Jed Smock's Flying Circus
The Beyonder
Lisa posts:
>
>BeYontRy wrote:
>>
>> Don't forget passing along some of the more hilarious bits of theology
Jed has
>> given us.
>>
>
>OK, now you have me curious. Please, will you post a few?
>
>Lisa
>
When Jed is out on missionairy missions, a lot of his own stuff is
visual: the little "happy dance" he does, the way his finger shakes as he
tells someone how miserable and unhappy they are ("Yeah, thanks, Jed. I
would never have noticed.") This one led to a discussion regarding
telepathy/witchcraft which culminated with someone bringing a cantaloupe
(sp?) and performing Vulcan Mind Melds on it and Jed, reporting no
difference between them.
Some, like Jed's assertions that Hitler stole his "Master Race" B.S. from
Christ was more funny in retrospect. It did give me an opportunity to
notice how many of Jed's more vocal critics were Christians.
While it did get old rather fast, there was some entertainment value in
the hypocritical "We LOVE you evil warped twisted miserable sinning
unworthy-of-God's-love wretches. We just LOOOOVE you horrible evil
sinners" kind of rhetoric.
For me, one of the most humerous parts was always that not taking these
guys seriously was a sin worth damning us to Hell over. If you got close
enough, you could just hear Jed saying "God is not mocked!!!" over all
the laughter.
Jed appears fairly staid and conservative by bringing along some truly
out-there Used God Salesmen. One of my earliest exposures was watching
Max Lynch describing, based on a biblical passage about a *beam of light*
coming out to destroy his enemies, that Jesus was coming to attack us
with His and I quote "Super-Cosmic Ray Gun." (My response was "Mr. Sulu!
Set phasers on heavy 'smite!' ")
One day Lynch came up with the idea that Hell is inside of a black hole.
Since Hawking had just described the process of black holes *evaporating*
through the loss of virtual particles, I pointed out that, no matter how
long it took, from the p.o.v. of the souls *lost* in there, time dilation
would make it seem instantaneous. Lynch said he preferred the biblical
view of black holes to Hawking's.
Jim Giles liked to tell the story of how he was saved at a Van Halen
concert. When he gets to the part about throwing down the "air guitar"
he used to play, look for someone to ask if he broke it over any "air
speakers." (FYI: If you missed the '80s, when someone stands there
PRETENDING to play an imaginary guitar, it was called "playing an air
guitar.")
Any other missionairy stories, anyone?
The Beyonder
Scott Eiler
In article <6mgolh$oou$1...@basement.replay.com>,
Oh, I get it. Mission"airy". To go with those 80s "air guitars". B{P>
I remember "Master Race" and "Super Cosmic Ray Gun" incidents too, from
when Jed and Co. came to Michigan State University in 1983. After the
Hitler discussion, Jed used the phrase "Master's Race" for Christians,
which hardly calmed the crowd down.
As for Max Lynch (whose name I never knew before now), I once quoted Romans
14:10 to him: "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you
look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment
seat." His response? "God should strike you down."
So wherever you are, Brother Max, a pleasant good morning to you too.
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.ultranet.com/~seiler
"Do not mistake my childlike appearance for innocence of any kind.
'Form of Boy' is well-known as the most feared battle-shape in Paradise."
-- The angel Asmodel, from "JLA: Paradise Lost" scripted by Mark Millar.
lisa
The Beyonder wrote:
> For me, one of the most humerous parts was always that not taking these
> guys seriously was a sin worth damning us to Hell over. If you got close
> enough, you could just hear Jed saying "God is not mocked!!!" over all
> the laughter.
Are you saying that the crowd was laughing at Jed and he responded by
saying "God is not mocked!!!"? Is it just me or does it seem as if Jed
were considering *himself* God in this scenario?
When I think back to the times I went to church and read the Bible, etc,
the only time I remember Jesus getting majorly uptight was when there
were salesmen and moneylenders in the temple. From the stories I've
been reading in here, it seems that Jed is trying to sell God in his
outreach program.
Regards,
Lisa
sei...@ma.ultranet.com
In article <6mkjud$ibf$1...@news-2.news>,
lk...@gte.net wrote:
> Are you saying that the crowd was laughing at Jed and he responded by
> saying "God is not mocked!!!"? Is it just me or does it seem as if Jed
> were considering *himself* God in this scenario?
The rationale is, (1) Jed is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (2) People laugh at
Jed. Therefore (3) people are laughing at the Holy Spirit.
This makes about as much sense as me committing suicide because people laugh
at the way the paint falls off my condominium. But oh well.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
BeYontRy
I'll let Jed speak to his own proximity to Godhood, but yes, that was a common
scene when the missionaries were in town.
The Beyonder
Lisa posts, in part:
>
>The Beyonder wrote:
>
>> For me, one of the most humerous parts was always that not taking these
>> guys seriously was a sin worth damning us to Hell over. If you got close
>> enough, you could just hear Jed saying "God is not mocked!!!" over all
>> the laughter.
BeYontRy
The last time I caught Jed on-campus, it had calmed down a LOT from the early
eighty's shows I remembered. There was a lot of "God should strike you down,"
kind of rhetoric, and not just from Lynch.
Obviously, all the Gods who've kept their phaser banks in good repair over the
millenia are also somewhat disciminating in who they take target requests from.
The Beyonder
Scott posts, in part:
sei...@ma.ultranet.com
In article <199806231953...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
beyo...@aol.com (BeYontRy) wrote:
> Obviously, all the Gods who've kept their phaser banks in good repair over the
> millenia are also somewhat disciminating in who they take target requests
> from.
Yep, and I think we can all agree I'm someone who should be thankful for that.
Melindalfa
It seems wierd to call that a "missionary story", because I'm not sure what
"mission" Jed is on. It's not Gods. Or maybe it started out that way, but he
got quite confused along the way. Anyway, there are wonderful missionary
stories about people getting healed and so forth, so let's not confused by what
the Bible calls a "false prophet" (Jed).
BTW, one of Jed's "disciples", Ken Jones, came to my church about 6 months and
unfortunately, decided to stay. The first indication I had that he isn't
reading the Bible to carefully, was when he told us that he is perfect, and
hasn't sinned since he became a Christian 5 yrs ago.
Bro Jed
>BTW, one of Jed's "disciples", Ken Jones, came to my church about 6 months
>and
>unfortunately, decided to stay. The first indication I had that he isn't
>reading the Bible to carefully, was when he told us that he is perfect, and
>hasn't sinned since he became a Christian 5 yrs ago.
>
evidently, you believe you are a better judge of a ministry than your elders.
Did you decide not to stay?
Erin Glaser
I don't know of a church that would ever turn anyone away from worship
there, no matter how misguided they might be. If I ever heard of such
a church, I would think it unChristian indeed.
But then, I am a strong proponent of the parochial system and don't
believe in "church hopping" til you find one that suits your
interests.
Erin \----------------------------------------------------/
| http://www.cems.umn.edu/~glaser/home.htm |
| gla...@cems.umn.edu |
/----------------------------------------------------\
Waldmeyer2
MelindaLFA wrote: "one of Jed's "disciples", Ken Jones, came to my church...
and
unfortunately, decided to stay."
To which Jed replied: >It is interesting that the Pastor and elders invited
him to stay. But evidently, you believe you are a better judge of a ministry
than your elders.
Jed, Ken Jones turned many people in the church AGAINST the elders who stood
on God's Word. There were many new Christians in the church who knew little of
the Bible; Ken taught CONTRARY to the Bible, and told them they were to HATE
those who challenged what he taught because they were sinners if they didn't
believe him. These people began to sound like all the reports I hear about
you and your precious little daughters: "I hate you! - You're going to hell!"
Only this was toward Christians, people they had loved and cared about
previously. (not that it's right to hate anyone - God loves ALL and we are to
also.)
MANY people finally gave up and left the church - people who had been in that
church many years - had taught there, had been elders. Ken told the people who
stayed that they weren't to get together outside of church at all - no more
going out to lunch after church, etc. and they weren't to discuss anything of
the things he taught when they were outside of the church.
You can't imagine all the wrong and unScrptural things that Ken has done in
the year he has been there. Or maybe you can - - maybe you know all about it.
Maybe you support it. ??
That would be very interesting to know!
Waldmeyer2
Hi, Erin -
>I don't know of a church that would ever turn anyone away from worship
>there, no matter how misguided they might be.
Have you heard of a "minister" who kept a church from worshiping? Our church
for years loved to sing and praise God. Then Ken Jones came, and told our
church that the Christians there (which he didn't believe were Christians
because they were not totally sinless has he claimed to be for the last 5
years) were too wicked to sing and worship God. He stopped all singing and
praise in the Sunday services!
Ken once said "Praise and worship is like having a spiritual orgasm - it's
totally self-serving". The Bible teaches repeatedly on the importance of
worship! "God inhabits the praises of His people"; Jesus said, "If the
people don't praise Me, the rocks will". "God created a people to praise Him".
Praise and worship draws a person close to God for the person is focusing his
attention on God and recognizing God for whom and what He is. Was Ken afraid
of this?
Bro Jed
>Have you heard of a "minister" who kept a church from worshiping? Our church
>for years loved to sing and praise God. Then Ken Jones came, and told our
>church that the Christians there (which he didn't believe were Christians
>because they were not totally sinless has he claimed to be for the last 5
>years) were too wicked to sing and worship God. He stopped all singing and
>praise in the Sunday services!
>
>Ken once said "Praise and worship is like having a spiritual orgasm - it's
>totally self-serving". The Bible teaches repeatedly on the importance of
>worship! "God inhabits the praises of His people"; Jesus said, "If the
>people don't praise Me, the rocks will". "God created a people to praise
>Him".
> Praise and worship draws a person close to God for the person is focusing
>his
>attention on God and recognizing God for whom and what He is. Was Ken afraid
>of this?
God is holy and he expects us to be holy. Ken fears God enough not to promote
hypocritical worship. Regretably when there is sin in the camp, even the
righteous suffer as does God.
(Isa 1) The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah
and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
Judah. {2} Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I
have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. {3}
The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not
know, my people doth not consider. {4} Ah sinful nation, a people laden with
iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken
the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone
away backward. {5} Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and
more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. {6} From the sole of
the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and
bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up,
neither mollified with ointment. {7} Your country is desolate, your cities are
burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is
desolate, as overthrown by strangers. {8} And the daughter of Zion is left as a
cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
{9} Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should
have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. {10} Hear the
word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye
people of Gomorrah. {11} To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices
unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat
of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he goats. {12} When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your
hand, to tread my courts? {13} Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an
abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I
cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. {14} Your new moons
and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them. {15} And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine
eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are
full of blood. {16} Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; {17} Learn to do well; seek judgment,
relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. {18} Come
now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as
scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they
shall be as wool. {19} If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of
the land: {20} But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword:
for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. {21} How is the faithful city become
an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now
murderers. {22} Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: {23} Thy
princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and
followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause
of the widow come unto them. {24} Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts,
the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me
of mine enemies: {25} And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away
thy dross, and take away all thy tin: {26} And I will restore thy judges as at
the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be
called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city. {27} Zion shall be
redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness. {28} And the
destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they
that forsake the LORD shall be consumed. {29} For they shall be ashamed of the
oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye
have chosen. {30} For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden
that hath no water. {31} And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as
a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them.
Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Hosea 6:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Matt 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
If we do not obey God all other expressions of worship are in vain. When I
preached at Trinity in April worship and praise in the form of music and
singing had been restored. Evidently, Ken and the leaders believed that the
people had responded to the message of repentance.
