scott,
Wescott Ministries, or any affiliated organizations.
If you send money to Dr. Gene Scott or his church in any way, shape, or
form, it is of your own free will with the full and complete
understanding that you are to receive NOTHING in return. Sent money, if
it is considered payment at all, will be considered payment for
services rendered and received. Should you, under any circumstances,
receive ANYTHING from Wescott Ministries or any other Dr. Gene Scott
affiliated "entity," it is not in exchange for anything other than your
request.
(Dolores Press, for the record, is a functioning retail business, and
not affiliated (in a contractual sense) with Wescott or Gene Scott or
any of that.)
</faq>
That's the way I have always understood it, and if anyone sees it
differently, I would be interested in reading it! Maybe I can claim a
fucking deduction. My "sources" are just my recollections from
festivals, so if you have better ones, that we can all go check, bring
em on! It would help. I realize my own imperfections in this regard
and beg the indulgence. but not to the point of allowing error, of all
my dear readers.
poisson
jim, sd
John A. Stanley
If an American citizen gives more than $10,000 dollars per year to Gene does
he have to pay gift tax?
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
Emmitt
>
> So please name me one head of any church that does not live high off the
> hog,atleast Scott admits it.Why don't you go after the Pope,he makes
> Scott's racket look like small potatoes.
> Why may I ask are you so worried about Scott in the first place
Emmitt writes:
Sorry Q but I know a lot of pastors and the only ones I know that have
money are the ones that have made money from writing their own books.
The ones I know take no money from their church.
Scott and the pope could make a good daily double.
I am not worried about Scott. Trust me, I have not lost one moment of
sleep over Scott. I am just showing you what a jerk he is.
Emmitt
Scott does offer something. It's called rewards of righteousness which
is the only way for you to get to heaven. If you don't give you will go
straight to hell. Ask Scott. Sorry you missed this portion of the
teaching.
The reason Scott doesn't give any tax deductions is the anti-christ
will know who you are (Scott's words). He is saving you from the
anti-christ.
poisson distribution wrote:
>
> Q...@netcom.net wrote:
> >
> > So please name me one head of any church that does not live high off the
> > hog,atleast Scott admits it.Why don't you go after the Pope,he makes
> > Scott's racket look like small potatoes.
> > Why may I ask are you so worried about Scott in the first place
>
Brother Paul
Emmitt wrote:
>
> Q...@netcom.net wrote:
> >
> > So please name me one head of any church that does not live high off the
> > hog,atleast Scott admits it.Why don't you go after the Pope,he makes
> > Scott's racket look like small potatoes.
> > Why may I ask are you so worried about Scott in the first place
>
> Emmitt writes:
> Sorry Q but I know a lot of pastors and the only ones I know that have
> money are the ones that have made money from writing their own books.
> The ones I know take no money from their church.
> Scott and the pope could make a good daily double.
> I am not worried about Scott. Trust me, I have not lost one moment of
> sleep over Scott. I am just showing you what a jerk he is.
>
>
I will submit: Elder Perm Poom - the founder of McChurch.
Elder Poom does not live high off the hog from his church flock.
In fact, Elder Perm has never asked for any money whatsoever to
fund his work of spreading the Truth(tm).
Brother Paul
Zeke...@concentric.net
Brother Paul wrote in message <7lrgoq$l...@newsops.execpc.com>...
How much is the truth that Elder Perm Poom spreads worth?
Eric
J G DeBerry
JdB
jdominey
>Eric
You want to claim a correlation between how much gets
charged and what it's worth? Then let's compare the price
of admission to the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art (free, or
a donation of $3.50 last time I went) with the price of
admission to _Wild Wild West_ ($7.50 at your local Mall
Multiplex). Or compare reading the Times of London at the
library with purchasing the Weekly World News at the
supermarket.
Jack Dominey
d o m i n e y s (at) m i n d s p r i n g (dot) c o m
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Stevem702
>charged and what it's worth?
Yes.
"worth to society".
It's called the free market system.
(Reference Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose",
Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations", etc etc.)
-Steve
>Then let's compare the price
>of admission to the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art (free, or
>a donation of $3.50 last time I went) with the price of
>admission to _Wild Wild West_ ($7.50 at your local Mall
>Multiplex).
>Or compare reading the Times of London at the
>library with purchasing the Weekly World News at the
>supermarket.
>Jack Dominey
Beside the *value* of convience of being at a local
mall or supermarket any time we want,
vs a specific place and time in NY...
...Society is "charged" through taxes for most of
*both of your examples.
Donations by those who place high value on them
also are included in the cost to society. (subsidized.)
Just because you do not see all the charges to
society at the gate, doesn't mean they don't exist.
There are countries where everything seems "free"
of charge.
Paid for by "the People".
Feel free to move.
But as long as you're here in the USA,
there are two measures of value to society,
1. the free market price,
and
2. the free market price as modified by
governmental value intervention through
indirect force of arms. (taxes and subsidies, etc)
-Steve Maddox
jdominey
>"worth to society".
>It's called the free market system.
>(Reference Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose", Adam Smith
>"The Wealth of Nations", etc etc.)
-Steve
<snip>
>....Society is "charged" through taxes for most of
>*both of your examples.
>Donations by those who place high value on them also
>are included in the cost to society. (subsidized.)
>Just because you do not see all the charges to society
>at the gate, doesn't mean they don't exist.
>There are countries where everything seems "free" of
>charge. Paid for by "the People".
>Feel free to move.
>But as long as you're here in the USA, there are two
>measures of value to society,
>1. the free market price,
>and 2. the free market price as modified by
>governmental value intervention through
>indirect force of arms. (taxes and subsidies, etc)
>-Steve Maddox
Wow. Eric asks what Perm's 'truth' is worth, I challenge
the implicit notion that 'worth' and 'fee' are the same, and
Steve takes the opportunity to lecture me on economics
*and* impugn my patriotism ("Feel free to move", indeed!). I
must have threatened his manhood or something. I better drop
this now, or Steve may feel obliged to call me a punk and
start doing one-armed pushups.
Jack Dominey
d o m i n e y (at) m i n d s p r i n g (dot) c o m
Zeke...@concentric.net
J G DeBerry wrote in message ...
>Why ask? He obviously knows the worth of it.
>
>JdB
Because I want to know what it's worth to him.
Thanks for your interest.
Eric
Elder Perm Poom
> Scott says:
> "I rub prosperity in your face so I can graduate you"
I believe he is using the "Puppy Housebreaking Technique" here.
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
The First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
http://www.mcchurch.com
Elder Perm Poom
> So please name me one head of any church that does not live high off the
> live high off the hog
I quietly raise my hand.
I do not live high off the hog. I live quite modestly and I don't
ask for money from the people I share the truth with. (It isn't
nice to hold the truth ransom like that.)
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
The First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
Elder Perm Poom
<Zeke...@concentric.net> wrote:
> How much is the truth that Elder Perm Poom spreads worth?
I believe this is an invitation for testamonials...
Would anyone like to share how the truth of McChurch has
benefitted their life?
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> >You want to claim a correlation between how much gets
> >charged and what it's worth?
> Yes. "worth to society".
> It's called the free market system.
Holy cow!
Are you seriously saying that you can put a price to the gifts
of God? If you are, you are absolutely mad. There is absolutely
NO RELATIONSHIP between cost and value when it comes to
salvation. You better know that bub!
> (Reference Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose",
> Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations", etc etc.)
(Reference Dean Martin, "The Best Things in Life Are Free")
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
The First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
Elder Perm Poom
<Zeke...@concentric.net> wrote:
> J G DeBerry wrote in message ...
> >Why ask? He obviously knows the worth of it.
>
> Because I want to know what it's worth to him.
Are you preparing to make a buyout offer or something? If
so, you might as well go look for an internet startup. This
church is not for sale.
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
The First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
Stevem702
>
>Are you seriously saying that you can put a price to the gifts
>of God? If you are, you are absolutely mad.
Of course not.
Never said that.
You had to change what I said, and meant,
in order to have something to hear yourself blather about.
The point was:
your teaching is of no value to society,
You remain just a "Perm"enent God-mocker.
-Steve
Elder Perm Poom
> >Are you seriously saying that you can put a price to the gifts
> >of God? If you are, you are absolutely mad.
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> Of course not. Never said that.
> You had to change what I said, and meant,
> in order to have something to hear yourself blather about.
> The point was: your teaching is of no value to society
Trying to get your point...
Your post equated the value of teaching and how much people
are willing to pay for it, didn't it? You were talking about
free market economics... If you take that approach, Scientology
is the most valuable teaching of all. Every stage of learning
in that church comes with a price tag. The Scienos make Gene
look positively philanthropic. (no, not philatelic)
Brother Paul
Elder Perm Poom wrote:
> I believe this is an invitation for testamonials...
>
> Would anyone like to share how the truth of McChurch has
> benefitted their life?
>
My association with McChurch and Elder Poom has given me a
whole new appreciation for Danish quality.
I have become a devotee of Brother John.
Brother Paul
John A. Stanley
perm...@mcchurch.com (Elder Perm Poom) wrote:
>In article <7lrlrv$l...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
><Zeke...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> How much is the truth that Elder Perm Poom spreads worth?
>
>
>Would anyone like to share how the truth of McChurch has
>benefitted their life?
I have benefitted from McChurch's powerful gift of mirth.
God bless you, Elder.
Stevem702
>
>Your post equated the value of teaching and how much people
No. It did not.
My posts equated the value to society
with price paid.
Notice. Not just "value".
rather
"Value to society"
"Value to society" was repeated to make sure
even you could not effectively twist it to
"value to God" ...or even "value to Steve".
But you tried anyway.
Perhaps society values whatever scientology gives
more than any other teaching, as you seem to indicate.
I don't know.
Don't care.
Sounds like it irritates you that society does
value it (in addition to Doc's) and doesn't value
yours.
Face it. Doc's teaching is of value to society.
-Steve
Seester Rosa Gabriel
Poom) wrote:
>I believe this is an invitation for testamonials...
>
>Would anyone like to share how the truth of McChurch has
>benefitted their life?
As with any organization it is only as good as the people that associate
with it. If there was no more McChurch, there would still be the
friends I have made. McChurch is not a vast maze of rules and
regulations allowing me to be a member if I follow dictates and think
"right thought". It's not a scare tactic religion promising me anything
but that I *already* belong.
The "real" religions have built in sins (things human nature is just
bent on doing) and then a way that only they can absolve you of them.
They have control from the first drops of water on your newborn forehead
to the last handful of dirt thrown on your grave.
McChurch doesn't need to control anybody so doesn't need to dictate.
It leaves it to YOU to think for yourself.
So even though McChurch is wonderful to have as a symbolic focal
point, those of us here would be who we are without it.