Bro Jed
Bro Jed
I>Jed, Ken Jones turned many people in the church AGAINST the elders who
>stood
>on God's Word. There were many new Christians in the church who knew little
>of
>the Bible; Ken taught CONTRARY to the Bible, and told them they were to HATE
>those who challenged what he taught because they were sinners if they didn't
>believe him. These people began to sound like all the reports I hear about
>you and your precious little daughters: "I hate you! - You're going to
>hell!"
>Only this was toward Christians, people they had loved and cared about
>previously. (not that it's right to hate anyone - God loves ALL and we are
>to
>also.)
>
> MANY people finally gave up and left the church - people who had been in
>that
>church many years - had taught there, had been elders. Ken told the people
>who
>stayed that they weren't to get together outside of church at all - no more
>going out to lunch after church, etc. and they weren't to discuss anything
>of
>the things he taught when they were outside of the church.
>
>You can't imagine all the wrong and unScrptural things that Ken has done in
>the year he has been there. Or maybe you can - - maybe you know all about
>it.
>Maybe you support it. ??
If you study the history of revivals typically there is a purging that
accompanies the revival. Most people and pastors cannot handle the purging so
we rarely have revival.
Doug Berry
On 26 Jun 1998 14:12:14 GMT, bro...@aol.com (Bro Jed) wrote:
>God is holy and he expects us to be holy. Ken fears God enough not to promote
>hypocritical worship. Regretably when there is sin in the camp, even the
>righteous suffer as does God.
Your vision of God is uniformly opressive and sad. I think you
are projecting your own fears and insecurities onto the larger
world.
--
Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net
San Francisco Eccentric-in-Training
http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/
Waldmeyer2
Jed, I repeat: "Ken Jones taught contrary to the Bible" - on numerous issues.
Go ahead - you and your "ministers" - teach contrary to the Bible; many people
do, but DON'T claim to be teaching the Bible when you twist what it says.
BeYontRy
What DO you do during services? Sit there and stare at him?
The Beyonder
Waldmeyer2 posts, in part:
>
> >I don't know of a church that would ever turn anyone away from worship
>>there, no matter how misguided they might be.
>
ELSMANLAW
Waldmeyer is upset with Ken Jones, and I am ignorant of the exact specifics:
IN ANY EVENT, I GET NERVOUS ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE WALDMEYER WHO ARE CRITICIZING AN
ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RELIGIOUS BODY MORE HOLY BEFORE GOD. IS NOT THAT THE WHOLE
BALLGAME?
lawyer jim
MelJoyceF
>MAKE A RELIGIOUS BODY MORE HOLY BEFORE GOD. IS NOT THAT THE WHOLE
>BALLGAME?
That's not Ken's whole ballgame - his ballgame is more centered on showing
hatred toward anyone who dared to question him about anything he said, and to
get other people to hate those people also! He destroyed what was a wonderful,
healthy church in the midst of a spiritual revival (prior to his arrival).
Bro Jed
Sounds like to me Ken's got a holy hatred:
(Psa 139:21-22) Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O LORD? And do I not loathe
those who rise up against Thee? {22} I hate them with the utmost hatred; They
have become my enemies.
Ken is very Bible centered in his hatred of sin and those who oppose the
preaching of righteousness.
ELSMANLAW
Mel Joyce:
l. Again, I know not about the facts of Ken destroying a church
body,.
2. Since Jesus is head of the Church, anything that He builds will
not be destroyed, in any event..
3. Ken is not the last word on anything.
4. The Bible is, and , technically, it is not subject to private
interpretation for one to impose on another.
5. It sounds to me that both sides may have flirted with warring
with flesh and blood, and not with the evil spiritual warfare.
6. It is certainly true that many churches today get carried away
with Praise & Worship, believing that they can woo the presence of God into
their midst., and then capture Him to do miracles with their finances and
healings, etc. God is not so easily fooled, and such behavior should be
inveighed against in a prophetic anger. After all, this whole Tulsa movement
to "Name it and Claim It" is really based in theNew England Theosophical
Society, out of which arose Mary Baker Eddy, etc. and worse like Edgar Cayce.
Mind over matter (the latter of which does not exist).
7. Ken may be young , but that does not disqualify him to see evil.
His judgment may be poor, as Jed and many of us were shocked that he would
marry on such short notice, but that is a matter between him and God, and long
engagements are often just games. Leave and cleave is good practice. Even
Hindu arranged- marriages work in India and Bhuddists ones in China. Ken got
her parents 'permission I am informed.
8. I have witnessed Ken do 2 commendable and mature things:
A. He debated a skilled debater named Jim Webber on
"Holiness" at Jed's Conference, the second day after his wedding. He could
easily have cancelled and attended to his bride. He could have dodged a
skilled debater with many tricks up his sleeve. He was all guts, no glory.
B. He visited Holy Hubert in the Nursing Home far away
in Raleigh, N.C. and reported on Hubert's needs to me. That was Chapter l3
Love in action.
I can only speak of what I have seen , as an old lawyer who
weighs the evidence. One thing that goes without saying:
THERE SHOULD BE A MEETING OR SO TO RECONCILE ALL THESE OLD
HURTS, AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEDIATE IN A CHRISTIAN WAY. THIS HISTORY DOES
NOT GIVE GLORY TO JESUS, NOR HIS BODY, THE CHURCH.
lawyer jim
Waldmeyer2
Hello, Elsmanlaw - are you part of Jed Smock's organization? You seem to speak
on his behalf, so I was wondering. I've not heard your name associated with
him at our church here in Leander TX.
Melindalfa
>It is interesting that the Pastor and elders invited him to stay. But
>evidently, you believe you are a better judge of a ministry than your
>elders.
God has given us the Bible as the ultimate tool for discernment. We are to
follow Jesus as a sheep would follow a shepard, but. humans have fault. (No
brainer) "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. "If
we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1
John 1:8. We have to use wisdom and discernment every time we get instruction
from, especially a new, leader. 1 John 4:1 says "Do not believe every spirit,
but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false
prophets have gone out into the world."
Ken contradicted God's word many times. I eventually went to the pastor and
asked him if these new beliefs were now a part of the church's doctrine. They
were.
When Ken started removing people from leadership, such as decons, and putting
in people he wanted there, that was only the beginning. When he began to
graphically describe male masterbation one Sunday, it dissapointed me that no
one except my mother had the guts to take their daughters out from under the
vulger words of this young evangelist. And when he began labeling some of the
college students (who had been attending for several years) "sinners" and told
them they had to leave the church, that was enough. How can anyone come to
know God or get closer to God when they're not allowed to church???????
Melindalfa
>I don't know of a church that would ever turn anyone away from worship
>there, no matter how misguided they might be.
Erin,
Ken didn't come to our chruch to worship, he came to lead. He came the first
time as a guest speaker. Before we knew it, not only was he leading, he was
throwing everybody out!!
(read my other response to Jed for more detail)
BeYontRy
<Comments interspersed>
Jed posts:
>
>>That's not Ken's whole ballgame - his ballgame is more centered on showing
>>hatred toward anyone who dared to question him about anything he said, and
>to
>>get other people to hate those people also! He destroyed what was a
>>wonderful,
>>healthy church in the midst of a spiritual revival (prior to his arrival).
>>
>
>Sounds like to me Ken's got a holy hatred:
>
Or, possibly, a wholly hatred ministry going on.
>
>(Psa 139:21-22) Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O LORD? And do I not
>loathe
>those who rise up against Thee? {22} I hate them with the utmost hatred; They
>have become my enemies.
>
More accurately, you have chosen to be enemies with them. A subtle difference,
granted, but knowing who does and doesn't take responsibility for their own
acts helps in choosing sides.
>
>Ken is very Bible centered in his hatred of sin and those who oppose the
>preaching of righteousness.
>
Yeah, the Bible is always very useful in justifying hate, for those
unimaginative enough to be unable to do it for themselves.
Of course, Ken can hate every life form and Entity in Creation, and it still
won't prove him right.
The Beyonder
ELSMANLAW
Melinda:
It sounds like Ken Jones wreaked havoc down in Leander. While it is
difficult to draw any conclusions without a full understanding of the facts, I
do have a couple of comments:
l. Explicit exposure of male masturbation may seem like
poor judgment on Ken's part, but SIN is very specific and ugly, and God can so
direct. Life is not a tea party.
2. I am glad to hear that a Church was kicking Sinners
out. Paul did it in First Corinth. with the man who was living with his
father's wife (not his Mother). There are always Sinners amongst the Saints.
It is a favor to the Sinners to be booted. The man in First Cor. returned to
the Church restored in Second Cor., you can note. The churches of America
allow all kinds of evil to sit in the pews, so to increase the collection. Of
course, I do not mean that first-time visitors should be kicked out, so do not
come against me for that.
3. I know Jed and have met Ken, but I would not hesitate to rebuke
them if they were wrong, just as I would expect from them. I am not saying
that Ken was all-correct about destroying a church in Texas However, if the
Church was of Jesus, it would not be harmed, as Jesus makes not one mistake in
purifying. I pray that you people down there will be even stronger for the
Lord Jesus, due to the experience.
LawyerJim> evangelist. And when he began labeling
some of the
>college students (who had been attending for several years) "sinners" and
>told
>them they had to leave the church, that was enough. How can anyone come to
>know God or get closer to God when they're not allowed to church???????
>
>
>
>
BeYontRy
<Comments interspersed>
Jim posts:
>
>l. Explicit exposure of male masturbation may seem like
>poor judgment on Ken's part, but SIN is very specific and ugly, and God can
>so
>direct. Life is not a tea party.
>
So Ken can't condemn a sin without describing it in graphic, Penthouse-style
details?
Mayne they're lucky he didn't bring in visual aids, or ask for volunteers from
the audience.
>
>2. I am glad to hear that a Church was kicking Sinners
>out.
<SNIP>
>It is a favor to the Sinners to be booted.
>
For once, I have to agree with Jim here. Those sinners could be having FAR
more fun almost anywhere else. Why waste a perfectly good morning in church?
"In my Father's house there are many mansions." They must all be at capacity,
to be discouraging the salvation of any more souls than they can handle. If
you're not Saved by now, then to Hell with you!!
Seriously, Jesus must be happy to know that Ken is now equally qualified to
judge these things. Sharing the workload frees Him up for . . . what?
The Beyonder
Waldmeyer2
Hello, Beyonder!
(in response to Jed writing: "Sounds like to me Ken's got a holy hatred" etc.):
>Or, possibly, a wholly hatred ministry going on.
>Yeah, the Bible is always very useful in justifying hate, for those
>unimaginative enough to be unable to do it for themselves.
>
>Of course, Ken can hate every life form and Entity in Creation, and it still
>won't prove him right.
>
- - - -
It grieves me that Jed et. al. is running around our country claiming to be
Christians while spewing out hatred for anyone who is not a Christian (and even
many who are, but haven't "proven" themselves to HIM). I have been a Christian
for 29 years, involved in churches continually, done considerable street and
campus ministry, and worked with many Christian organizations, and have NEVER
encountered a "Christian" who has a hateful attitude like Smock & company.
Don't blame it on the Bible, Beyonder, don't blame it on God. James 3:8-13
gives us an example of people like Jed: "But the tongue can no man tame; it is
an unruly evil full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father;
and therewith curse we men, which are made after similitude of God. Out of the
same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing. MY BRETHREN, THESE THINGS OUGHT NOT
SO TO BE. Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brehtren, bear olive berries? Either a vine, figs? So
can no fountain yield salt water and fresh. Who is a wise man and endued with
knowledge among you? Let him shew out of GOOD conversation his works with
meekness of wisdom."