Gene Scott followers, however, without the mighty leadership of El
Geno would have to go back to AA meetings and court mandated anger
management classes for fellowship.
My friends and associates through McChurch are kind, respectful,
well-humored, and willing to help their brothers and sisters.
Wether we do this because we believe in Jesus, McDonna, Brahma, or just
a constant whine from faraway planets doesn't matterto me.
and as a more conventional testimonial:
McDonna is ONE HOT CHICK to have inside of me.
Seester Rosa Gabriel
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> My posts equated the value to society
> with price paid.
I have no idea where you get this sort of idea. Society doesn't
value religions that are expensive. What makes you think that?
Are you making this stuff up as you go along?
> Sounds like it irritates you that society does
> value it (in addition to Doc's) and doesn't value
> yours. Face it. Doc's teaching is of value to society.
You think the average viewer looks at Gene's tits and pony
show and say to themselves... "Gosh! That preacher makes a
lot of money. His teaching must be valuable!"?
I'm afraid they don't. The average person looks at him and
gets mad at the blatant hypocricy and turns the channel. I'm
afraid that we Doc-Mockers are the only ones who will give
you and your grizzled old windbag the time of day. Why?
Because at least we can see Doc's peculiar brand of
charisma. (Some people love scalawags.)
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
The First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
Stevem702
>> with price paid.
>
>I have no idea where you get this sort of idea. Society doesn't
>value religions that are expensive. What makes you think that?
>Are you making this stuff up as you go along?
I gave two references already.
Read or continue in ignorance.
-Steve
Elder Perm Poom
> I gave two references already.
> Read or continue in ignorance. -Steve
All right, let's go back to this great and shining
truth that Steve shared with us, shall we?
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Steve's Manifesto
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
The question:
>>You want to claim a correlation between how much
>>(one) gets charged and what it's worth?
Steve's answer:
> Yes. "worth to society". It's called the free market
> system.
All right, you state here that society's values can be
determined by how much money people spend on them. That
is an absolute statement that can be tested.
> (Reference Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose",
> Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations", etc etc.) -Steve
Are *THESE* your two references?!! You cite economists to
prove that the value of something can be measured by how
much it costs?!! Sheesh! I imagine his business card reads:
"Milton Friedman, Accountant/Philosopher".
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Proof that Steve's Manifesto is hogwash
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
If you set your values based on what you pay for things,
your list of values might look like this...
real estate/rent
cars
insurance
taxes
beer
video games
porno videos
Gene Scott has showed us on TV that he spends a great
deal of money on a few other things...
horses
ranches and mansions
call girls
rare postage stamps
antiquarian books
Cuban cigars
Look at this list. If this is what people value most,
it is a pretty sorry bunch of values. I'm sorry, but if
this is your great message; and if I don't understand it,
I will live in ignorance for the rest of my life...
I choose the latter.
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Perm Poom's Theorum
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
The thing mankind values the most is what the McMartyr
taught about the most... LOVE. <Ref: the great economist,
Paul McCartney, "I don't care too much for money. Money
can't buy me love.">
Mankind also values beauty... NOT ex-playboy bunny
beauty like Doc seems to put a lot of emphasis on...
*REAL* beauty... and *REAL* beauty is free for the
beholder... the sunset... trees... tiny chattering
woodland creatures...
Some beauty may be expensive to own, but ownership
is not a prerequisite to valuing it. (ie: A Japanese
investor might pay 7 million dollars for a Van Gogh,
but a starving art student with a tattered clipping
of it pinned up in his loft might value it just as
much.)
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Perm Poom's Theorum Proved!
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Let's list things that society values the most. (Everyone
might have a different order, but I think this is probably
pretty universal...)
relationship with God
spouses
family
friends
children
pets
the beauty of nature
fine arts
heritage and tradition
I'm afraid I have scanned all through the Wall Street
Journal, and I couldn't find one single reference to the
state of these particular commodities. All of these things
are *immeasurable* in monetary terms. They all boil down
to LOVE and BEAUTY.
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Some questions that might lead you to answers
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Sure, Elvis spent millions on mink coats for his
beloved mamma... but if he was dirt poor and couldn't
afford mink, do you think he would value her less?
How much did you spend on the moon and the stars and
the cool Spring breeze in the last fiscal year?
If you got a dog at the pound, does that mean that you
value it less than an expensive purebred AKC champion?
When you turn on the radio and hear a Mozart Oboe
Concerto, does that mean you don't value it because
you didn't pay anything for it?
When was the last time that money bought you a truly
genuine smile from a loved one?
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
More pointless babbling disposed of
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
>...Society is "charged" through taxes for most of
>*both of your examples.
When I kiss my mother next time, I'll make sure she is
wearing a t-shirt that reads "Your Tax Dollars at Work"
>Donations by those who place high value on them
>also are included in the cost to society. (subsidized.)
>Just because you do not see all the charges to
>society at the gate, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You know, you might be smart, but you sure aren't wise.
>There are countries where everything seems "free"
>of charge. Paid for by "the People". Feel free to move.
OK. I take that last statement back. You are neither.
>But as long as you're here in the USA,
>there are two measures of value to society,
>1. the free market price,
> and
>2. the free market price as modified by
> governmental value intervention through
> indirect force of arms. (taxes and subsidies, etc)
Why do I feel like I suddenly was magically transported
from a newsgroup on religion to one dedicated to Rush
Limbaugh?
What a waste of breath.
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Face the facts
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
I could go on, but I really don't think you honestly
believe what you said. You are just playing rhetorical
games. If you truly believe that statement you made
above, you are the world's biggest fool.
Come on Steve. Own up to it. You can't measure the things
that really count with money. You made a stupid comment.
Admit it and move on. Don't keep accusing me of twisting
your words when your words were boneheaded in the first
place.
You are hereby cordially invited to get a clue!
Zeke...@concentric.net
>>
>>Would anyone like to share how the truth of McChurch has
>>benefitted their life?
>
>As with any organization it is only as good as the people that associate
>with it. If there was no more McChurch, there would still be the
>friends I have made. McChurch is not a vast maze of rules and
>regulations allowing me to be a member if I follow dictates and think
>"right thought". It's not a scare tactic religion promising me anything
>but that I *already* belong.
>The "real" religions have built in sins (things human nature is just
>bent on doing) and then a way that only they can absolve you of them.
>They have control from the first drops of water on your newborn forehead
>to the last handful of dirt thrown on your grave.
>McChurch doesn't need to control anybody so doesn't need to dictate.
>It leaves it to YOU to think for yourself.
Great! Do what you want, when you want, to whom and for whom you want.
Freedom in a vacume. Doesn't get much better.
>So even though McChurch is wonderful to have as a symbolic focal
>point, those of us here would be who we are without it.
Hence, it's not worth not much to you. About what I suspected.
>Gene Scott followers, however, without the mighty leadership of El
>Geno would have to go back to AA meetings and court mandated anger
>management classes for fellowship.
Wrong. Jesus Christ will be there, Gene or no Gene.
>My friends and associates through McChurch are kind, respectful,
>well-humored, and willing to help their brothers and sisters.
>Wether we do this because we believe in Jesus, McDonna, Brahma, or just
>a constant whine from faraway planets doesn't matterto me.
Be nice, and smile a lot. Tolerance above all else.
Eric
Elder Perm Poom
> Great! Do what you want, when you want, to whom and for whom you want.
> Freedom in a vacume. Doesn't get much better.
Not true. McChurch is about the common denominator. It isn't
about nothing. There is a lot more in common between people
than you seem to believe. Perhaps your attitude makes you
feel that way.
> >So even though McChurch is wonderful to have as a symbolic focal
> >point, those of us here would be who we are without it. -McD
>
> Hence, it's not worth not much to you. About what I suspected.
The church itself has no value outside of its membership. The
edifice is pure cyber-aether. The followers are real. That is
the opposite of many churches.
> >Gene Scott followers, however, without the mighty leadership of El
> >Geno would have to go back to AA meetings and court mandated anger
> >management classes for fellowship. -McD
>
> Wrong. Jesus Christ will be there, Gene or no Gene.
Well, I hope once Gene is no longer acting as the bouncer at
the door to your spiritual life, you will have the opportunity
to actually meet Him.
> Be nice, and smile a lot. Tolerance above all else.
I suppose you are cruel, frown a lot and tolerate nothing...
Hmmmm.... Which one of those best describes Jesus himself?
Emmitt
There you go again Perm making sense but the scottites will never get
it. Your post is correct but what you don't seem to realize is the
scottites are getting something for their money. It took me 6 months to
figure this out so here goes. There are "righteousness works" and these
works are what get us salvation and maintain our salvation. If you do
not continue in you "righteousness works" you will loose your salvation.
This is very clearly the teaching of Scott. Now for the fun part. Yes
you guessed it. Giving to Scott for this teaching is a "righteousness
work" and this is all you have to do for your salvation. You don't have
to worry about anything else in life. You are home free and clear by
just giving to Scott. Scott says in his teachings that the only value we
can put on anything is a dollar value because money is the only standard
accepted world wide and is in fact the only way we can value anything.
So as you can see Scott and the scottites have totally misconstrued the
entire message of the bible and God's rewards. Pretty Pathetic isn't it.
Friend,
Emmitt
Elder Perm Poom
> Not to put words into Steve's mouth but I believe that the intent
> of what he was trying to say is nothing like your corruption of it
Phil, do you honestly believe that the best measure of how much
a society values something is to see how much it spends on it?
Or are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?
> Like you said, a kiss from your mother is priceless but what if
> she was locked in jail unjustly? Would you give her a kiss and
> tell her it's been a good life but your old and not worth the
> money to defend?
My mother's freedom has nothing to do with money.
If I was told that it would cost $500 to get her out of jail,
that wouldn't mean that my mother is worth $500 on the open
market.
If it cost $5 to get her out of jail, she wouldn't mean less
to me than if it took $5,000,000. My mother has great value
to me. I can't put a price on how much she means, because
money is not an accurate gauge of this value. That is
precisely my point.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
The things that REALLY have value
CAN'T be measured by their monetary cost.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> For me, God's Word is worth more than my life so it's
> worth too me is greater than anything else
All right... Then I would bet you would agree with me.
(...much as it might gall you to admit it!)
Let's say God's Word is selling today for $5,000,000.
A bargain right? Tomorrow it is $5. If you buy it today,
and see it tomorrow selling for less, does that make it
worth less to you? Of course not. You can't put a price
on how much God's Word means to you, because money is
not an accurate gauge of this kind of value.
God's Word is very much like love of a mother.
> Doc is the source of further understanding in that truth
> then he should justly receive back, from me, for what I
> perceive that worth to be.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Aha! Now we hit the logical fallacy...
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Did you benefit from the TRUTH, or Doc's TEACHING?