Christians must learn to "tame" their tongue. But it's not just what is said,
for the Bible says "Out of the heart the man speaks." What is in our hearts is
what comes out our mouths. It comes out in the way we treat others. God is
not tolerant of sin, yet he loves sinners - which Jed denies, but is
indisputably portrayed in the Scriptures. God will punish all unrepentent
sinners, yet "For God proves his love for us, in that while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us" - Jesus didn't suffer on the cross for anyone who
was sinless - He did so for sinners.
Waldmeyer2
Hello, Elsman - -
> I am glad to hear that a Church was kicking Sinners
>out. Paul did it in First Corinth. with the man who was living with his
>father's wife (not his Mother). There are always Sinners amongst the Saints.
>
Yes, there are always sinners amongst the saints - as with the Corinthian in an
incestuous relationship, who had been confronted repeatedly but refused to
terminate his wicked lifestyle.
It's not our job to try to figure out who has secret sins and who doesn't.
Consider the parable of the tares amongst the wheat: during growth, they
appear identical. Jesus said to leave the tares and let His Father deal with
identifying them at the end time. Ken Jones came into our church and
immediately started making decisions as to which Christians "weren't really
Christians". He threw out (amongst others), the young man who had once dated
the girl he (Ken) decided to marry - told him to never come back to the church
again, and told the girl she was never to talk to him again. Ken ended up
with basically a church of new converts: many new Christians had just come
into the church just prior to his arrival, and many of the Christians who had
been in the church for many years were driven out. Thus he had a group of
people eager to learn the Scriptures, but with no prior understanding of them.
He taught the Scriptures from a very twisted perspective, and these people
received it in ignorance. There has been much hurt on the part of those who
were driven out - driven out of a church they had raised their children in for
many years, the church they had given of their own funds to support, the church
they had literaly laid a foundation for, tied rebar for, framed and roofed.
When some of the teenagers went back to see a friend who had stayed there, they
were told to get off the church property and never come back, that they were
not to talk to anyone who went there.
Doug Berry
On 30 Jun 1998 20:04:13 GMT, waldm...@aol.com (Waldmeyer2)
wrote:
<snip>
>He taught the Scriptures from a very twisted perspective, and these people
>received it in ignorance. There has been much hurt on the part of those who
>were driven out - driven out of a church they had raised their children in for
>many years, the church they had given of their own funds to support, the church
>they had literaly laid a foundation for, tied rebar for, framed and roofed.
>When some of the teenagers went back to see a friend who had stayed there, they were told to get off the church property and never come back, that they were not to talk to anyone who went there.
And that, children, is a cult. Charismatic leader cutting off
all former contacts by edict, demands that anyone who isn't a
sheep is somehow demonic.. Sad really. While I'm not a
Christian, I've been welcomed at many Church events and services,
and most of the time felt welcome. It sounds like Ken is one of
those people who would have been burning "heretics" to get their
farmland a few centuries back.
--
Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net
San Francisco Eccentric-in-Training
http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/
*Due to excessive spamming, I've filtered
hotmail.com.*
Bro Jed
>It grieves me that Jed et. al. is running around our country claiming to be
>Christians while spewing out hatred for anyone who is not a Christian (and
>even
>many who are, but haven't "proven" themselves to HIM). I have been a
>Christian
>for 29 years, involved in churches continually, done considerable street and
>campus ministry, and worked with many Christian organizations, and have NEVER
>encountered a "Christian" who has a hateful attitude like Smock & company.
>
>
This is one of the most hateful and judgemental statements anyone has ever
said about me.
Brother Jed
Nathan Engle
Do you kiss your wife and kids with that lying mouth?
People have screamed and spit in your face. People have
assaulted you verbally and physically. People have hooted
and jeered while you have been taken away under arrest. You
*know* the face of hatred. You've seen it. The annoyance
of this poor woman is trivial compared with what you subject
yourself to every day.
--
Nathan Engle
Shop Steward Electron Juggler's Guild, Local #1
BLOBn...@indiana.eduBLUB BLOBhttp://php.indiana.edu/~nengleBLUB
"Some Assembly Required"
Erin Glaser
In article, melin...@aol.com (Melindalfa) wrote:
>>It is interesting that the Pastor and elders invited him to stay. But
>>evidently, you believe you are a better judge of a ministry than your
>>elders.
>>Did you decide not to stay?
>God has given us the Bible as the ultimate tool for discernment. We are to
>follow Jesus as a sheep would follow a shepard, but. humans have fault. (No
>brainer) "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. "If
>we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1
>John 1:8. We have to use wisdom and discernment every time we get instruction
>from, especially a new, leader. 1 John 4:1 says "Do not believe every spirit,
>but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false
>prophets have gone out into the world."
>Ken contradicted God's word many times. I eventually went to the pastor and
>asked him if these new beliefs were now a part of the church's doctrine. They
>were.
This may sound quite harsh to you, but... If this is what your pastor
says, I would advise you to LEAVE this church. Doctrine should not be
changed just because a new guy has come in to roost... and if it
changes on such a whim, it cannot be true to Christ.
I myself do not like "church-hopping," as I am rather a proponent of
the parochial system (i.e., the church in your neighborhood is "your
church" and should be stuck with) but in the case of blatant
contradiction of what you KNOW to be true, you would be best off to
leave.
IMO the lack of central leadership invites this sort of problem. I
mean, heck, any Joe with the necessary down payment can set up a
"church" and start preaching whatever the heck he wants. Let the
buyer beware.
(Anybody have the "Life Jacket" thread archived?)
>When Ken started removing people from leadership, such as decons, and putting
>in people he wanted there, that was only the beginning.
What authority did he have to do so? Who gave him that authority?
> When he began to
>graphically describe male masterbation one Sunday, it dissapointed me that no
>one except my mother had the guts to take their daughters out from under the
>vulger words of this young evangelist.
Such behavior is completely inappropriate for a congregation which
includes young children. It is as if he had passed around copies of
Playboy and Hustler to show people what they shouldn't be reading.
Adults can, and should, be challenged, pushed out of the "comfort
zone" in a sermon about sin. But children need a comfort zone to
thrive. There is no need to
> And when he began labeling some of the
>college students (who had been attending for several years) "sinners" and told
>them they had to leave the church, that was enough. How can anyone come to
>know God or get closer to God when they're not allowed to church???????
This is entirely inappropriate. Everyone should be welcome at a
church, believers and non-believers, people who have successfully
conquered sin (with the help of God) and those who are still
struggling. I think you've answered your own questions. This man is
not helping you or your fellow churchgoers.
Erin Glaser
In article, elsm...@aol.com (ELSMANLAW) wrote:
> However, if the
>Church was of Jesus, it would not be harmed, as Jesus makes not one mistake in
>purifying. I pray that you people down there will be even stronger for the
>Lord Jesus, due to the experience.
Don't take this the wrong way at all... but I think Jim is utterly
right about this one thing he has written. Mind you, this probably
does not reflect on the congregation, but on the church leaders. But
the truth is, that if this church was truly of Jesus, it would not
have been harmed. Ken could not have gotten his foot in the door.
The leaders may have *thought* they were acting in service of
Christ... or maybe they didn't.
As I said in another post, lack of accountability is the cause of a
great deal of departure from God's will. Some denominations derive
their leadership from "the people" in a sort of democratic fashion;
for example, there are councils and conventions and doctrine is voted
on, the presumption being that God will lead the people, at least on
average. Other churches derive their leadership from a single person
or a small group of people whom everyone acknowledges as having
authority and being led by God. In both of these situations, there is
some accountability at the local-church level. When a pastor starts
saying and doing things that the people regard as contrary to God's
will, then people have some channel to go through... if it is of the
first type, they "vote him out" and if it is of the second type they
"go above his head." But a lot of little storefront churches have no
such accountability and when the pastor goes wacko there is nothing
the people can do but leave.
The moral to this story IMO is that storefront churches are dangerous.
The only way they can be sure to be true is if God is leading the one
person in charge. But if God *was* leading him, then he couldn't make
any errors. And the very fact that there are THOUSANDS of these
little churches, and they teach many different things, shows that the
chances are very, very low that God is leading the pastor of the
church on your corner.
There is only one truth, yet God promised he would show us how to find
it. If two different churches are virtually indistinguishable but
they teach two different things... and if you can't tell which one is
right... then neither of them can be true. Because if one of them
was, it would be obvious.
Erin Glaser
In article, waldm...@aol.com (Waldmeyer2) wrote:
>It grieves me that Jed et. al. is running around our country claiming to be
>Christians while spewing out hatred for anyone who is not a Christian (and even
>many who are, but haven't "proven" themselves to HIM). I have been a Christian
>for 29 years, involved in churches continually, done considerable street and
>campus ministry, and worked with many Christian organizations, and have NEVER
>encountered a "Christian" who has a hateful attitude like Smock & company.
I have. Jed and co. do qualify as Christians; they hold all the
necessary beliefs. They just don't behave like it.
no spam
But it's true! I used to catch Jed's act at the University of Iowa
back in the early 80's. It sounds as though the Gospel of
Condemnation is still alive and well among college campuses.
At the time, I found it all quite amusing, especially when the Hare
Krishnas took up a post just across the commons from where Jed was
spewing. Add in the spare agnostic and Discordian, and it was a
religious three ring circus.
What Jed and his ilk never quite seem to figure out is that they bring
noone into the fold through their poisonous rantings. Indeed, they
drive people away. For who would want to be such a self righteous
prig as Jed appears to be?
It seems to me that Christ had his own set of hypocritical boobs to
deal with during his time. The Pharisees focused on the law above all
else and spent much of their time parading how holy they were. And we
know what Jesus had to say about them.
Peace be to you all,
Larry
On 30 Jun 1998 21:18:58 GMT, bro...@aol.com (Bro Jed) wrote:
>>It grieves me that Jed et. al. is running around our country claiming to be
>>Christians while spewing out hatred for anyone who is not a Christian (and
>>even
>>many who are, but haven't "proven" themselves to HIM). I have been a
>>Christian
>>for 29 years, involved in churches continually, done considerable street and
>>campus ministry, and worked with many Christian organizations, and have NEVER
>>encountered a "Christian" who has a hateful attitude like Smock & company.
>>
>>
>
>This is one of the most hateful and judgemental statements anyone has ever
>said about me.
>
>Brother Jed
Having a positive attitude won't solve all your problems,
but it will annoy enough people to make it worth your while.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam. to reply
BeYontRy
A church that is "truly of Jesus" can't be harmed? How far does this
invulnerability extend? Will razor blades stored in such a church stay sharper
longer, etc?
The Beyonder
Erin posts, in part:
<Quoting Jim>
BeYontRy
>
>>It grieves me that Jed et. al. is running around our country claiming to be
>>Christians while spewing out hatred for anyone who is not a Christian (and
>>even
>>many who are, but haven't "proven" themselves to HIM). I have been a
>>Christian
>>for 29 years, involved in churches continually, done considerable street and
>>campus ministry, and worked with many Christian organizations, and have
>NEVER
>>encountered a "Christian" who has a hateful attitude like Smock & company.
>>
>>
>
>This is one of the most hateful and judgemental statements anyone has ever
>said about me.
>
>Brother Jed
>
If anyone would know from hateful and judgmental, it's Jed.
The Beyonder
BeYontRy
I seem to remember quite a few cult leaders using their positions more for
personal pleasure and revenge than any kind of spiritual enlightenment.
Deprivation of and isolation from friends, family and/or anyone else who might
provide a bridge back to sanity is a CLASSIC brainwashing technique. The
victims, ummm, I mean the converts (HAH!! If you mean "sheep," damnit, just
type SHEEP!!!!) should be signing over their property to Ken any day now.
If Ken offers you any kool-ade, be afraid. Be very afraid.
The Beyonder
Waldmeyer2 posts, in part:
>
>Ken Jones came into our church and
>immediately started making decisions as to which Christians "weren't really
>Christians". He threw out (amongst others), the young man who had once dated
>the girl he (Ken) decided to marry - told him to never come back to the
>church
>again, and told the girl she was never to talk to him again. Ken ended up
>with basically a church of new converts: many new Christians had just come
>into the church just prior to his arrival, and many of the Christians who had
>been in the church for many years were driven out. Thus he had a group of
>people eager to learn the Scriptures, but with no prior understanding of
>them.
>
<SNIP>
Melindalfa
>"For God proves his love for us, in that while we were yet
>sinners, Christ died for us" - Jesus didn't suffer on the cross for anyone
>who
>was sinless - He did so for sinners.
>
>
>Christians must learn to "tame" their tongue.
AMEN!!!!!
sei...@ma.ultranet.com
In article <6ndf1m$3c7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
lo...@opie.bgsu.edu wrote:
>
> The problem is that the Pharisees who J met espoused the views of
> Saducess, had the names of Helenists, and seemed to lack anything that would
> identify them as Pharasees.
The names being Hellenic can be explained by the Gospels being written in
Greek. Even "Jesus" is the Hellenic form of "Joshua" or "Yeshua".
> I have asked before for the names of said hypocritical Pharasees.
The Bible doesn't give names for all the people who met Jesus, even the ones
who agreed with him. I don't know of any Pharisees who were identified by
name in the Bible, unless Annas or Caiaphas were Pharisees.
> I am
> anxious for them to be provided since J based an awful lot of his teachings
> on some of the earlier ones.
I'd heard that Jesus based an awful lot of his teachings on the Essenes, but
not the Pharisees.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Nathan Engle
BeYontRy wrote:
> If Ken offers you any kool-ade, be afraid. Be very afraid.
He'd probably be more likely to offer you a Snapple. This
*is* the 90's.
Joshua Weiner
BeYontRy (beyo...@aol.com) wrote:
: A church that is "truly of Jesus" can't be harmed? How far does this
: invulnerability extend? Will razor blades stored in such a church stay sharper
: longer, etc?
This is true. A story. I swear this one is revelent and easy to
understand. Unlike most of my posts.
Ahem...
There was a man who had a house. Well, he was foolish enough to build
right next ot the river so when spring came, there was massive flooding
and the entire area had to be evacuated. This man was a very faithful
christian so he said "Self, I'm going to sit on my roof and let god sort
this out and he will provide for me".
So he sat on the roof. By this time the waters were only a few inches
deep, but the river was rising and it continued to rain.
A truck came by and people called out for him to come down and get a ride
out of town to high ground. He said no, I'm going to wait for God to take
care of this.
The waters continued to rise. Now a boat came along and he refused. Same
reason.
Then finally, his house was about to collapse and a hellicopter came along
and threw down a rope. He refused saying that god would protect him.
Well, his house collapsed and he died. He ended up before St. Peter who
beat him with a stick and demanded why he hadn't taken advantage of the
three times God had sent him help.
The moral: Location can affect more than your property values.
Sounds like Ken has been putting some really fat rocks in the crack pipe
and hasn't been sharing. Anyway. He sounds like a regular prick and this
is the sort of thing fundies do. Either gather the populace to throw him
out and tell the deacons and pastors to pack up with him, or find a new
church. Its you vs. Ken's ego and it looks like the ego has the
upperground and has full support of the id and super-ego.
If fundies do this to other peopl's churches, then its little wonder I
don't want them in the civil government.
--
Strangelove*|*jwe...@physics.oberlin.edu*|*Joshua Weiner
Pope of the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn
http://www.physics.oberlin.edu/students/jweiner
Gothcode 2.0 GoPS+HuSS+ TAnAdNr B/5Bk\]2^1 cNR(LBR)W+3GM PRNiSh V+s
M+g ZGoCl-- C++P2u a20 n+F b:- H165 g++T mEa3)Ni2(+ w++T r+P D++!*
h+ s7 k? RN SsYy NWPFn LusOh- HZXXL
Scott Eiler
In article <199806302118...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
bro...@aol.com (Bro Jed) wrote and quoted:
>>I have been a Christian for 29 years, involved in churches
>>continually, done considerable street and campus ministry,
>>and worked with many Christian organizations, and have NEVER
>>encountered a "Christian" who has a hateful attitude like
>>Smock & company.
>
>This is one of the most hateful and judgemental
>statements anyone has ever said about me.
And you've never made judgmental statements against anyone else? Your
recent posts on this matter contain many such. Either learn to tame your
tongue as the Book of James recommends, or get used to having the
same judgment in store for you that you give to others.
As Jesus said about many who call him "Lord" (Matthew 25:41-46):
“41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are
cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave
me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I
needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you
did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or
a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one
of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to
eternal life.”
I am not inclined to pass judgment myself, because nobody this side of God
knows the hearts of everyone involved in this church-breaking incident.
However, I consider it entirely likely that faithful Christians suffered
due to the actions of your own flock, and that the cries of those faithful
are before the Lord of Hosts right now to accuse you. Prepare your
response to God.
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.ultranet.com/~seiler
"I would rarely use the term slut. I have never heard my children call
anyone a slut. I prefer words like strumpet, trollop, vixen, hussy,
tart, etc."
-- Brother Jed (George Edward Smock).
BeYontRy
Well, there were so many around, no doubt J just picked and chose amoung the
ones he liked.
The Beyonder
Louis posts, in part:
>
>Yeah. The problem is that the Pharisees who J met espoused the views of
Erin Glaser
In article, beyo...@aol.com (BeYontRy) wrote:
>A church that is "truly of Jesus" can't be harmed? How far does this
>invulnerability extend? Will razor blades stored in such a church stay sharper
>longer, etc?
Sure. ;) And nobody needs to take Viagra either. ;)
Let me qualify that. A church that is truly and unreservedly part of
the Church Christ founded cannot be led astray by bad doctrine. God
promised that he would not lead his church astray. Of course, they
can be harmed by other means, i.e. physically or by legal action. God
never promised that life would be easy.
There isn't much you can prove with such a statement though. I mean,
it can't be used to prove that a particular group of people are
definitely part of the church Christ founded. But if you see a group
of people who easily move from whim to whim, teaching one thing one
day and another thing another day, it does shed a bit of doubt on
them.
Nathan Engle
> Why speculate about Ken Jones actions in the Texas Church.
I think the crux of the issue is really whether Ken's
actions spur people to be more focused on God and less focused
on themselves. On that score I'd say he earns a big goose
egg because once he was done with them those people didn't
have anything on their minds but their intense dislike of
Ken.
> He lives around Jed, and could type up a response, and be
> heard on the merits.
Correct, he could.
> I do not like this talk about him behind his back.
I wonder if that might have anything to do with not
being comfortable with the notion of a smooth-talking
suit-wearing city slicker who walked into a community
of God-fearing people, swept a 19 year old girl off
her feet, and lured her into a hasty ill-considered
marriage. Frankly it's not anything I'd care to
defend myself either.
> Usually, these matters are complex. Jed,
> can you arrange for Ken to give a Statement of what happened? He can
> generalize if confidences are involved or if libel is a problem. Maybe there
> were mistakes on both sides or several sides. It seems to work for the Devil
> to leave the matter so unresolved in a human sense, wtih people hurting.
Honestly although I'm not wild about his method of
picking up girls I don't believe that Ken has anything
at all to answer for to any of us here. He may have a
few apologies due to the girl after the marriage shakes
down, but that's between him and his lady-love.
ELSMANLAW
Jed, and could type up a response, and be heard on the merits. I do not like
this talk about him behind his back. Usually, these matters are complex. Jed,
can you arrange for Ken to give a Statement of what happened? He can
generalize if confidences are involved or if libel is a problem. Maybe there
were mistakes on both sides or several sides. It seems to work for the Devil
to leave the matter so unresolved in a human sense, wtih people hurting.
sei...@ma.ultranet.com
nen...@indiana.edu wrote and quoted Lawyer Jim:
> > Usually, these matters are complex. Jed,
> > can you arrange for Ken to give a Statement of what happened? He can
> > generalize if confidences are involved or if libel is a problem. Maybe
there
> > were mistakes on both sides or several sides. It seems to work for the
Devil
> > to leave the matter so unresolved in a human sense, wtih people hurting.
>
> picking up girls I don't believe that Ken has anything
> at all to answer for to any of us here. He may have a
> few apologies due to the girl after the marriage shakes
> down, but that's between him and his lady-love.
Ken has nothing to answer for to me. Like Lawyer Jim, I suspect the matter
was fairly complicated anyway, so I'm glad I'm only a bystander here. But
there were a couple of people posting here last month who were apparently in
the affected church. They may still be waiting for an answer. And, of
course, Ken will answer before God Himself some day.
---- Scott Eiler B{D> ---- http://www.ultranet.com/~seiler/ ----
Waldmeyer2
Nor do I like talking behind someone's back - thus my purpose in posting
messages here: when I first started reading the newsgroup Jed Smock had
numerous posts on it. Since he or Ken Jones have not answered my e-mails,
(though I know for a fact that Jed - at least - has been online since) and
since Ken has refused to give ear to those in the Texas church that questioned
him, this was my next choice in trying to get in touch with Jed, as Ken's
overseerer (or "general"??)
Why would I want to communicate with Jed? Hopefully, to prevent any other
church-people down the road from all the suffering that many wonderful
Christians in my church went through at Ken Jone's hands.
You out there who aren't Christians, don't judge us by what K or J have done -
it is NOT the Biblical pattern, it is not the law of love that God requires of
His children either towards other Christians or towards non-Christians. I have
never seen such hatred and pride from any one who calls themselves Christian.
>Jed, can you arrange for Ken to give a Statement of what happened?
Whatever Ken or Jed have to say in excuse to what has happened still does not
make it acceptable - it was ungodly and unscriptural. Jed, Ken - - search your
hearts and please DON'T ever treat another church full of people the way you
did ours!
Nathan Engle
> You out there who aren't Christians, don't judge us by what K or J have done -
The last person I saw make that sort of request was a chronic
pain patient who is now serving 98 years in a federal penitentiary
for his use of marijuana to control his pain. Yet although there
was no justice in it *he* was being judged by what "recreational"
drug abusers have done. Sometimes life just isn't fair.
> it is NOT the Biblical pattern, it is not the law of love that God requires of
> His children either towards other Christians or towards non-Christians.
I'm sure you're probably aware that Jed has entire bookfuls
of citations of Biblical verses which contradict that assertion.
Rationalizing "confrontational evangelism" is something the General
has been doing for about 25 years now.
> I have
> never seen such hatred and pride from any one who calls themselves Christian.
Study history and you can find plenty of examples.
> >Jed, can you arrange for Ken to give a Statement of what happened?
> Whatever Ken or Jed have to say in excuse to what has happened still does not
> make it acceptable - it was ungodly and unscriptural.
Yet unlike some of the things Jed and Ken do it was probably
completely within the letter of US and Texas legal codes.
> Jed, Ken - - search your hearts and please DON'T ever treat another
> church full of people the way you did ours!