If you benefitted *solely* from Doc's TEACHING and
the truth was Doc's personal creation, then you
owe Doc.
If the TRUTH was what gave you that value, and Doc
was just the person who pointed it out to you,
then Doc is simply a middleman. If anything, you
owe the creator of the truth, not the distributor.
The distributor should only get a fair markup over
his costs for delivering it to you... nothing more.
If Gene Scott held a monopoly on the TRUTH, then he
could conceivably engage in price-fixing and gouging.
But the TRUTH is the TRUTH no matter where you get it.
Contrary to what he might tell you (ie: "Leave this
church and you will go to hell." "Pay your tithe to me
or God won't have a place in heaven for you." etc.) Gene
Scott is NOT the exclusive agent of the TRUTH. The truth
stands with him, or without him. If you leave his church
God will still be there beside you.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Monetary vs. Intrinsic Value
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> For me, that Van Gogh painting is nothing at all
> and I would as soon burn it as look at it
That is because you are ignorant of its value. Because
you are ignorant, it doesn't make the Van Gogh any less
valuable.
The Van Gogh has two values... an intrinsic artistic
value and a monetary value as a historical artifact.
The latter value is subservient to the former. If it
was not a work of great artistic value, it would not
have great monetary value. It would just be an old
piece of canvas with paint on it.
If I buy it, I am buying the right to possess the
artifact itself. I am not paying 7 million dollars
for the pleasure it gave me in viewing it. There is
no way to pay for that. People can view my painting
in exhibits, buy posters of it, and look at pictures
of it in a book without paying more than the cost of
reproduction. The value to them has nothing to do
with the price they paid for the reproduction, and
it has nothing to do with the 7 million I paid for
the original. It is in the *aesthetic value* of the
painting. You can't put a price to aesthetic value.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Con Man or Fair Value
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> but even saying that you value this painting and you
> buy it, does that justify you in claiming that the
> person who took your money in the purchase spent it
> wrong?
Your logic is a bit muddled, but I see what you are
getting at...
No, I would not be upset with the person who sold the
painting to me because when I paid the $7 million,
I took possession of the historical artifact. It is
my physical property. I can hang it in my house and
I and my friends can enjoy it all the time. I can
wait ten years and sell it at a profit. If after ten
years it sells for 14 million, that doesn't mean that
the artwork's *intrinsic value* has doubled, only that
the *monetary value* of the artifact has. I paid for
the right to invest in the object.
What valuable physical object does Gene Scott give you?
(Please don't answer an original Gene Scott oil
painting! I don't want to get into a "what is art"
argument...)
Gene Scott gives you nothing but his time and the
benefit of his knowledge. That *is* a valuable commodity.
Tenured University Professors, (which Gene Scott is not)
make about $40,000 a year plus benefits I believe. They
don't generally own fancy horses, and they don't frolic
with ex-playboy bunnies as a rule. Gene does however...
Even if he wasn't a crook stealing God's money, I would
still categorize him as grossly overpaid.
> And to take this corruption to our current level,
> what makes you think that you have any right to claim
> that Doc is not spending the money he rightly receives
> from me in some wrong way? Is it not his money?
If you are paying him for his time and trouble in
teaching you, then by all means, he is entitled to
it, and he can spend it as foolishly as he wishes.
If you are paying him for the benefit you have
received from God, you are paying the wrong person.
And even if he *was* the right person, he would have
an obligation to spend that money wisely, and for
God's best interests. He would also have an obligation
to the people who entrusted God's money to him to
account for it.
If you as a God follower saw God's money foolishly,
you would have an obligation to God to say something
about it, whether it was your money that was being
wasted or not. God is your friend. You stick up for
your friends.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Doc as a Door to Door Salesman
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
If someone knocked on my door and showed me a book of
paintings by Van Gogh, and I listened carefully and
learned to appreciate the the art from him, I would
feel obliged to pay him something him as my teacher.
But I would not owe him for the aesthetic value of
the paintings. I would only owe him for the time he
took to share them with me. I definitely would NOT
owe him a percentage of my gross annual income. If
he tried to tell me that the spirit of Vincent Van
Gogh demanded that I give money to him, I would know
he was either a nut-case or a crook.
> Where do you get this insane idea that you have a right
> to place a value on what I hold to be worth something?
> Do I follow you around the net and say that the money
> you spent on some shopping site was wrong because the
> owner of that site bought a BMW and had a pretty
> girlfriend!
You aren't paying too much. You are just paying it to
the wrong person for the wrong reason.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Here is what I agree with you about...
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Gene Scott should be paid for the entertaining
hijinx he fills our TV screens with. TV entertainers
generally make a good money.
If his teaching skills have been valuable to you,
you should pay him for the time and effort of
teaching. Teachers should make a fair living wage.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Here is what I DON'T agree with you about...
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Giving money to Gene is the same as giving it to
God.
God wants you to give money to Gene Scott.
You will go to hell if Gene Scott teaches you and
you don't send him money.
> You are insane, you have no right at all to complain.
I may be insane, but I'm not a sucker!
Elder Perm Poom
> There are "righteousness works" and these works are
> what get us salvation and maintain our salvation. If you do
> not continue in you "righteousness works" you will lose your
> salvation. This is very clearly the teaching of Scott.
God's love needs a little refreshing every now and then, eh?
> Giving to Scott for this teaching is a "righteousness
> work" and this is all you have to do for your salvation. You
> don't have to worry about anything else in life.
Hey! That is a pretty sweet deal! (For Gene!)
> You are home free and clear by just giving to Scott.
...when in truth, you had the heart in you all along Tin Man!
> Scott says in his teachings that the only value we
> can put on anything is a dollar value because money is
> the only standard accepted world wide and is in fact
> the only way we can value anything.
Does that knuckleheaded argument really come from Gene-o?!
I never heard him teach that! I thought Steve came up with
it on his own.
> So as you can see Scott and the scottites have totally
> misconstrued the entire message of the bible and God's
> rewards. Pretty Pathetic isn't it.
I don't know about pathetic... Our failings are sometimes
our most endearing traits. The bulb boys do put on a good
show with their strutting and posturing. If we keep them
talking, they might run out of stuff to parrot. That might
actually lead to some free thinking.
Stevem702
>figure this out so here goes. There are "righteousness works" and these
>works are what get us salvation and maintain our salvation. If you do
>not continue in you "righteousness works" you will loose your salvation.
>This is very clearly the teaching of Scott.
No.
This is not "very clearly the teaching of Scott."
Take another six months.
-Steve
Emmitt
Gee Phil your using bad language again. I notice these are some of
Scott's teachings also. By the way Dr. Scott stopped by the other day
and he didn't have anything nice to say about you.
What I have said is clearly what Scott teaches. You are just not
filled with the H.S. or you could have figured it out.
Philip and Terry Daigle wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, Emmitt <emal...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Emmitt writes:
>
> From: Phil.
>
> This was to good to pass up.
>
> >There you go again Perm making sense but the scottites will never get
> >it. Your post is correct but what you don't seem to realize is the
> >scottites are getting something for their money. It took me 6 months to
> >figure this out so here goes.
>
> Ah, and here is where the lies come in, and in ONLY 6 months!
>
> >There are "righteousness works" and these
> >works are what get us salvation and maintain our salvation.
>
> WRONG, purveyor of filth and deception; I explicitly told you that works had
> nothing to do with salvation and yet you just "have" to believe your own
> lies! YOU, asshole, said that! I never did...
>
Emmitt writes:
Phil I hate to tell you this but the "righteous works" we are saved by
are the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what you are saying
is these are not enough, we have to continue "righteous works" on our
part.
> >If you do
> >not continue in you "righteousness works" you will loose your salvation.
>
> More slander and deception, just pile it on Emmitt/AB, your on a roll now!
>
Emmitt writes:
Wrong again Phil, you have to go back and look at what you wrote.
>
>This is very clearly the teaching of Scott.
>
> NO, it is NOT. I have listened to Doc since '82, never, not once, has Doc
> ever said that and neither have I or anyone else in this group. Liar.
Emmitt Writes:
I have heard Scott say many times that if you do not continue to do
"righteous works" or leave his church you will loose your salvation.
You've been listing to Scott since 82 and I occasionly listen to him.
You must block out some of the things he said.
Now for the fun part.
>
> I'm waiting with baited breath...
>
> >Yes you guessed it. Giving to Scott for this teaching is a "righteousness
> >work"...
>
> The giving alone does not make it righteous, it is the manner in which it is
> given - In faith.
Emmitt writes:
I assumed that you were giving in faith. My mistake. Let me rephrase it.
Giving to Scott in faith is a "righteous work".
> >
...and this is all you have to do for your salvation.
>
> You equate giving with salvation again without the justification of faith,
> pure zombie fare, you see the money and not the value in the gift of faith
> irrespective of the worth of the money. You are blind to faith and to gifts.
Emmitt writes:
Giving to Scott in faith is a "righteous work" that will keep your
salvation and earn you more points in heaven. How's that Phil.
> >You don't have
> >to worry about anything else in life. You are home free and clear by
> >just giving to Scott.
>
> You just can't understand, can you? We don't give to Doc, we give to God,
> the distinction is lost on all the lost in the world.
Emmitt writes:
You don't give to Scott you give to God. You sure have everyone else
fooled on that one Phil. I can see all of "God's work" Scott has done
with the money.
> >Scott says in his teachings that the only value we
> >can put on anything is a dollar value because money is the only standard
> >accepted world wide and is in fact the only way we can value anything.
>
> True; value, for most Americans, is in dollars but when you ask what
> happiness is worth the analogy breaks down. "Value" is what you are willing
> to sacrifice to get more of, whether it be dollars in time spent at work or
> those same dollars paid out to a school that will teach us.
>
> Either way, someone spent their "time" in what has value to them no matter
> the means of exchange provided so "time spent" is a more accurate measure of
> value than dollars but it is a poor indication of worth to the person
> providing it since we don't all make the same wage. A hundred dollars to one
> person is not the same as a hundred dollars to another.
Emmitt writes:
Wrong again Phil. Scott writes: "Money is just ....The heart of it!"
"And God's word puts money front and center." "There is nothing more
ecclesiastical than the giving of money." You should read your pastor's
teachings.
> >So as you can see Scott and the scottites have totally misconstrued the
> >entire message of the bible and God's rewards. Pretty Pathetic isn't it.
>
> You have lied about Doc's message and know little of what the Bible teaches,
> that is more than pathetic, it is demonic.
Emmitt Writes:
Phil I think you are out of control. I have stated what Scott teaches
and when you are faced the hard cold truth you get upset. Could you have
Terry write next time. (Who's a liar.)
Emmitt
>
> >It took me 6 months to
> >figure this out so here goes. There are "righteousness works" and these
> >works are what get us salvation and maintain our salvation. If you do
> >not continue in you "righteousness works" you will loose your salvation.
> >This is very clearly the teaching of Scott.
>
>
> This is not "very clearly the teaching of Scott."
>
> Take another six months.
> -Steve
Emmit writes:
I'm sorry it's not clear to you Steve. But it sure is.
Friend,
Emmitt
Stevem702
>and he didn't have anything nice to say about you.
> What I have said is clearly what Scott teaches. You are just not
>filled with the H.S. or you could have figured it out.
You start with a lie,
proceed to say, in effect, "I'm right."
then finish off with an insult.
How persuasive you are, "friend" Emmitt.
...to third graders.
-Steve
Elder Perm Poom
> >There are "righteousness works" and these works are
> >what get us salvation and maintain our salvation. -Emmitt
>
> WRONG, purveyor of filth and deception; I explicitly told you
> that works had nothing to do with salvation and yet you just
> "have" to believe your own lies! YOU, asshole, said that! I
> never did... -Phil
Actually Phil is right, Emmitt. He never said that works were
required to get salvation, that is "unmerited grace". The bulb
boys only believe that works are required to *maintain*
salvation. (ie: stop payin' for the teachin' and you are going
straight to hell in a handbasket.)
> >If you do not continue in you "righteousness
> > works" you will loose your salvation. -Emmitt
>
> More slander and deception, just pile it on Emmitt/AB, your
> on a roll now! -Phil
OSAS is the core of Emmitt's point here Phil. If you believe
unmerited grace can be lost by not performing some required
act, then you believe in "righteousness works".
> >This is very clearly the teaching of Scott.
>
> NO, it is NOT. I have listened to Doc since '82, never,
> not once, has Doc ever said that and neither have I or
> anyone else in this group. Liar. -Phil
No, Phil. You are wrong. Gene Scott has clearly said that
if you leave his church you are going to Hell. He as also
said that if you don't pay your proscribed tithe, God will
not prepare a place in heaven for you. I have heard him say
this with my own ears. I have heard Steve deny the concept
of OSAS, so others in this group have also mentioned it too.
> The giving alone does not make it righteous, it is the
> manner in which it is given - In faith. -Phil
No. I have heard Gene say that the tithe is a debt to him
personally. I have heard him say that God's blessings are
worth much more than he is charging for them... that the
tithe amount is a "bargain". That seems to clearly state
that the giving is not an outgrowth of faith, it is a clear
debt/payment relationship.
> You equate giving with salvation again without the
> justification of faith, pure zombie fare, you see the
> money and not the value in the gift of faith irrespective
> of the worth of the money. -Phil
Let's see Doc talk about your faith being more important
than your double tithe.
> You just can't understand, can you? We don't give to Doc,
> we give to God -Phil
...and the checks are to be made out in God's name and
no other! God is spelled...
g... e... n... e... s... c... o... t... t
> True; value, for most Americans, is in dollars but when you
> ask what happiness is worth the analogy breaks down. -Phil
That is one way to stick a pin in this inept justification
of bald-faced greed.
> "Value" is what you are willing to sacrifice to get more
> of, whether it be dollars in time spent at work or those
> same dollars paid out to a school that will teach us.
No. TRUE value cannot be measured in sacrifice either...
Would you be willing to cut off a toe to save your mother?
How about an arm? What about two arms and your penis? It
is silly. There isn't a measure here. You would do anything
for your mother. It can't be measured in dollars and cents,
and it can't be measured in willingness to sacrifice either.
This is the *stupidest* argument I have ever heard. This
must not be part of Doc's teaching. He is much too crafty
to expound on such an easily refuted argument.
> Either way, someone spent their "time" in what has value
> to them no matter the means of exchange provided so "time
> spent" is a more accurate measure of value than dollars but
> it is a poor indication of worth to the person providing it
> since we don't all make the same wage. A hundred dollars to
> one person is not the same as a hundred dollars to another.
> -Phil
This is a magnificently shallow thought. Time and money are
almost the same thing. This is mental masturbation of the
first order. Stop and think for a minute. Stop paraphrasing
some silly self-justifying rant and THINK.
The way to measure things that REALLY have value is in LOVE,
not TIME or MONEY.
> You have lied about Doc's message and know little of what
> the Bible teaches, that is more than pathetic, it is
> demonic. -Phil
There you go again... Criticizing Doc means you are demonic.
Say Phil... Do you know the one UNPARDONABLE SIN that the
Bible mentions? You haven't committed it yet, but you sure
do dance all around the edges of it.
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> You start with a lie,
> proceed to say, in effect, "I'm right."
> then finish off with an insult.
> How persuasive you are, "friend" Emmitt.
Why don't you explain to us how one can say "I don't
believe in OSAS, but works aren't necessary to maintain
salvation." Those seem like two contradictory statements
to me too.
Stevem702
>believe in OSAS, but works aren't necessary to maintain
>salvation." Those seem like two contradictory statements
Sure.
Continuing in faith is necessary.
In other words,
"works" aren't necessary,
"faith-actions" are.
The difference between the two being
the presence of,
and focus on,
a promise of God.
At least, that's the way I see it so far.
-Steve
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> Continuing in faith is necessary. In other words,
> "works" aren't necessary, "faith-actions" are.
Works and acts are the same thing. You can do works as a
outgrowth of faith too. In fact, a "faith-work" would
be exactly the same thing as a "faith-act" wouldn't it?
> The difference between the two being the presence of,
> and focus on, a promise of God.
God's promise is that he will forgive you of your sins.
He requires nothing more for that gift than for you to
accept it and Him.
> At least, that's the way I see it so far.
Fair 'nuff. I will be interested to hear whether you
can explain the difference between and act made in faith
and a work made in faith.
Stevem702
>prove that the value of something can be measured by how
>much it costs?!! Sheesh!
No.
I cite economists regarding the value of something
TO SOCIETY.
You've already twisted it away from that at least
two times.
*to society*, Perm.
Did you think that repeating the twist would make
it more acceptable?
-Steve
>Let's list things that society values the most. (Everyone
>might have a different order, but I think this is probably
>pretty universal...)
>
> relationship with God
> spouses
> family
> friends
> children
> pets
> the beauty of nature
> fine arts
> heritage and tradition
>
>I'm afraid I have scanned all through the Wall Street
>Journal, and I couldn't find one single reference to the
>state of these particular commodities. All of these things
>are *immeasurable* in monetary terms. They all boil down
>to LOVE and BEAUTY.
It is your position that society spends no money on
these?? Self evidently false. Society does spend
money on these. Society does value these.
> relationship with God
> spouses
> family
> friends
> children
> pets
> the beauty of nature
> fine arts
> heritage and tradition
What society does *not value is "Perm" 's teaching.
Which is why you're spending your time passing
yourself off in alt.fan.drgenescott as a "fan" of Doc,
rather than in alt.fan.perm
-Steve
> If you got a dog at the pound, does that mean that you
> value it less than an expensive purebred AKC champion?
No. It means that society values it less.
-Steve
> When you turn on the radio and hear a Mozart Oboe
> Concerto, does that mean you don't value it because
> you didn't pay anything for it?
I would have paid for the radio, paid for the program
through the purchase of advertised products and
services or government grants (taxes), etc.
I would have probably paid more to listen to the live
performance, because society valued it more.
-Steve
> >...Society is "charged" through taxes for most of
> >*both of your examples.
>
>When I kiss my mother next time, I'll make sure she is
>wearing a t-shirt that reads "Your Tax Dollars at Work"
He did not use you mother's kiss as his example,
and I plainly refered to his example.
-Steve
> >But as long as you're here in the USA,
> >there are two measures of value to society,
> >1. the free market price,
> > and
> >2. the free market price as modified by
> > governmental value intervention through
> > indirect force of arms. (taxes and subsidies, etc)
>
...
>I could go on, but I really don't think you honestly
>believe what you said.
Yes. I believe what I said. "value to society".
I do *not believe your twist "value to God or Perm or Steve"
>You are just playing rhetorical
>games. If you truly believe that statement you made
>above, you are the world's biggest fool.
>
>Come on Steve. Own up to it. You can't measure the things
>that really count with money.
I didn't say you could.
*You* said I said that.
I indicated that you can measure the value *society* has by the price it pays.
>You made a stupid comment.
>Admit it and move on. Don't keep accusing me of twisting
>your words when your words were boneheaded in the first
>place.
The twist is there to see and oft
repeated. You leave out my
"to society", which I un-failingly typed.
Then you ridicule the misquote.
-Steve
Emmitt
>
> >Why don't you explain to us how one can say "I don't
> >believe in OSAS, but works aren't necessary to maintain
> >salvation." Those seem like two contradictory statements
> >to me too. "Perm" theGodMocker
>
> Sure.
>
>
> In other words,
> "works" aren't necessary,
>
> "faith-actions" are.
>
> the presence of,
> and focus on,
> a promise of God.
>
Emmitt writes:
"faith actions" are a work. This is something you physically or
mentality do. Now the real question is: Is it a work on your part or a
work on God's part?
Friend,
Emmitt
Stevem702
>> >works are what get us salvation and maintain our salvation. If you do
>> >not continue in you "righteousness works" you will loose your salvation.
>>
>>
>> This is not "very clearly the teaching of Scott."
>>
>> Take another six months.
>> -Steve
>
>Emmit writes:
>I'm sorry it's not clear to you Steve. But it sure is.
Something that is "very clearly the teaching of Scott."
can be quoted over and over, and people of good
will from both sides can see it.
For instance, ..."giving is important to God" is
"very clearly the teaching of Scott."
For instance, ..."faithing is important" is
"very clearly the teaching of Scott."
You should write "very clearly TO ME (Emmitt) the
teaching of Scott is..."
That would be honest.
(Of no interest to me, ...but honest.)
-Steve
Stevem702
Then why have two different English words for 'em?
>You can do works as a
>outgrowth of faith too. In fact, a "faith-work" would
>be exactly the same thing as a "faith-act" wouldn't it?
hmm. Yes. true.
>God's promise is that he will forgive you of your sins.
>He requires nothing more for that gift than for you to
>accept it and Him.
as your Lord and Savior.
True. This is an act of faith.
He has promised that if you do this
He will save you.
>Fair 'nuff. I will be interested to hear whether you
>can explain the difference between and act made in faith
>and a work made in faith.
The two classes of actions are
faith-actions
and
work-without-faith-actions
delineated by
> The difference between the two being the presence of,
> and focus on, a promise of God.
-Steve
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> >Are *THESE* your two references?!! You cite economists to
> >prove that the value of something can be measured by how
> >much it costs?!! Sheesh! -PermPoom
>
> No. I cite economists regarding the value of something
> TO SOCIETY. -Steve
People ARE society. I listed things that society valued
the most, and I think I proved pretty convincingly that
there is no way to measure those most valuable things
in monetary terms.