Oh, for crying out loud. The way you talk it sounds like all
that's left of the darned church is a bunch of smouldering cinders.
So Ken was rude to them - Ken is rude to people every day of the
week. You've had your pout now - put it behind you.
Bro Jed
loving God supremely, and their fellow man as themselves; oh, that all of
man-kind would just live as they were designed, namely, lovingly, and that, in
an unselfish manner! Amen.
Now, to the business at hand: my theology and personal life. As for the
former, particularly, in the area of sinlessness, this is what I believe: if a
person genuinely loves Jesus, this will be evident in the obedience rendered
unto the same (John 14:15,21,23,24; I John 5:3). Again, just so there is no
misunderstanding, I believe that all true Christians (disciples, imitators,
followers of Christ) are WITHOUT sin. Scripture for this? Matthew 5:48, Luke
6:46, Acts 5:32, Romans ch. 6, I Cor. 15:34, II Cor. 13:7, Gal. 5:24, Eph. 5:3,
Phil. 2:15, Col. 4:12, I Thess. 5:23, and we could continue, but I will end
with these: I John 1:9, 2:3-4, 3:1-10, 5:2-3,18. To me, and I know that I am
not wrong, this, namely the sinless life of a believer, is too obvious the
doctrine of Scripture to need further elucidation. Amen.
Now for the latter, namely, the charges that I have incurred via this
newsgroup, I reply: I will see you on judgment day, when an OMNISCIENT God
"...shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."
Amen.
As it pertains to the effect of the revival upon this local church, I will now
paraphrase what the leadership has said, and still says, as well as, the
general consensus of the dedicated members within the same: "Trinity Christian
Center has never been this healthy and active; we are more focused than ever;
we have never before experienced such an awesome manifestation of God's power;
it seems so easy, now (after the revival), to do what was so difficult before."
These are just a few, of the many, statements that have been made, again, by
the leadership, meaning, Pastors, Elders, Deacons, and the dedicated core of
Trinity! Anyone can consider themselves free to contact Pastor Ron Rhea at
(512) 515-5591, if the veracity of the above statements should be called into
question.
Lastly, and this is only for Mr. "Meyers," I have a message for you from Pastor
Ron Rhea (the pastor of the poor, pitiful, beat-up church, of which, you claim
to be a part): he does not agree with any of your assessments, as it pertains
to the state of the church; and, if he finds out you are in the church, and
saying what you are saying, he will personally reprove you, and if you do not
repent, expel you. If you have any questions, contact him; I am just relaying
the message.
In all soberness,
Brother Ken
Bro Jed
Erin Glaser
>Greetings in the name of Jesus! I hope this address finds all recepients
>loving God supremely, and their fellow man as themselves; oh, that all of
>man-kind would just live as they were designed, namely, lovingly, and that, in
>an unselfish manner! Amen.
>Now, to the business at hand: my theology and personal life. As for the
>former, particularly, in the area of sinlessness, this is what I believe: if a
>person genuinely loves Jesus, this will be evident in the obedience rendered
>unto the same (John 14:15,21,23,24; I John 5:3). Again, just so there is no
>misunderstanding, I believe that all true Christians (disciples, imitators,
>followers of Christ) are WITHOUT sin.
Then there are not very many true Christians around, a statement I'm
sure you'll agree with.
> Scripture for this? Matthew 5:48,
"Be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect." A command,
yes. But it does not indicate that those who fail to be perfect are
not true Christians, any more than the Ten Commandments indicate that
someone who fails to honor his parents are not true members of the
covenanted people. A command, no more, no less. Not a defining
characteristic.
Put it this way: Jesus' commands are directed at his followers.
Therefore he is telling his followers to be perfect. If they were
already perfect, he would not need to tell them to be perfect. Ergo,
Jesus' followers are not perfect.
> Luke 6:46,
"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' but not do what I command?" Merely
points out that a Christian life requires action as well as words.
Doesn't say that a Christian is sinless, merely gives a directive.
> Acts 5:32,
"...as is the Holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him."
This only indicates that God gives the Spirit to those who are
obeying. It does not indicate that someone who fails to obey is devoid
of the Spirit, nor that the Spirit is immediately withdrawn the minute
someone sins. (Mind you, I do believe in the loss of grace upon
mortal sin, but this passage does not support it; it is a positive
message and not a negative one.)
> Romans ch. 6,
Essentially, says that sin must not reign over your bodies. True,
someone who sins all the time is letting sin reign. Someone who gives
no thought to preventing sin, even if they sin infrequently, is
letting sin reign. But someone who struggles constantly against sin,
who wins sometimes, is NOT letting sin reign even if they occasionally
do sin. The writer of Romans presents a goal for them to strive
towards. Surely the only certain way is to be sinless. But has God
no mercy? The writer of Romans even indicates that he speaks to them
gently "because of the weakness of their nature." Yet he addresses a
group of Christians. If Christians are sinless, how is it that his
audience is weak?
>and we could continue,
No thanks. It's all about the same.
> To me, and I know that I am
>not wrong, this, namely the sinless life of a believer, is too obvious the
>doctrine of Scripture to need further elucidation.
Well of course it is OBVIOUS that Christians are called to lead a
sinless life. But it is not at all obvious that falling short of
perfection eliminates you from the body of believers. And it is
painfully obvious that strong faith doesn't insulate you completely
from sin.
And here's a question. If Christians are so "obviously" sinless, then
how can it be that VERY early church writings, among those including
writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, Cyprian, and Aphraates,
describe a process by which believers REGULARLY and REPEATEDLY confess
their sins? It's apparent that these writers in the first few
generations of the church did not believe that Christians were
sinless, for they described a procedure for dealing with sinning
Christians.
Joshua Weiner
>
> Then there are not very many true Christians around, a statement I'm
> sure you'll agree with.
>
Not a lot of real anybody to be honest. Then again it depends on how
you define certain things. Like the Stamp O' Christlike Behavior(tm)
(just $9.99 at walmart).
Erin, I hope you have a cat because I always blame my cat for lost
things. The only other recourse is to admit the bloody faeries
were having a giggle again and hiding your things.
> Well of course it is OBVIOUS that Christians are called to lead a
> sinless life. But it is not at all obvious that falling short of
> perfection eliminates you from the body of believers. And it is
> painfully obvious that strong faith doesn't insulate you completely
> from sin.
Plus I was taught in catholic school that the greek root is 'hamartia'
or something similar which literaly translates at 'falling short'.
Which fits in quite nicely. I'm sure the spelling is off but you get
the idea.
>
> And here's a question. If Christians are so "obviously" sinless, then
> how can it be that VERY early church writings, among those including
> writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, Cyprian, and Aphraates,
> describe a process by which believers REGULARLY and REPEATEDLY confess
> their sins? It's apparent that these writers in the first few
> generations of the church did not believe that Christians were
> sinless, for they described a procedure for dealing with sinning
> Christians.
>
NOt to mention all the other Christian writers. ALL of them. Most of
the careers of the early bishops were spent writing letters to each
other either calling each other a heretic or giving them advice on
how to deal with the sinful and herecy lovin' masses. So either
the great masses of christians which Ken has to call his
forerunners (unless he's
claiming recient divine revelation, the divine afterword so to speak)
were total sinners and therefore pagans (which you could easily
claim under Ken & Jed's standards) or there's something he's skimping
on.
But somehow
I doubt Ken has read any of the early christian writers. Bro. Jed
is the only exception to the rule that fundies are horrible with
historical studies. Then again Bro. Jed's specilization was in
the American Revival movements of the 19th century if I heard
him correctly. He always claimed to be the foremost expert
on Charles Finney (yay chuck, loved the negros but hated the jews)
when he came to visit.
BeYontRy
Christian does is ipso facto not a sin? I've seen it explained both ways.
The Beyonder
Jed (Or was it Ken) posts, in part:
sei...@ma.ultranet.com
In article <199807160348...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
beyo...@aol.com (BeYontRy) wrote:
> Does that mean that a *true* Christian doesn't sin, or that whatever a *true*
> Christian does is ipso facto not a sin? I've seen it explained both ways.
>
> Jed (Or was it Ken) posts, in part:
>
> >
> >Now, to the business at hand: my theology and personal life. As for the
> >former, particularly, in the area of sinlessness, this is what I believe: if
> >a
> >person genuinely loves Jesus, this will be evident in the obedience rendered
> >unto the same (John 14:15,21,23,24; I John 5:3). Again, just so there is no
> >misunderstanding, I believe that all true Christians (disciples, imitators,
> >followers of Christ) are WITHOUT sin.
> >
>
--
Melindalfa
>look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment
Make sure you don't take that out of context. God makes it very clear int he
Bible that we are not to judge the heart, but it is neccesary for us to judge
actions. That's why some people go to jail and some dont'- their actions were
judged. A Chrisian can look at someone in deep sin, and by good judgement,
estimate that they probably aint makin' it to Heaven at that point.
Louise
Scott Eiler
melin...@aol.com (Melindalfa) wrote:
>>You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you
>>look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment
>
>Make sure you don't take that out of context.
I *think* you're quoting me quoting the Bible, so I'll respond here.
>God makes it very clear int he
>Bible that we are not to judge the heart, but it is neccesary for
>us to judge actions. That's why some people go to jail and some
>dont'- their actions were judged. A Chrisian can look at someone
>in deep sin, and by good judgement,
>estimate that they probably aint makin' it to Heaven at that point.
Fair enough. There is certainly evil out there, and people who embrace
it. As much as God would like it otherwise, not everyone's makin' it to
Heaven, and in many cases we can guess who ain't. (Stick around this
group long enough, and you'll probably see some much better examples
than we pseudo-intellectual types can provide among ourselves.) But
remember, the final judgment resides elsewhere.
gla...@itasca.cems.umn.edu
1998071815032800.LAA1573
5...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
melin...@aol.com
(Melindalfa) wrote:
>God makes it very clear int he
> Bible that we are not to judge the heart, but it is neccesary for us to judge
> actions. That's why some people go to jail and some dont'- their actions were
> judged. A Chrisian can look at someone in deep sin, and by good judgement,
> estimate that they probably aint makin' it to Heaven at that point.
I would argue that this is exactly
the sort of judgment Christians
are called NOT to make. For to
judge (or even estimate) whether
someone makes it to heaven is to
judge that person's heart, for God
will look deep into our hearts
when He judges us on the last day.
To judge an action is to be able to
say, "What you are doing right
now is wrong. It is leading you
away from God." To judge
someone's heart is to attempt to
determine exactly how far away
from God that person is--and the
only good judges of that are God
and the person him/herself.
In all cases where we are called
to judge, we must remember that
the purpose of earthly judging is
to lead people towards the Judge
of all things. If passing judgment
will not help, it's likely that we
shouldn't do it.
Erin
(who's lost her OSU password!)
Shalalhash
BeYontRy
>
>Leander church is not yet FULLY in the hands of the Ken Cult! It MAY
>recover!
>
Or the infection might even spread. One of every cults' most powerful weapons
is the tendency to become what we fight. Even as you try to *rescue* your
friends and compatriots, they'll be trying just as hard to assimilate you.
By the way, welcome to alt.borg-jed!
The Beyonder
Shalalhash
>By the way, welcome to alt.borg-jed!
Thanks, Be. (Sorry I'm so late getting around to saying "thanks")
Melindalfa
Waldmeyer previously wrote and was quoted by Nathan Engle:
> >Jed, Ken - - search your hearts and please DON'T ever treat another
>> church full of people the way you did ours!