You can restate your original unsupported statement as
a substitute for meaningful discussion, but it isn't
very effective in proving your point.
Re: Things people value the most... Friends, family, etc.
> It is your position that society spends no money on
> these?? Self evidently false. Society does spend
> money on these. Society does value these. -Steve
What kind of an argument is that? Sit down and look
at your budget and see what you spent the most money
on last year? Is that the thing you most value? Is
that the thing that society most values? No. Look at
the budget of the United States Government. How much
was alloted to the "Department of Mother Love"? How
many trillions did we spend last year on "The Bureau
of Spousal Devotion"?
> What society does *not value is "Perm" 's teaching.
That one earns a yadda yadda yadda...
> Which is why you're spending your time passing
> yourself off in alt.fan.drgenescott as a "fan" of Doc,
> rather than in alt.fan.perm -Steve
Perhaps you should draft some sort of entrance exam.
>> If you got a dog at the pound, does that mean that you
>> value it less than an expensive purebred AKC champion?
>
> No. It means that society values it less. -Steve
What? Society values pets in general. Everyone loves
their dog, whether it is a purebred or a mutt. Prove
to me that society values purebred dogs over mutts,
please. Just saying "They cost more" won't cut it
though... that would be a self-justifying, circular
argument.
> > When you turn on the radio and hear a Mozart Oboe
> > Concerto, does that mean you don't value it because
> > you didn't pay anything for it?
>
> I would have paid for the radio, paid for the program
> through the purchase of advertised products and
> services or government grants (taxes), etc.
All right. The radio cost you $20. You listen to a lot
of stuff on that radio, not just this particular piece.
If you divided the $20 up into an hourly rate for the
time you spent listening to the particular concerto,
it might be about 5 cents.
Amatorized over all the listeners, your share of the
advertising money, government grants, CD manufacture,
performance rights and production costs of recording
the music comes out to be about 10 cents. Does that
mean that Mozart is worth $0.15 to you?
This argument is getting you nowhere.
> I would have probably paid more to listen to the live
> performance, because society valued it more. -Steve
You would pay more for a live performance because
there would be less people to amatorize the performance
costs over. It has nothing to do with what society
values or doesn't value.
> > >...Society is "charged" through taxes for most of
> > >*both of your examples. -Steve
> >
> >When I kiss my mother next time, I'll make sure she is
> >wearing a t-shirt that reads "Your Tax Dollars at Work"
> >-PermPoom
>
> He did not use you mother's kiss as his example,
> and I plainly refered to his example. -Steve
Well duh! I can tell that... The reason I mentioned it was
because your argument falls apart when it is applied to
things that have real value.
> Yes. I believe what I said. "value to society". I do
> *not believe your twist "value to God or Perm or Steve"
Read my post again. I was talking about things that PEOPLE
(read: Society) value the most.
> >Come on Steve. Own up to it. You can't measure the things
> >that really count with money.
>
> I didn't say you could. *You* said I said that. I
> indicated that you can measure the value *society* has
> by the price it pays.
Read my post again if you don't understand it.
> The twist is there to see and oft repeated. You leave out my
> "to society", which I un-failingly typed. Then you ridicule
> the misquote. -Steve
I love the way you and Phil use high-falootin' language
to make your hair-brained statements sound intelligent.
I also like all the line breaks you use between your
comments. It really does make them seem more profound
when there is all that white space around them, doesn't
it.
You know something? I don't think you understand the stuff
you say at all. I think you are playing at being a big
scholar by parroting something you overheard someone else
saying. If you had really put some thought into what you
were talking about, you might have been able to argue
your point intelligently.
Tell me... why should anyone take you seriously? You
claim that Emmitt doesn't respond to your points, and
yet you respond to a thorough response to your statement
by completely ignoring all of the points that I made,
and repeating the same unsupported statement. Sounds
to me like you are guilty of exactly what you accuse
others of doing.
People don't go to school to learn to parrot opinions
and arguments, they go to school to learn how to create
reasoned opinions and arguments of their own. I get the
feeling that this is the main difference between a
university education and a university network education.
Gene Scott doesn't want to teach you *how* to think. He
wants to teach you *what* to think. I hope you are
enjoying the teachin'... I don't really see any point
to continuing to argue against the brick wall of your
ignorance.
Elder Perm Poom
>
> Then why have two different English words for 'em? -Steve
The Eskimos have twenty different words for the word "snow".
Believe it or not, the English language contains words which
are spelled differently, but have the same meaning. These are
called "synonyms".
> >You can do works as a outgrowth of faith too. In
> >fact, a "faith-work" would be exactly the same thing
> >as a "faith-act" wouldn't it? -PermPoom
>
> hmm. Yes. true. -Steve
If "faith-work" and "faith-act" are synonyms, then
"work" and "act" are synonyms, correct?
> The two classes of actions are faith-actions and
> work-without-faith-actions delineated by
> > The difference between the two being the presence of,
> > and focus on, a promise of God. -Steve
That is a good repetition of the exact same words you
repeated before... I am looking for the meaning behind
the words, not the rote repetition of them...
God might move us to perform a work... If we chose
to perform it, we would be "in the presence of and
focused on the promise of God", wouldn't we?
If a work can be performed with the presence of, and
focused on the promise of God, then what is different
between that work and a faith-action?
Next question...
In the Bible, God has many instructions for us...
many requests for us to perform works/acts in faith.
Tithing is just one of them... other things which
outline actions which God wants us to take are
contained in the Ten Commandments, the Beattitudes,
etc... There are a lot of things God asks of us.
No one, not even a "good" Christian or someone whose
faith is true is perfect in fulfilling all of these
requests.
If we do not perform flawlessly, God might be angry,
but he wouldn't damn us to hell if we have claimed
the redemption. Otherwise, no one would be able to
live up to the standard required. We claim redemption
based on unmerited grace.
So... As I see it... (let me know which of these
statements you believe to be false and why.)
"Works" and "Actions" are synonyms.
God asks us to perform certain works/actions in
the Bible.
If we choose to perform a work at God's request,
we are doing it in the presence of, and with
focus on the promise of God.
Even a person who has true faith will fail to
perform all of the works/acts God asks of him
sometimes. "All have fallen short..."
If we fail to perform a particular work/action,
God will not like it, but He will not take away
our redemption, because works do not guarantee
redemption... it is unmerited grace.
If all of these are true, then my question is... How
can Gene Scott say these things?
"We are saved by unmerited grace, not by works."
and
"If you don't send your tithes to the one who gave
you the teaching, God will not prepare a place in
heaven for you"
The way I see it, a sincere member of Gene Scott's
church would still be saved whether he gave a penny
to Gene or not. The first statement is true. The
second one is false. Why am I wrong in saying that?
Stevem702
>are spelled differently, but have the same meaning. These are
>called "synonyms".
Sarcastic definitions like that work better if they are accurate.
There are very few words meeting this definition
of yours.
There are however, more words meeting the *true*
and more inclusive definition of "synonym" as
"words having the same OR NEARLY THE SAME
meaning"
...and That is why there are the two different words
"act" and "work". They do not mean the same thing.
They can be used to mean the same thing, they can
also be used to mean nearly the same thing, but to
baldly assert that they mean the same thing where-
ever written, and by whomever, is wrong.
To base doctrine on doing that is reckless.
"Works" is often used to mean::
"actions in obedience to a law or rule,
without regard to a promise of God."
"Works" is often used to mean other things, as well.
That is why I use the terms such as "faith-actions",
In an attempt to avoid confusion and purposeful twisting.
-Steve
>God might move us to perform a work... If we chose
>to perform it, we would be "in the presence of and
>focused on the promise of God", wouldn't we?
God moved Pharoah to let His people go.
That doesn't make Pharoah a Hero of Faith.
-Steve
>If a work can be performed with the presence of, and
>focused on the promise of God, then what is different
>between that work and a faith-action?
The presence of a promise of God,
and focus on that promise of God.
-Steve
>Next question...
>
>In the Bible, God has many instructions for us...
>many requests for us to perform works/acts in faith.
>Tithing is just one of them... other things which
>outline actions which God wants us to take are
>contained in the Ten Commandments, the Beattitudes,
>etc... There are a lot of things God asks of us.
>No one, not even a "good" Christian or someone whose
>faith is true is perfect in fulfilling all of these
>requests.
>
>If we do not perform flawlessly, God might be angry,
>but he wouldn't damn us to hell if we have claimed
>the redemption. Otherwise, no one would be able to
>live up to the standard required. We claim redemption
>based on unmerited grace.
Quite so. Quite so.
-Steve
>
>So... As I see it... (let me know which of these
>statements you believe to be false and why.)
>
> "Works" and "Actions" are synonyms.
Not exactly, but they can be used as such.
-Steve
> God asks us to perform certain works/actions in
> the Bible.
>
> If we choose to perform a work at God's request,
> we are doing it in the presence of, and with
> focus on the promise of God.
In the presence of God, ...yes. (But that is not
what I meant. I meant the presence of a promise
of God in the scenerio.)
Sometimes one can perform an action at God's
directive, ...without faith(trust) being involved,
just obedience.
-Steve
> Even a person who has true faith will fail to
> perform all of the works/acts God asks of him
> sometimes. "All have fallen short..."
>
> If we fail to perform a particular work/action,
> God will not like it, but He will not take away
> our redemption, because works do not guarantee
> redemption... it is unmerited grace.
Apparently, one must continue to perform some sort
of faith-action to continue to have God's life put into
you and continue to grow towards God.
Also, apparantly, OSAS is not true
(it's not heresy...IMHO :)
...I just don't think it is correct)
and one must continue to perform some sort of faith-action to continue to have
God's life in you.
A debatable position though.
-Steve
>If all of these are true, then my question is... How
>can Gene Scott say these things?
>
> "We are saved by unmerited grace, not by works."
>
> and
>
> "If you don't send your tithes to the one who gave
> you the teaching, God will not prepare a place in
> heaven for you"
>
>The way I see it, a sincere member of Gene Scott's
>church would still be saved whether he gave a penny
>to Gene or not. The first statement is true. The
>second one is false. Why am I wrong in saying that?
Careful there, Perm.
Be very careful.
Such apparently sincere discussion as that above,
delivered without sarcasm or mockery, could,
if continued,
endanger your status as God-mocker.
IMHO,
Doc does not equate "send your tithes..." in your
second quote with the term "works" in your
first quote,
because "send your tithes..." is associated with
a promise of God to "open the windows of heaven"
and is also a fundamental trusting of a Spiritual God
by 'wasting' Material Things because He said to do it.
It is giving up a portion of certainty in tomorrow's
dinner, in a trusting action that involves trust that
He will provide.