Nathan writes:
> Oh, for crying out loud. The way you talk it sounds like all
>that's left of the darned church is a bunch of smouldering cinders.
>So Ken was rude to them - Ken is rude to people every day of the
>week. You've had your pout now - put it behind you.
Those words come easy when you can't speak from experience. You know, your
compassionate tone sounds so similar to the heart of Ken Jones in his most
Christian way of stating : "You wimp! You coward!" (quoted from a more
recent posting)
>> it is NOT the Biblical pattern, it is not the law of love that God requires
>of
>> His children either towards other Christians or towards non-Christians.
>I'm sure you're probably aware that Jed has entire bookfuls
>of citations of Biblical verses which contradict that assertion.
Ever of heard of "love thy neighbor" or "love your enemies"
>Rationalizing "confrontational evangelism" is something the General
>has been doing for about 25 years now.
Sounds like a 25 year old misconception. Jesus threw people out of the temple
who had set up shop to sell misrepresented merchandise. And he rebuked
Pharisees and others sinners who had hard hearts. But when the Bible records
an apostle or disciple ministering to Christians; or when they spoke to sinners
to convert them to salvation, they never displayed this hatred and lack of
compassion that you disguise as "confrontational evangelism"
Melindalfa
>>God makes it very clear int he
>> Bible that we are not to judge the heart, but it is neccesary for us to
>judge
>> actions. That's why some people go to jail and some dont'- their actions
>were
>> judged. A Chrisian can look at someone in deep sin, and by good judgement,
>> estimate that they probably aint makin' it to Heaven at that point.
>
>
>I would argue that this is exactly
>the sort of judgment Christians
>are called NOT to make.
I don't remember where this deal about judgement started. But for the sake of
argument: We can absolutely try to make an estimation of whether or not a
person is going to Heaven for the sake of trying to bring them there. How else
can a person witness without first making a judgement? If a Chrisitan assumes
that another person is not serving God (i.e going to Heaven) noting that it is
hard to know where that line between Christiantiy and backsliding is, and that
Chrisitan ministers to that person, there is no harm done. Even if the
Christian made an incorrect assumption about that one's salvation.
As far as unbelievers go, it's not too hard to pick them out. Or in other
words "judge" that they are not serving Christ or going to Heaven. There are
some dead give away's. As an example of good judgement, listening to
Frenchy, I can tell you that he/she (whatever) is missing the mark of
Christianity.
Melinda
Scott Eiler
melin...@aol.com (Melindalfa) wrote and quoted Erin:
>>I would argue that this is exactly
>>the sort of judgment Christians
>>are called NOT to make.
>
> I don't remember where this deal about judgement started.
I think I started it, when I said I personally declined to judge Ken
Jones on the basis of the limited evidence I then had. Of course, since
then I've seen his own words on the topic and condemned them roundly.
Which leaves me agreeing with Melindalfa. Sometimes Christians are
called to condemn the acts they see.
>But for the sake of
>argument: We can absolutely try to
>make an estimation of whether or not a
>person is going to Heaven for the sake
>of trying to bring them there. How else
>can a person witness without first making
>a judgement? If a Chrisitan assumes
>that another person is not serving God
>(i.e going to Heaven) noting that it is
>hard to know where that line between
>Christiantiy and backsliding is, and that
>Chrisitan ministers to that person,
>there is no harm done. Even if the
>Christian made an incorrect assumption
>about that one's salvation.
Unless the ministry is so full of judgment, holy hatred and condemnation
that it makes a bad example of Jesus.
> As far as unbelievers go, it's not too
>hard to pick them out. Or in other
>words "judge" that they are not serving
>Christ or going to Heaven. There are
>some dead give away's. As an example
>of good judgement, listening to
>Frenchy, I can tell you that he/she
>(whatever) is missing the mark of
>Christianity.
Well, Frenchy *is* a self-declared Pagan, so I guess that's your dead
give away right there. But she seems to be a Goddess-fearer in her own
way, so I'm sure she'd appreciate your input on how she's not living
righteously.
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight,
but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do
not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are
written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and
their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" (Romans
2:13-15)
Nathan Engle
> Nathan writes:
> > Oh, for crying out loud. The way you talk it sounds like all
> >that's left of the darned church is a bunch of smouldering cinders.
> >So Ken was rude to them - Ken is rude to people every day of the
> >week. You've had your pout now - put it behind you.
> Those words come easy when you can't speak from experience.
M'yes. Of course people like Ken could never have
been rude to me...
> You know, your
> compassionate tone sounds so similar to the heart of Ken Jones in his most
> Christian way of stating : "You wimp! You coward!" (quoted from a more
> recent posting)
Ken and I come from different places. He believes
that by belittling people and tearing them down he can
coerce them into doing what he thinks is right. In
contrast, I believe that people can be helped to listen
to something within their own hearts which will tell
them what they know is right. Name-calling has no
place in that effort, but we *should* expect that we
will each be held to high standards.
My reason for urging you to put this emotional
trauma behind you is simply that it accomplishes nothing.
If you hold onto that anger it will hurt you.
> >Rationalizing "confrontational evangelism" is something the General
> >has been doing for about 25 years now.
> Sounds like a 25 year old misconception.
Yes?
> Jesus threw people out of the temple
> who had set up shop to sell misrepresented merchandise. And he rebuked
> Pharisees and others sinners who had hard hearts.
Correct. Jed and Ken don't seem to model their own
personal behavior on that of Jesus.
> But when the Bible records
> an apostle or disciple ministering to Christians; or when they spoke to sinners
> to convert them to salvation, they never displayed this hatred and lack of
> compassion that you disguise as "confrontational evangelism"
Mmmm. According to Jed his approach and philosophy is
strongly influenced by the ministry of Paul. Regardless
of whether you believe it's a weak assertion, that *is*
the argument Jed makes.
Personally I've never been impressed with the method or
the results, but after having rejected the evils of the
scientific method I'm not sure it's realistic to expect
these folks to really consider cause and effect or
statistical analysis of results. They reap the same
intolerance that they sow. I can see why you might feel
that it reflects worse on you than it does on me, but rest
assured, Jed and Ken are responsible for what they do and
no reasonable person can hold their excesses against other
Christians.
gla...@itasca.cems.umn.edu
melin...@aol.com (Melindalfa) wrote:
> I don't remember where this deal about judgement started. But for the sake of
> argument: We can absolutely try to make an estimation of whether or not a
> person is going to Heaven for the sake of trying to bring them there. How else
> can a person witness without first making a judgement?
Engaging people in friendly conversation is a good start. I simply don't
think it's our place to assume or estimate anything. It's bad for our *own*
journey to make assumptions about others. Mild or not, making such
assumptions and estimates is an exercise of pride, a true evil. When
witnessing, we should always remind ourselves "I don't know where this person
stands in relationship to God." Keeps us humble.
> If a Chrisitan assumes
> that another person is not serving God (i.e going to Heaven) noting that it is
> hard to know where that line between Christiantiy and backsliding is, and that
> Chrisitan ministers to that person, there is no harm done.
The harm done is to your own soul. Besides, we should minister to everyone,
Christian or not.
> As far as unbelievers go, it's not too hard to pick them out.
Oh, I don't know about that. ;) I know a few Christians who seem quite
pious on the outside but when you get to know them better they are conniving
cowards. I don't know whether they're going to heaven or not, but I do know
that most people would make a lot of other incorrect assumptions about them.
I also believe very strongly that, while all salvation is through the Church,
there is a good chance that folks out there exist who are part of Jesus'
people and don't know it. God has a way of working in unbelievers as well.
IOW, there probably exist unbelievers who are going to heaven, whether Jed
likes it or not. This doesn't mean Christians don't have a duty to witness,
since after all being a faithful believer is the only certain way we know of
gaining the grace of salvation. But given the oft-quoted "parable of the
sheep and the goats" I'd say that believers don't necessarily have a monopoly
on heaven, and unbelievers don't necessarily have a monopoly on hell.
I suppose it depends on how you define "believers."
> There are
> some dead give away's.
There isn't a single one. You know nothing, I know nothing, of anyone's
soul. The man standing in the middle of the campus screaming that God is
dead may be a madman under God's special care. The preacher weeping about
salvation and bringing thousands to Jesus through national TV could care
nothing about Jesus and only about the cash His holy name brings in.
> As an example of good judgement, listening to
> Frenchy, I can tell you that he/she (whatever) is missing the mark of
> Christianity.
And I can tell you, having conversed with them both quite a bit, that in many
ways she's far closer to the mark than Jim, a professed Christian. She is a
Pagan and so we wouldn't expect her to hit the mark in terms of creed; but
still you and I know nothing of the relationship between her soul and God.
Erin
Melindalfa
> I believe that all true Christians (disciples, imitators,
>>followers of Christ) are WITHOUT sin.
Erin replies:
>"Be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect." A command,
>yes. But it does not indicate that those who fail to be perfect are
>not true Christians
Precisly!!! Erin, you're right on the $. God does command us to be perfect.
Infact, he really can accept no less into Heaven. That is exactly why Jesus
died on the cross. Obviously we are not getting to Heaven by our own merit.
But God gives us that 2nd chance to repent, and start over again.
Sitting under Ken's teaching, I realized how his definition of Christianity was
such a discouraging one. He insisted that if you sin, you are no longer a
Christian. And as I have pointed out before, Christ can not abide in a
sinner. So, therefore, he must leave us. (What a wishy-washy kinda' guy Ken's
God must be) So, any person who accepts this teaching has to believe that God
is on his toes watching for us to screw up so he can leave us. Can you
imagine, 1. wanting to serve a God like that? (think how hard it is to convert
non Christians to that!) and 2. the pressure that a person must live under to
believe that. That means, and this was a much overrated discussion at my
church for a while, that if you sin, get in your car and drive to the grocery
store, and get hit by a car, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!
Demanding no less than perfection from one's self to remain a Christian, saved
from sin, is to say that we are saved by our works; that as long as we do
everything right, God has to take us to Heaven, and bless us. That leaves no
room for faith. In reality, when a Christian does wrong, it is by faith that
we repent and BELIEVE that God has saved us from that sin. If you "never sin"
you don't have to have any faith. Hmmmm......
Melindalfa
>M'yes. Of course people like Ken could never have
>been rude to me..
Let's keep in mind, this is more than just being rude. Ken publicaly embarred
people in the congregation. Several people have told me he called them into
the pastor's offices, and literaly yelled and screamed at them about how wicked
and disguisting they are. I am told in one case, he publicaly called a young
man down, and told him to leave during one service. This is more than just
someone's style, it's not Godly. As you say, it doesn't follow Jesus's
methods. Jesus's actions reveal the heart of God
.>Correct. Jed and Ken don't seem to model their own
>personal behavior on that of Jesus.
>
>
Preciously the problem. What is that doing in church leadership?
>Mmmm. According to Jed his approach and philosophy is
>strongly influenced by the ministry of Paul. Regardless
>of whether you believe it's a weak assertion, that *is*
>the argument Jed makes.
I'm not saying that there is not a time for rebuke, there certainly is. And
Jesus was not always "gentile" with people, but we should read how he handles
situations. You say Jed patterns his ministry after Paul, why not after Jesus?
Melinda
MelJoyceF
behind you is imply that it accomplishes nothing. If you hold onto that anger
it will hurt you.