If one can't trust God promise enough to give up 10%,
of your material stuff in hand, because your worried that you will need
it...that is not trust,
and Doc believes that God only prepares places in
heaven for those who trust Him, contrary to your
professed belief.
-Steve
Emmitt
>
>
> >Emmitt writes:
> >"faith actions" are a work. This is something you physically or
> >mentality do. Now the real question is: Is it a work on your part or a
> >work on God's part?
> >
> >Friend,
> >Emmitt
>
>
> That's a good question Emmitt. Let me ask you some questions...Did God give
> you a free will?
Emmitt writes:
God did not give us a free will. It does not say anywhere in the bible
that man has a free will. What the bible says is we are slaves of the
world or slaves of Christ.
Why would God give you a free will if He didn't want you
> to do *something*. And what would that *something be?
Emmitt writes:
The great commission was a command and the H.S. leads you in all things.
What is the element
> that makes Jesus our *kinsman redeemer?
Emmitt writes:
Jesus is God.
If God wants something from us,
> what parts of our selves do think are involved in that? Would you think it
> involves the mind only as a belief, or would you think that it would also
> involve the physical?
Emmitt writes:
Yes. It involves our life style. A born again christian leads a
christian life style. I hope I don't have to tell you what a christian
life style is. Does Scott appear to lead a christian life style?
Last question...what actions are the element of
> *true* faith?
Emmitt writes:
As I said a christian life style. Confess with our mouth and believe in
our heart that Jesus Christ is God.
Man of his own volition does nothing good or righteous in God's eyes.
Please read Rom 3:9-18. We have no "righteous works" in God's eyes.
Zeke...@concentric.net
>> what parts of our selves do think are involved in that? Would you think
it
>> involves the mind only as a belief, or would you think that it would also
>> involve the physical?
>
>Emmitt writes:
>Yes. It involves our life style. A born again christian leads a
>christian life style. I hope I don't have to tell you what a christian
>life style is. Does Scott appear to lead a christian life style?
I'd really like to know what your perception of a "Christian lifestyle" is.
I'm a Christian. I have no idea what it is.
Thanks
Eric
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> > the English language contains words which are
> >spelled differently, but have the same meaning. These
> >are called "synonyms".
>
> There are very few words meeting this definition
> of yours.
Well, lets see... dog/pooch... cat/pussy...
child/kid... infant/baby... shall I keep going?
There are a *lot* of synonyms that fit my definition.
> There are however, more words meeting the *true*
> and more inclusive definition of "synonym" as
> "words having the same OR NEARLY THE SAME
> meaning"
Why is it that your only response to any argument is
to say the gist of it isn't true because of a minor
semantic quibble? Semantic arguments like this are
a very poor way of scoring points in an argument.
> ...and That is why there are the two different words
> "act" and "work". They do not mean the same thing.
You said a "faith-work" was the same as a "faith-act".
> They can be used to mean the same thing, they can
> also be used to mean nearly the same thing, but to
> baldly assert that they mean the same thing where-
> ever written, and by whomever, is wrong.
Agreed. I never claimed that they had the same meaning
in all cases, just in the context that I was using them.
> "Works" is often used to mean::
> "actions in obedience to a law or rule,
> without regard to a promise of God."
That is a self-justifying definition. You made it up
yourself. (..or more accurately, Gene Scott made it
up for you and you are simply regurgitating it...)
"Works" means:
Actions taken in order to please God or
live up to His standards.
"Acts" means:
A physical performance of an action.
Therefore, "acts" is a broader term than "works". However
"works" are a subset of "acts".
A work can be an action taken at the behest of God based
on the promises He makes, or an action that is undertaken
by oneself, in the hopes that it will please God.
An act can be taken for any reason at all.
Here is another way of stating my point that I think is
perfectly valid.
Actions do not guarantee redemption. We receive it
as a gift without deserving it.
When I say "actions" I mean that as any sort of action
that is meant to please God or live up to his standards.
This includes refraining from sin, the law, and tithing.
> That is why I use the terms such as "faith-actions",
> In an attempt to avoid confusion and purposeful twisting.
"Faith-Actions" is a buzz-word created by Gene Scott to
justify declaring that the Tithe to him is a requirement
for maintaining salvation. The purpose of a buzz-word like
this is to create a statement that acts as its own proof,
irrespective of the truth.
Any work or act can be undertaken in faith. All it takes
is God requesting it of us. Fulfilling all of God's
requests of us does not guarantee salvation because all
of us have fallen short in some way or another.
> >God might move us to perform a work... If we chose
> >to perform it, we would be "in the presence of and
> >focused on the promise of God", wouldn't we?
>
> God moved Pharoah to let His people go.
> That doesn't make Pharoah a Hero of Faith. -Steve
How could someone before the birth of Christ claim the
redemption based on Christ's sacrifice? This would clearly
fall under the old law, where works and sacrifices *were*
the only way to gain salvation. This example has no meaning
here.
> >If a work can be performed with the presence of, and
> >focused on the promise of God, then what is different
> >between that work and a faith-action?
>
> The presence of a promise of God,
> and focus on that promise of God. -Steve
You are chanting a mantra without understanding the
meaning. Read my question again.
> > "Works" and "Actions" are synonyms.
>
> Not exactly, but they can be used as such.
That is the context in which I used them.
> > God asks us to perform certain works/actions in
> > the Bible.
I am assuming you agree to this statement too.
> > If we choose to perform a work at God's request,
> > we are doing it in the presence of, and with
> > focus on the promise of God.
>
> In the presence of God, ...yes. (But that is not
> what I meant. I meant the presence of a promise
> of God in the scenerio.)
>
> Sometimes one can perform an action at God's
> directive, ...without faith(trust) being involved,
> just obedience. -Steve
All right... I can see that. Someone could perform the
act out of fear.
Then let's look at it from the other side. Let's assume
that one can fail to have faith and lose his gift.
Let's say that someone claims redemtion through the
sacrifice of Christ. A year later, he has an accident
which causes him to falter in his faith. He continues
to watch Gene and learns without paying. His faith is
weak though. Does he then lose his redemption?
If he wants to return to God, does he have to be
re-redeemed?
Everyone has lapses of faith. Do we have to continually
reclaim our gift? I have heard people criticize "Jack-
in-the-Box Christians" who pray the prayer accepting
Christ into their life every time they make a mistake
or sin. Do you believe that we need to re-enlist
every time our faith becomes weak?
> Apparently, one must continue to perform some sort
> of faith-action to continue to have God's life put into
> you and continue to grow towards God.
It goes beyond just having God's life be put into you
and continuing to grow towards God. Gene has stated
that if you don't tithe to him, you will go to hell.
But putting that aside... I have watched enough Sunday
Mornings at the King's House to know that sending in
your tithe to Gene Scott is a "faith-action" that is
required to maintain salvation. Has Gene Scott ever
mentioned any other "faith actions" that are
prerequisites to claiming salvation?
I don't think he has. I think he made up this whole
schpiel just to scare you into making out those checks.
When you think about it, and compare it to what you
read in the Bible, it is a clear self-serving
justification of Gene's greed. The worst part of it,
is that he is compromising the greatest gift that we
can ever receive, just to justify a piece of Old
Testament law that says you are supposed to pay the
teacher.
> Doc does not equate "send your tithes..." in your
> second quote with the term "works" in your
> first quote, because "send your tithes..." is
> associated with a promise of God to "open the windows
> of heaven"
Christ is there at the gate letting us walk in the
front door by his sacrifice. We don't need to climb
in the window.
God might bless us in some material way here on earth
if we make actions on his behalf in faith. (Rev. Tilton
just loves to quote that bit ad-nauseum.) But our
performance here on earth has nothing to do with our
eventual salvation, or lack thereof.
> and is also a fundamental trusting of a Spiritual God
> by 'wasting' Material Things because He said to do it.
Are you using "wasting" as a synonym for "sacrifice"?
Because sacrifices to gain redemption have been rendered
obsolete along with the Old Law.
> It is giving up a portion of certainty in tomorrow's
> dinner, in a trusting action that involves trust that
> He will provide.
Where does it say that this is required to maintain
salvation? This sounds like "sacrifice" to me.
> If one can't trust God promise enough to give up 10%,
> of your material stuff in hand, because your worried
> that you will need it...that is not trust,
> and Doc believes that God only prepares places in
> heaven for those who trust Him -Steve
I don't believe anyone's faith in God is measured by how
big a check they make out to "W. euGene Scott". I think
that faith is much more important than that. To say that
one's salvation is determined by the amount they gave
Gene in relation to their gross annual income cheapens
the real gift we have received.
A lot of preachers claim "God wants you to send them
money". Gene is the only one I know who has the guts
to ad the "or else." He deserves a thump to the backside
of his head for that.
Elder Perm Poom
> Yes. It involves our life style. A born again christian leads a
> christian life style. I hope I don't have to tell you what a christian
> life style is. Does Scott appear to lead a christian life style?
This is one point I differ with you on Friend Emmitt.
A true Christian will *try* to do this, but everyone
is subject to the same sort of failings as anyone else
in their quest to achieve perfection.
Gene Scott isn't wrong because he sins, he is wrong
because he doesn't even try. He is twisting the message
to justify his own greed. He is cheapening the sacrifice
Jesus made for our sakes.
Will Gene go to hell for this?
No. I don't think so. I expect to see sinners
in heaven too.
Is he a good teacher and role model for other Christians?
No. He can't effectively teach God's word when
he insists on putting his own values and desires
ahead of God's.
At least Jimmy Swaggart admitted he was wrong.
Stevem702
>> >spelled differently, but have the same meaning. These
>>
>> There are very few words meeting this definition
>
>Well, lets see... dog/pooch... cat/pussy...
>child/kid... infant/baby... shall I keep going?
>There are a *lot* of synonyms that fit my definition
The definition of dog is not the same as for pooch,
the same for the rest of your list. For instance,
has anyone ever patted you on your pooch?
The definition for synonim includes words that are
*nearly* the same. Why do you defend a stupid,
non-standard definition of it as limited to *only
the same?
I repeat,...they *can sometimes be used for the same
thing, but ....
I waste my time.
Your ignorant arguementiveness astounds.
>> "Works" is often used to mean::
>> "actions in obedience to a law or rule,
>> without regard to a promise of God."
>
>That is a self-justifying definition. You made it up
>yourself. (..or more accurately, Gene Scott made it
>up for you and you are simply regurgitating it...)
>
> "Works" means:
> Actions taken in order to please God or
> live up to His standards.
>
> "Acts" means:
> A physical performance of an action.
...and so you proceed to post your own definition.
...but *your's* is NOT a "self-justifying definition"??
Let's see. Mine is.
Your's is not.
hmmm.
>The purpose of a buzz-word like
>this is to create a statement that acts as its own proof,
>irrespective of the truth.
What a crock.
It is used, with definition attached, to avoid what
mockers and twisters like you do to "synonyms".
-Steve
>> >God might move us to perform a work... If we chose
>> >to perform it, we would be "in the presence of and
>> >focused on the promise of God", wouldn't we?
>>
>> God moved Pharoah to let His people go.
>> That doesn't make Pharoah a Hero of Faith. -Steve
>
>How could someone before the birth of Christ claim the
>redemption based on Christ's sacrifice? This would clearly
>fall under the old law, where works and sacrifices *were*
>the only way to gain salvation. This example has no meaning
>here.
Nope.
No one gained salvation through their own works
and their own sacrifices. Some merely gained
a holding scenario until He made the sacrifice
to which their's pointed.
No one gains salvation apart from Jesus' sacrifice.
No one comes to the Father except by Him.
(You say you do study the words of Jesus, right?)
Read Hebrews 11 for a whole list of people who
gained salvation by faith-actions resulting in God's
imputation of His life.
Faith-actions, ...not works-of-Law or blood-sacrifices.
-Steve
>Let's say that someone claims redemtion through the
>sacrifice of Christ. A year later, he has an accident
>which causes him to falter in his faith. He continues
>to watch Gene and learns without paying. His faith is
>weak though. Does he then lose his redemption?
>If he wants to return to God, does he have to be
>re-redeemed?
I, unlike you and Emmitt, have little interest in
passing judgement on other's redemption, or
what-if scenerios of same.
-Steve
>Do you believe that we need to re-enlist
>every time our faith becomes weak?
Not really, ...I believe we need to continue to
faith, for growth and possibly for retention of
salvation, and work-out our salvation with some
un-easiness and earnest-ness.
>Gene has stated
>that if you don't tithe to him, you will go to hell.
I tire of this lie.
You complain like "it's only semantics, so let it
slide!" and keep posting this crock.
So I must get into your deceptive "semantics".
It comes down to the word "you".
Who is Doc talking to in this? You, Perm?
The faithful person in another's flock?
No.
He was talking to HIS congregation, jerk.
...and you know it, and twist it to say,
"If ONE doesn't tithe to him..."
or
"if anyone doesn't tithe to him..."
He believes that giving is so fundamental
and so blatantly tied to a promise,
and so often taught about to his congregation,
that HIS congregation have no excuse
not to tithe.
He believes that the pastor-teacher is the
proper place to place that tithe.
You don't. Who cares what you believe about it?
He was talking to *his congregation.
You know this is what he means.
You decieve by pretending that you don't know that.
You know he teaches and believes that
if one has another pastor that is
giving them the good news, then you
should tithe to them.
You know all this, yet use your
"Oh! It's just semantics!" to hide your
twisted accusation that Doc teaches
that no one in the world will be saved unless
they tithe through Doc.
How do you sleep at night posting such
obvious lies and drivel?
Can't find true disagreements to mock?
Have to make it up??
-Steve
Emmitt
>
> > If God wants something from us,
> >> what parts of our selves do think are involved in that? Would you think
> it
> >> involves the mind only as a belief, or would you think that it would also
> >> involve the physical?
> >
> >Emmitt writes:
> >christian life style. I hope I don't have to tell you what a christian
> >life style is. Does Scott appear to lead a christian life style?
>
>
> I'm a Christian. I have no idea what it is.
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
Emmitt writes:
Hi Eric,
If you are a christian, and are saying you have no idea what a
christian life style is, would you say you are really asking what is a
christian or how do I know if I am a christian?
How do I know if I am a christian (born again, saved)?
Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God.
In other words you will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are
a born again christian because you now are indwelled by the H.S. and
your life will change. For me it was moderation towards all worldly
things and a major emphases on my personal relationship with Jesus
Christ. With this a christian life style will follow.
If you want to know what the christian attributes are let me know and
I will list them for you.
Friend,
Emmitt
Emmitt
> > christian life style. I hope I don't have to tell you what a christian
> > life style is. Does Scott appear to lead a christian life style?
>
>
> A true Christian will *try* to do this, but everyone
> is subject to the same sort of failings as anyone else
> in their quest to achieve perfection.
Emmitt writes:
I didn't say that a christian life style meant that a christian had to
be perfect? As the saying goes: "a christian isn't perfect just saved".
It means he is striving toward perfection. But while we are on the
subject let me tell you what a christian life style isn't.
1Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor
thieves, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
What God is saying here is these are not one time sins but a
continuing life style that a person lives by. And very clearly he will
not go to heaven when he dies.
>
> Gene Scott isn't wrong because he sins, he is wrong
> because he doesn't even try. He is twisting the message
> to justify his own greed. He is cheapening the sacrifice
> Jesus made for our sakes.
Emmitt writes:
Scott certainly is wrong and it's because of his opulent life style.
> Will Gene go to hell for this?
> No. I don't think so. I expect to see sinners
> in heaven too.
Emmitt writes:
I'm a sinner and I'll be in heaven because all my sins have been paid
for. A born again christian is a person who has no sin in God's eyes.
> Is he a good teacher and role model for other Christians?
> No. He can't effectively teach God's word when
> he insists on putting his own values and desires
> ahead of God's.
>
> At least Jimmy Swaggart admitted he was wrong.
Emmitt writes:
But did Swaggart ever change his life style? I don't know but God does.
I'm sure you will disagree with me on many things. I (as a christian) am
coming from a biblical perspective. I understand your position perfectly
but it's not mine.
Friend,
Emmitt
Stevem702
>christian life style is, would you say you are really asking what is a
LIfestyle doesn't make you a Christian.
On the other hand, being a true Christian for a
period of time (walking in faith) will change your lifestyle.
-Steve
>personal relationship with Jesus
>Christ. With this a christian life style will follow. -Emmitt
Changes in lifestyle will be caused by having and keeping
His life in you.
But this is not a toggle switch of perfection.
The toggle switch of perfection "Behold all things become new"
is speaking of the Spirit, IMHO,
the soul changes more slowly,
and the body won't change until the end.
-Steve
Stevem702
>the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor
>thieves, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> What God is saying here is these are not one time sins but a
>continuing life style that a person lives by. And very clearly he will
Judgemental claptrap.
An alternate interpretation:
He is stating the obvious (sinners don't go to heaven).
(From His other statements, we know that wanting to
steal something or lusting in your heart is also close
enough to being as bad as the actual deed as to
keep you from heaven.)
In other words, ...everyone needs a Savior.
Although I am tempted to dwell on the "effeminate" and
"revilers" portions in a judgemental claptrap type way.
<sigh> I resist.
-Steve
>I'm sure you will disagree with me on many things. I (as a christian) am
>coming from a biblical perspective -"Friend" Emmitt
The sad thing is, ...sometimes you don't even realize
that you are insulting your brother Christian.
"I am coming from a biblical perspective, but yoouuu are not,
nana na na na na."
-Steve
Elder Perm Poom
stev...@aol.com (Stevem702) wrote:
> The definition of dog is not the same as for pooch,
> the same for the rest of your list. For instance,
> has anyone ever patted you on your pooch?
Of course it is. A dog is a pooch. And no, no one has
ever patted me on the dog, or on the pooch for that
matter. They have patted my dog, who is also my pooch
though.
> I waste my time.
> Your ignorant arguementiveness astounds.
Your ignorance with no argument to back it up isn't
surprising at all.
> ...and so you proceed to post your own definition.
> ...but *your's* is NOT a "self-justifying definition"??
> Let's see. Mine is. Your's is not.
Correct.
> >The purpose of a buzz-word like
> >this is to create a statement that acts as its own proof,
> >irrespective of the truth.
>
> What a crock.
> It is used, with definition attached, to avoid what
> mockers and twisters like you do to "synonyms". -Steve
Use of "Buzz words" is a standard technique in propaganda.
It's also popular with cults.
> >Let's say that someone claims redemtion through the
> >sacrifice of Christ. A year later, he has an accident
> >which causes him to falter in his faith. He continues
> >to watch Gene and learns without paying. His faith is
> >weak though. Does he then lose his redemption?
> >If he wants to return to God, does he have to be
> >re-redeemed?
>
> I, unlike you and Emmitt, have little interest in
> passing judgement on other's redemption, or
> what-if scenerios of same. -Steve
At least Emmitt clearly states what he believes and says
why. He is secure enough in his beliefs to not be afraid
of having to explain them. I would wager that if he decides
he is wrong, he will back down and not keep beating a dead
horse.
> >Gene has stated
> >that if you don't tithe to him, you will go to hell.
> It comes down to the word "you".
> Who is Doc talking to in this? You, Perm?
Nope. He is smart enough to know he can't badger and
threaten me into sending him money.
> He was talking to HIS congregation, jerk.
> ...and you know it, and twist it to say,
> "If ONE doesn't tithe to him..."
> or "if anyone doesn't tithe to him..."
Did I say that above? I said "you". I was speaking to
YOU. He says YOU will go to hell if YOU don't send him
money. That is a lie.
> He believes that giving is so fundamental
> and so blatantly tied to a promise,
> and so often taught about to his congregation,
> that HIS congregation have no excuse
> not to tithe.
Sure... The checks are made out in his name, not God's.
He has plenty of vested interest for saying that.
The thing is, Gene Scott is not the one who will be
judging us, as much as he loves to here on earth.
> He was talking to *his congregation.
> You know this is what he means.
> You decieve by pretending that you don't know that.
I realize that. I am saying that even if you *are* a
member of his congregation and fail to tithe to him,
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO HELL FOR IT. Gene is lying
to try to scare you. (And yes, I do believe he is
lying with intent.)
> You know he teaches and believes that
> if one has another pastor that is
> giving them the good news, then you
> should tithe to them.
So do I. The problem isn't whether you should or
shouldn't tithe to him. The problem is whether you
will go to hell if you don't.
I also think that a pastor has a responsibility to
his congregation to use God's money wisely and not
for selfish purposes. But Gene puts all of the
responsibilities on his congregation and none on
himself.
> How do you sleep at night posting such
> obvious lies and drivel?
yadda yadda yadda
You aren't doing too well in this discussion Steve.
Perhaps you should just call me an "asshole" and give
up.
Elder Perm Poom
> > What God is saying here is these are not one time sins but a
> >continuing life style that a person lives by. And very clearly he will
> >not go to heaven when he dies. -Emmitt
I have to admit... reading this again, I am hard-pressed to
tell the difference between a "one time sin" and a "continuing
life style". Everyone has an ongoing relationship with sin.
Even Christians. No sin is any better or worse than any other.
Elder Perm Poom
> I didn't say that a christian life style meant that a christian had to
> be perfect? As the saying goes: "a christian isn't perfect just saved".
> It means he is striving toward perfection.
All right. Then we agree. I don't think you can say someone
isn't a Christian because they sin. That's all.
> But did Swaggart ever change his life style?