Very true, Nathan - a word of wisdom. There have been many people who have had
to deal with a great deal of hurt from Ken and the leadership at the church -
much of which is too personal a nature to ever mention here - - public
humiliation over personal things is a biggy - a means of exerting control over
people. Thus the appeals via this NG to Jed Smock and Ken Jones to not do the
same at other churches down the road (which they have not exhibited the
slightest bit of remorse over). It leaves me wondering how many other churches
they have done the same to. Ken even bragged about being thrown out of many
churches that would not accept his teachings. Too bad our little church was
not one of them! So much hurt would have been averted.
Nathan Engle
> Nathan wrote:
> >M'yes. Of course people like Ken could never have
> >been rude to me..
> Let's keep in mind, this is more than just being rude.
No, I'd say it was just rudeness.
> Ken publicaly embarred people in the congregation.
Rude.
> Several people have told me he called them into
> the pastor's offices, and literaly yelled and screamed at them about how wicked
> and disguisting they are.
Rude.
> I am told in one case, he publicaly called a young
> man down, and told him to leave during one service.
Rude.
> This is more than just someone's style, it's not Godly.
Yeah, but as Homer Simpson would ask, "what are ya gonna do?"
Despite their unseemly behavior Ken and Jed are usually solidly
within the boundaries of religious freedom, and in cases where
they step over the line there's rarely any lack of incensed
opponents to hoot and jeer as they're being led away in handcuffs.
> As you say, it doesn't follow Jesus's
> methods. Jesus's actions reveal the heart of God
>
> .>Correct. Jed and Ken don't seem to model their own
> >personal behavior on that of Jesus.
> Preciously the problem. What is that doing in church leadership?
Mmmm. I wasn't aware that Jesus ever built any churches.
Having a "church leadership" itself (or even just a church) is
something that might possibly be argued to be a departure from
Jesus's example.
> >Mmmm. According to Jed his approach and philosophy is
> >strongly influenced by the ministry of Paul. Regardless
> >of whether you believe it's a weak assertion, that *is*
> >the argument Jed makes.
> I'm not saying that there is not a time for rebuke, there certainly is. And
> Jesus was not always "gentile" with people, but we should read how he handles
> situations. You say Jed patterns his ministry after Paul, why not after Jesus?
In the manuscript from _The Mystery of Christ_ Jed seemed
to make the case that the teachings of Jesus and his methods
were mostly directed towards his fellow Jews, while the work of
Paul and the other apostles offers an account of a supposedly
more-relevent "market trial" for the dissemination of Christianity
among gentiles.
Thus, by this assertion, Jed and Ken model their acts on
those of Paul because they face many of the same problems he
did, and because they draw inspiration from many of his solutions
to those quandaries. I'm not sure it's necessarily a strong
argument, and I'm sure it must be appalling to anybody who
actually cares when Jed and Ken give Christianity a bad rep,
but from my standpoint I'm perfectly willing to simply accept
their decision at face value.
Bro Jed
>saved
>from sin, is to say that we are saved by our works; that as long as we do
>everything right, God has to take us to Heaven, and bless us. That leaves no
>room for faith. In reality, when a Christian does wrong, it is by faith that
>we repent and BELIEVE that God has saved us from that sin. If you "never
>sin"
>you don't have to have any faith. Hmmmm......
>
>
Sin is always due to a lack of faith. For Jesus has promised to deliever us
from all temptation. If we sin, we were not trusting in Jesus at the time.
Faith always overcomes the world, the flesh and the devil.
edward l anderson
Bro Jed wrote:
jed.
"why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, GOD..." matt 19-17
here we have JESUS himself denying that he is good. wow!!!
"Do you not know that the staints will judge the world? and if the world will be
judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters" 1 cor.6-2
ALSO JED THE I'M NOT THAT RADICAL EVERYTIME A BIT OF SCRIPTURE IS PRESENTECD TTHAT
YO U CAN'T LIVE WITH
"BUT I WANT YOU TO BE WITHOUT CARE. HE WHO IS UNMARRIED CARES FOR THE THINGS OF
THE LORD- HOW MAY HE PLEASE THE LORD ,BUT HE THAT IS MARRIED CARES ABOUT THE
WORLD-HOW MAY HE PLEASE HIS WIFE" 1 COR 7:32-33
ALSO
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not purmitted to speak;
but they are to bo SUBMISSIVE as the law says. And if thay want to learn
something, let the go home and ask theiir own husbands at home, for it is
shamefull for women to speak at church" 1 cor 14:35-36
why let your wife preach "how may he please his wife"
before you look at anyone and esstimate look at your life sir everything MUST be
obayed.
but yet again "i'm not that radical"
would jesus say "I never knew you"?
Cosimo
<proc...@prodigy.net> wrote:
I have been out of touch for a while but Edward Anderson seems to be a new
face to me. If so, let me welcome you to our little group.
>Bro Jed wrote:
>
>>
>> Sin is always due to a lack of faith. For Jesus has promised to deliever us
>> from all temptation. If we sin, we were not trusting in Jesus at the time.
>> Faith always overcomes the world, the flesh and the devil.
>
> jed.
>
>"why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, GOD..." matt 19-17
>
>here we have JESUS himself denying that he is good. wow!!!
It is not clear here what "good" really means. A strong claim would be
that J is claiming that he has sinned or is living a life of sin. A less
strong claim is that J is claiming he isn't "good" simply means that he is
not perfect in that he is not holy in the same way god is holy. I lean
towards this interpretation and think that one of the key things one can
get from this verse is that neither Matthew nor J considered J to be god.
>Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not purmitted to
speak;
>but they are to bo SUBMISSIVE as the law says. And if thay want to learn
>something, let the go home and ask theiir own husbands at home, for it is
>shamefull for women to speak at church" 1 cor 14:35-36
Cited above is reason #542 why the bible is a pretty repulsive book and
shouldn't be used as a moral guide.
ralph
---------------------------------------
my anti-spam e-mail -> barne...@osu.edu
MelJoyceF
>"why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, GOD..." matt 19-17
> here we have JESUS himself denying that he is good. wow!!!
Why do you say Jesus is denying he is good? He is just challenging the young
man who thus addressed him to consider why he addressed him thus. Such
misunderstandings make it real easy to misunderstand the Bible.
Cosimo
melj...@aol.com (MelJoyceF) wrote:
I have heard this POV several times and don't buy it. On the other hand,
I don't know Greek and so can't address the meaning the original was
trying to get across. In the english, such a statement "why have said
that Sam is X? Bob is the only one that is X" generally indicates that
the person making the statement is not X. In everyday usage, such a
sentence structure would not be used as a way to convey the message that
Sam is equal to Bob; it would be used to say that sam isn't X. Whether or
not the speaker wants the one he is addressing to evaluate and consider
what it means to be X is pretty ambiguous. Perhaps such a statement also
has this as a goal, perhaps not.
ralphus
Melindalfa
>I simply don't
>think it's our place to assume or estimate anything. It's bad for our *own*
>journey to make assumptions about others
In response to one of my statements you say:
>Oh, I don't know about that. ;) I know a few Christians who seem quite
>pious on the outside but when you get to know them better they are conniving
>cowards.
You just called those people Christians. See! right there, good job Erin, you
just made a JUDGEMENT!
>I also believe very strongly that, while all salvation is through the Church,
Let's not get confused, salvation is not through "the church", particularly
because I don't know specifically which church you mean. Salvation is ONLY
through Jesus Christ, no matter what church you go to.
>IOW, there probably exist unbelievers who are going to heaven,
To make that statement, really shows your ignorance of the Bible. You may be
able to quote scripture, but you don't seem to understand it. There are too
many scriputes that discount that foolish statement. "The wages of sin is
death" is one. The Bible says only the rightous will inherit the kingdom of
God. Heaven is a place where we all worship God eternally. Do you really
think God is stupid enought to invite someone who doesn't serve God? Someone
who would take heaven for grantite. An unbeliever would probably hate Heaven
and rather be back on Earth, because we are mostly going to be worshiping God -
FOREVER. I think you probably believe this, because you seem to be a "good
hearted" person. It appears you think that God sending someone to hell just
for rejecting in Jesus is just too harsh. You must accept this if you're going
to put your faith in him.
>I suppose it depends on how you define "believers."
>
>
I would be refering to the biblical definition of a believer. What other one
matters?
Melinda
.
Nathan Engle
> Gee, I go on vacation for a week and there's only five messages?
Yes.
sei...@ma.ultranet.com
In article <199809041824...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
melin...@aol.com (Melindalfa) wrote and quoted Erin:
> >IOW, there probably exist unbelievers who are going to heaven,
>
> To make that statement, really shows your ignorance of the Bible. You may be
> able to quote scripture, but you don't seem to understand it.
Or maybe Erin allows for different understandings.
>
> >I suppose it depends on how you define "believers."
> >
> I would be refering to the biblical definition of a believer. What other one
> matters?
Would that be the parable of the sheep and the goats, where those who say
"Lord, Lord" get turned away? Or would that be the definition of Romans 2:
26-27?
"Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not
his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision
which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and
circumcision dost transgress the law?"
--
---- Scott Eiler B{D> ---- http://www.ultranet.com/~seiler/ ----
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Cosimo
melin...@aol.com (Melindalfa) wrote:
>Erin writes:
>>I simply don't
>>think it's our place to assume or estimate anything. It's bad for our *own*
>>journey to make assumptions about others
>
>In response to one of my statements you say:
>>Oh, I don't know about that. ;) I know a few Christians who seem quite
>>pious on the outside but when you get to know them better they are conniving
>>cowards.
>
>You just called those people Christians. See! right there, good job Erin, you
>just made a JUDGEMENT!
>
>>I also believe very strongly that, while all salvation is through the Church,
>
>Let's not get confused, salvation is not through "the church", particularly
>because I don't know specifically which church you mean. Salvation is ONLY
>through Jesus Christ, no matter what church you go to.
Is this one of the reasons why there is so much confusion between
catholics and protestants? I am guessing that "church" initially
referred to the body of christ (i.e., believers, or Xians). More
recently, protestants have used the term to refer to buildings that xians
congregate in or as a term that is synonymous with "denomination."
Neither use of the term are supported by the bible, however. Perhaps
protestants should read the bibles more and anti-catholic literature less?
>
>>IOW, there probably exist unbelievers who are going to heaven,
>
>To make that statement, really shows your ignorance of the Bible. You may be
>able to quote scripture, but you don't seem to understand it. There are too
>many scriputes that discount that foolish statement. "The wages of sin is
>death" is one. The Bible says only the rightous will inherit the kingdom of
>God. Heaven is a place where we all worship God eternally. Do you really
>think God is stupid enought to invite someone who doesn't serve God? Someone
>who would take heaven for grantite. An unbeliever would probably hate Heaven
>and rather be back on Earth, because we are mostly going to be worshiping God -
>FOREVER. I think you probably believe this, because you seem to be a "good
>hearted" person. It appears you think that God sending someone to hell just
>for rejecting in Jesus is just too harsh. You must accept this if you're going
>to put your faith in him.
Ignorance of the bible is something we all have to deal with (being that
no one in this ng is perfect). The statement that unbelievers may go to
heaven is not contradicted by any of the scriptures you quote. You assume
that unbelievers must also be sinners as can be seen by your first choice
of scripture. This is not the case.
Examples?
Babies and young children.
Imbeciles (IQ < 70) of any age.
Those afflicted with organic brain damage or some genetic imparment of the
brain that results in insanity.
I assume you agree that the 3 afore-mentioned categories are not hell
bound? More controversial categories are those who have never heard of
the god of abraham, jesus, or Xianity and those who suffer from some type
of non-organic mental sickness. What about normal adults who live in an
isolated area of the world and have never heard the gospel? Does god send
them to hell because they don't believe that some guy named jesus rose
from the dead on the 3rd day in some country they don't even know exists?