He would have had to. He got knocked down a lot of pegs. There
were plenty of his peers (one who goes without saying) who
were happy to gleefully kick him while he was down. That can
have quite a humbling impact on someone.
Zeke...@concentric.net
>> >Yes. It involves our life style. A born again christian leads a
>> >christian life style. I hope I don't have to tell you what a christian
>> >life style is. Does Scott appear to lead a christian life style?
>>
is.
>>
>> I'm a Christian. I have no idea what it is.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Eric
>
>
>Emmitt writes:
>Hi Eric,
>christian life style is, would you say you are really asking what is a
>christian or how do I know if I am a christian?
Absolutely not.
What I'm asking is, what is your perception of a "Christian lifestyle".
Despite your hope, I'd like you to to tell me what it is.
Eric
Emmitt
>
> Emmitt wrote:
>
> > > What God is saying here is these are not one time sins but a
> > >continuing life style that a person lives by. And very clearly he will
> > >not go to heaven when he dies. -Emmitt
>
> I have to admit... reading this again, I am hard-pressed to
> tell the difference between a "one time sin" and a "continuing
> life style". Everyone has an ongoing relationship with sin.
> Even Christians. No sin is any better or worse than any other.
>
The idea of a continuing life style is that a person never repents for
his sins and this is the reason he can not get into heaven. No matter
what sin you commit if you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord
and Savor you will be saved. Because these verses say you will not
inherit the kingdom of heaven it has to be talking about unrepentant
sinners.
Friend,
Emmitt
Emmitt
Emmitt writes:
Let me remind you what you said "I am a christian. I have no idea what
it is." Does that sound familiar to you.
The way I would describe my christian life style is the number one focus
in my life is my relationship with Jesus Christ and my number 2 focus
would be my family, church and friends. I look at all worldly goals and
pursuits with great moderation and of little importance. This is about
as simply as I can describe my life style without going into a long
sermon.
What you need to study are "Christian attributes" I'm sure you have
resources that list these. Read and study these to find YOUR christian
life style. Maybe this will give you some idea.
If you can't find them, ask and I will list them for you.
Friend,
Emmitt
Zeke...@concentric.net
>> >Emmitt writes:
>> >Hi Eric,
>> > If you are a christian, and are saying you have no idea what a
>> >christian life style is, would you say you are really asking what is a
>> >christian or how do I know if I am a christian?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> What I'm asking is, what is your perception of a "Christian lifestyle".
>>
>> Despite your hope, I'd like you to to tell me what it is.
>>
>> Eric
>
>Emmitt writes:
>Let me remind you what you said "I am a christian. I have no idea what
>it is." Does that sound familiar to you.
Yes. Thanks for reminding me.
I still don't know what a "Christian Lifestyle".
>The way I would describe my christian life style is the number one focus
>in my life is my relationship with Jesus Christ
Fair enough.
What is it about your relationship that is most important?
and my number 2 focus
>would be my family, church and friends.
O.K.
This is YOUR lifestyle. Is it THE "Christian Lifestyle"? Nothing in your
#2 "focus" is particularly "Christian". Is this what your talking about
when you mention a "Christian Lifestyle"?
I look at all worldly goals and
>pursuits with great moderation and of little importance. This is about
>as simply as I can describe my life style without going into a long
>sermon.
Emmitt, I didn't ask you for any type to testimonial about YOUR lifestyle.
Unless, or course, yours is the only correct one.
Your previous post talked about a "Christian Lifestyle" as if there is ONE
generic lifestyle that should be well known to all. One that Christians
will of course adhere to. You know, you "hoped that you wouldn't have to
explain what that was to anyone".
> What you need to study are "Christian attributes" I'm sure you have
>resources that list these.
I think the attribute Christians need to worry about is your "focus #1"
above.
I'll bet the others in your list are not unique to Christianity. Why don't
you go ahead and list them for us.
Eric
MariPotts
Emmitt wrote:
So, are you saying here that if a Christian sins and doesn't repent he/she will
go to hell?
I thought you believe in OSAS.
Which is it here?
Just asking for clarification.
Mari
Emmitt
Emmitt writes:
Very good question Mari. The term christian is used very loosely as I am
sure you know. An example would be J.W. and Mormons who call themselves
christians but don't believe Jesus was God. So as with many who attend a
christian church. The christian I will refer to is a born again person
who's name was written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundations
of the world were set. Once a person is born again he will never fall
into a life style of unrepentant sinfulness. I know this is a difficult
concept for many people to understand but it can only be understood by
being born again. If a person (who claims to be a christian) falls away
into this situation, he was never a born again christian to start with.
The bible is very clear on OSAS please read: 1John 4:4, John 6:44, Heb
13:5, Ps 37:28 and Deut 31:6. God will never leave us.
Friend,
Emmitt
MariPotts
answer fits it nicely. You see, you're not as distant from Doc's flock in theology
as you might think. Actually, you're much closer than the majority of the OSAS
folks I've run into. They, unlike you really do seem to profess a truly "cheap
grace", "cuz, after all, now that I'm saved, I can do as I please. I'm covered."
I think you know they're missing the point altogether. But I think maybe we're
looking at that elephant again, sometimes.
Mari
Emmitt
Emmitt writes:
Let list them one at a time and have you comment on them and how they
form a christian life style or don't have anything to do with one.
Heb 13:5 Let your character be free from the love of money, being
content with what you have; for He Himself has said "I will never desert
you, nor will I ever forsake you."
Friend,
Emmitt
Zeke...@concentric.net
>Let list them one at a time and have you comment on them and how they
>form a christian life style or don't have anything to do with one.
>Heb 13:5 Let your character be free from the love of money, being
>content with what you have; for He Himself has said "I will never desert
>you, nor will I ever forsake you."
>
>Friend,
>Emmitt
You didn't give me a "Christian characteristic". You gave me a bible verse.
List your characteristic.
Not loving money is not unique to Christianity.
By the way, how do YOU determine if someone loves money?
Eric
Zeke...@concentric.net
Emmitt wrote in message <378BFE33...@home.com>...
>Zeke...@concentric.net wrote:
>>
>> >Emmitt writes:
>> >Let list them one at a time and have you comment on them and how they
>> >form a christian life style or don't have anything to do with one.
>> >Heb 13:5 Let your character be free from the love of money, being
>> >content with what you have; for He Himself has said "I will never desert
>> >you, nor will I ever forsake you."
>> >
>> >Friend,
>> >Emmitt
>>
>> You didn't give me a "Christian characteristic". You gave me a bible
verse.
>>
>> List your characteristic.
>>
>
>Hi Eric,
> I was debating if I should spend a lot of time in listing all the
>christian characteristics outlined in the bible. You just solved my
>problem. I don't have to waste any more time.
Your right. Please don't waste your (and our) time and make a list of
"nice" traits that are listed in the bible. I'm sure you'll admit that
exhibiting those traits does not make you a Christian. I'm also sure you'll
agree that one can be a Christian without exhibiting most (if not all) of
the traits on your list.
I'm still waiting for you to define what a "Christian lifestyle" is. And
while your at it, tell us how your perception of a Christian lifestyle
relates to the life of a Christian.
Try something new for a change. Use your own words. If you want to
summarize your perception of what the bible says, feel free. Show some
depth, and take a stand.
> If you read the verse it starts with "Let you CHARACTER" need I say
>more.
>
>
>> Not loving money is not unique to Christianity.
>
>Emmitt writes:
>Having money is not unique to christianity. Loving money is unique to
>christianity.
"Loving money is unique to christianity". What do you mean?
>You've been associating with the wrong people.
Sorry, I'll have to adopt THE Christian lifestyle, and start associating
with the "right people". I'm sure you do.
>> By the way, how do YOU determine if someone loves money?
>
>Emmitt writes:
>I don't but God does.
Remember that the next time you start criticizing others for their "lavish
lifestyle".
Eric
Emmitt
>
>
> >Emmitt writes:
> >Let list them one at a time and have you comment on them and how they
> >form a christian life style or don't have anything to do with one.
> >Heb 13:5 Let your character be free from the love of money, being
> >content with what you have; for He Himself has said "I will never desert
> >you, nor will I ever forsake you."
>
>
> Pay particular attention to Ver's. 16 and 17
>
> 1Let brotherly love continue. 2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for
> thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember them that are in
> bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being
> yourselves also in the body. 4Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
> undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5Let your
> conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye
> have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. 6So that
> we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall
> do unto me. 7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken
> unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their
> conversation. 8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
> 9Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good
> thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have
> not profited them that have been occupied therein. 10We have an altar,
> whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 11For the
> bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the
> high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12Wherefore Jesus also,
> that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the
> gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his
> reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
> 15By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually,
> that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. 16But to do good
> and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
> 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they
> watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it
> with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
> The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Emmitt writes:
AMEN I hope Eric reads it and can get some ideas from it.
Friend,
Emmitt
Emmitt
>
> >Emmitt writes:
> >Let list them one at a time and have you comment on them and how they
> >form a christian life style or don't have anything to do with one.
> >Heb 13:5 Let your character be free from the love of money, being
> >content with what you have; for He Himself has said "I will never desert
> >you, nor will I ever forsake you."
> >
> >Emmitt
>
> You didn't give me a "Christian characteristic". You gave me a bible verse.
>
> List your characteristic.
>
Emmitt writes:
Hi Eric,
I was debating if I should spend a lot of time in listing all the
christian characteristics outlined in the bible. You just solved my
problem. I don't have to waste any more time.
If you read the verse it starts with "Let you CHARACTER" need I say
more.
> Not loving money is not unique to Christianity.
Emmitt writes:
Having money is not unique to christianity. Loving money is unique to
christianity. You've been associating with the wrong people.
> By the way, how do YOU determine if someone loves money?
Emmitt writes:
I don't but God does.
Friend,
Emmitt
Emmitt
>
> Actually, I was using a rather narrow definition of Christian. But I believe your
> answer fits it nicely. You see, you're not as distant from Doc's flock in theology
> as you might think. Actually, you're much closer than the majority of the OSAS
> folks I've run into. They, unlike you really do seem to profess a truly "cheap
> grace", "cuz, after all, now that I'm saved, I can do as I please. I'm covered."
>
Emmitt writes:
I believe that "now that I'm saved, I can do as I please. I'm covered.
The only problem is that I don't want to do all those things that I once
thought were and would be so great to do. Sex, drugs and rock in roll
just don't get it anymore. Sometimes I look back and say how did I ever
give up all those needs and desires I once had. The answer is I didn't.
God just took over.
Friend,
Emmitt
Stevem702
>>
>>Emmitt writes:
>>I don't but God does.
>
>lifestyle".
>
>Eric
One would think
that a man of conscience
would feel at least pricked by that one,
if not go to his knees in repentence.
-Steve