The bible teaches that the wicked are not heaven-bound but it also teaches
that certain people may not be held accountable for their actions in the
same way that others are (see the above 5 categories). Is there a
specific verse I can quote? I can't recall one, but arguing via
proof-texting is a pretty shallow way to approach the bible. Aproaching
the bible by looking at the big picture and developing a theology seem to
be better ways of really finding out the message of the book. Read and
study the bible for as many years as I have and then tell me if you still
think that every single unbeliever is in hell.
Erin Glaser
>In response to one of my statements you say:
>>Oh, I don't know about that. ;) I know a few Christians who seem quite
>>pious on the outside but when you get to know them better they are conniving
>>cowards.
>You just called those people Christians. See! right there, good job Erin, you
>just made a JUDGEMENT!
Calling them Christians means that I know them to profess faith in
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Is that a judgment? Am I judging
your sweater if I say it is red?
>>I also believe very strongly that, while all salvation is through the Church,
>
>Let's not get confused, salvation is not through "the church", particularly
>because I don't know specifically which church you mean. Salvation is ONLY
>through Jesus Christ, no matter what church you go to.
Um, yes. "The Church" may be interpreted as broadly as you like,
here. I think that a good way to put it would be, "the body of true
believers." It's highly rare these days that a person accepts Christ
without hearing about him by conversing with believers or reading
something a believer wrote. I suppose Jesus could still be appearing
to people the way he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. But
let's not forget that Paul didn't profess faith until he had talked
with the believer Ananias. Is this salvation without Christ? Of
course not; Christ is working in the Church. The Church happens to be
the major vehicle by which Christ does his work in the world.
>>IOW, there probably exist unbelievers who are going to heaven,
>To make that statement, really shows your ignorance of the Bible. You may be
>able to quote scripture, but you don't seem to understand it. There are too
>many scriputes that discount that foolish statement. "The wages of sin is
>death" is one.
Hm. I don't know why you quote me that one. It doesn't appear
relevant to me. There are unbelievers who sin quite a bit less than
some believers.
> The Bible says only the rightous will inherit the kingdom of
>God.
True enough. But I have known some people who were quite righteous,
and yet did not believe in Christ. Certainly history bears that out.
> Heaven is a place where we all worship God eternally. Do you really
>think God is stupid enought to invite someone who doesn't serve God?
God invites everyone. The question is whether we will accept the
offer. And many people who are non-Christians do God's work in the
world.
> Someone
>who would take heaven for grantite. An unbeliever would probably hate Heaven
>and rather be back on Earth, because we are mostly going to be worshiping God -
>FOREVER.
This is rather a judgment. I cannot see inside the soul of any
person, unbeliever or not, except myself. Let us take, for example,
the hypothetical person who does not know the Gospel, because no one
has ever told him. (Such people are quite rare, but they do exist; I
actually met someone, born and raised in the U.S., who didn't know
about Christ at all except in the most rudimentary sense; he didn't
even know the Christmas story.) Such a person would in fact be an
unbeliever. But can you judge on that basis that he would hate
Heaven? If he were told the full story, perhaps he would accept it
joyfully. (Perhaps not, also.) Do you believe that those who don't
know about Christ go to hell? I'm sure you make exceptions for babies
and the mentally handicapped; do you make exceptions for those who
just haven't heard? What about those who have heard a confused
version of the story and don't really understand it? What about those
who have grown up under intense societal pressure to believe something
else? What about the mentally ill? What about the abused and
neglected people whose teachers of the Gospel were also their abusers?
What about those who don't know any Christians who really live a
Christian life?
Look, I'll be the first to admit that the only way we know for sure to
be saved is to know Jesus Christ and follow his way. That's why I
promote Christianity where I'm called to do it. But I refuse to
assume that I know just as well as God does who else might be His
servant. I wonder perhaps if some folks are in Christ and don't know
it.
> I think you probably believe this, because you seem to be a "good
>hearted" person. It appears you think that God sending someone to hell just
>for rejecting in Jesus is just too harsh.
No, I do not think this. One who fully and completely rejects Christ
probably will not want to spend eternity with God. But what I do
think is that "not believing in Jesus" and "rejecting Jesus" are not
the same thing. To reject something, one must first consider it.
Those who haven't had the opportunity to consider it haven't rejected
it. What God does about this difference, I don't know. But I'm
willing to admit I don't know. I'm sure not going to tell God what to
do.
>>I suppose it depends on how you define "believers."
>>
>>
>I would be refering to the biblical definition of a believer. What other one
>matters?
It's been a long time since I wrote the original post, and I don't
remember the context of my statement.
Erin \----------------------------------------------------/
| http://www.cems.umn.edu/~glaser/home.htm |
| gla...@cems.umn.edu |
/----------------------------------------------------\
Erin Glaser
>>>I also believe very strongly that, while all salvation is through the Church,
>>
>>Let's not get confused, salvation is not through "the church", particularly
>>because I don't know specifically which church you mean. Salvation is ONLY
>>through Jesus Christ, no matter what church you go to.
>Is this one of the reasons why there is so much confusion between
>catholics and protestants? I am guessing that "church" initially
>referred to the body of christ (i.e., believers, or Xians). More
>recently, protestants have used the term to refer to buildings that xians
>congregate in or as a term that is synonymous with "denomination."
>Neither use of the term are supported by the bible, however. Perhaps
>protestants should read the bibles more and anti-catholic literature less?
Now now, let's be nice, Ralph. Yes, it does originally refer to the
body of Christ, i.e. true believers, or Christians. Nowadays, there
are some folks who are Christians, in the sense that they profess a
belief in Christ, but who also hold a number of false beliefs. Let's
not worry about which groups these are. Are they a part of the
Church? That's another question.
I happen to believe that the denomination (technically a sect) that I
belong to is fully unified with Christ. If not, I wouldn't belong to
it. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* the Church, as is any other
group or individual fully unified with Christ. But this isn't
important for the present discussion. The only thing important is the
statement that "All salvation is through the Church," which means that
all salvation is through the body of believers in Christ. I suppose
that the tricky part for most people hinges on what people are
believers in Christ and what people aren't.
The rest of your post was very good, Ralph. :)
Erin Glaser
>Still, I would define someone as "rejecting Jesus" as someone who says,
>"This whole love and brotherhood and forgiveness and turn-the-other-cheek
>crap really leaves me cold. I think I'm going to go out and rape and
>murder now."
Don't even have to go that far. How about, "Forget this bit about
rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's; I'll just cheat on my taxes,
everybody does it anyway." Or, "What does that guy, who never got
laid anyway, know about adultery? My wife is a pain; I NEED to have
an affair to keep my sanity." Believe me, you can reject Christ on
sins a lot less obvious than rape and murder.
And, lest you think I'm entirely discounting the sin of disbelief, I
might add that ANYONE who becomes intellectually convinced of the
truth of Jesus' death and resurrection, yet refuses to admit it and
refuses to carry that knowledge further into their life (resisting the
change it must bring to the soul) really IS rejecting Jesus--though
they might be a "believer" in the literal sense. In fact, they're
probably far worse off than someone who just hasn't been convinced.
But, as I said before, I don't know, this is just my hypothesis. And
it's really hard to tell from the outside who's the reluctant,
embarrassed believer and who's the honest disbeliever.
Erin
Cosimo
glas...@tc.umn.edu wrote:
>In article, barne...@osu.edu (Cosimo) wrote:
>
>>>>I also believe very strongly that, while all salvation is through the
Church,
>>>
>>>Let's not get confused, salvation is not through "the church", particularly
>>>because I don't know specifically which church you mean. Salvation is ONLY
>>>through Jesus Christ, no matter what church you go to.
>
>>Is this one of the reasons why there is so much confusion between
>>catholics and protestants? I am guessing that "church" initially
>>referred to the body of christ (i.e., believers, or Xians). More
>>recently, protestants have used the term to refer to buildings that xians
>>congregate in or as a term that is synonymous with "denomination."
>>Neither use of the term are supported by the bible, however. Perhaps
>>protestants should read the bibles more and anti-catholic literature less?
>
>Now now, let's be nice, Ralph.
I was a bit snippy here but it cheeses me off when people slam one group
for being biblically illiterate and in the same breath display their own
ignorance of the bible. I like to keep at least 6 or 7 sentences between
my huge biblical blunders and my condemnation of others for making similar
blunders. :-)
I don't blame Melinda, I also believed that all catholics were biblical
illiterates when I was a protestant. I also believed that protestants
practiced Xianity the way it was practiced in the NT. Why? Because
pastors (people i looked up to) told me that this was true, over and over
and over again. If you say it often enough, it has to be true, n'est pas?
The fact of the matter is that most people (regardless of denomination)
are pretty much biblically illiterate. When people get home from work,
they watch "Entertainment Tonight" rather than memorize scriptures (like
they did in the good old days). People don't send their kids to sunday
school every sunday morning (on account of evil camping and boating trips)
and the poor buggers don't even know who shadrach, meshach and abednego
are.
Up until guttenberg gave us the printing press, Xian clergy were extremely
powerful members of the church. The limited number of bibles, the cost of
these things and the poverty & illiteracy of the masses created a
situation in which the priests either had to read and explain scripture to
the masses or the masses would just not know anything about the bible.
With a big boost in literacy, clergy became less important, everyday xians
could read the bible for themselves and come up with their own view of
what it meant (and also come up with their own denomination).
Now, with modern day entertainment seeming more alluring than reading a
2,000 year old book and with men & women working many hours at their jobs,
the role of the clergy may become more powerful once again. What people
believe in the next 50 to 100 years will (even more than today) depend on
what their pastor/minister/priest tells them the bible says rather than
what they discover the book says through reading.
I am sure that if i picked up a report on most promising careers in the
next 20 years, "cult leader" would probably be ranked higher than it has
been in years. Maybe I could be the next david koresh? Naw, I can't play
the guitar, I'd never cut it as a cult leader in texas.
Erin Glaser
>> Believe me, you can reject Christ on
>> sins a lot less obvious than rape and murder.
>Understandable. I just wanted to make it glaringly obvious. ;)
I know. I just like to remind people that "everyday" sins are more
likely to lead you to hell than are the, shall we say, more dramatic
ones. Because very few of us will rape or murder, but many of us
cause heartbreak in otherways.
>
>> And, lest you think I'm entirely discounting the sin of disbelief, I
>> might add that ANYONE who becomes intellectually convinced of the
>> truth of Jesus' death and resurrection, yet refuses to admit it and
>> refuses to carry that knowledge further into their life (resisting the
>> change it must bring to the soul) really IS rejecting Jesus--though
>> they might be a "believer" in the literal sense. In fact, they're
>> probably far worse off than someone who just hasn't been convinced.
>> But, as I said before, I don't know, this is just my hypothesis. And
>> it's really hard to tell from the outside who's the reluctant,
>> embarrassed believer and who's the honest disbeliever.
>I would sort of have to think if you're convinced of the death and
>resurrection of Jesus Christ, and you still reject it, you're either
>*really* committed to doing nasty deeds or maybe you're a little bit
>tetched in the head.
Or, you are among those who say "Lord, lord" but fail to feed the
hungry, clothe the poor, visit the prisoner, etc. etc. Go back and
read the judgment of nations, the "sheep and the goats." This IS
rejecting Christ. And those who are believers and yet don't LIVE
Christ are, in my opinion and hypothesis, worse off than those who
don't believe. Believers should know better. But you and I both know
that there are a lot of folks out there who
(a) are convinced of the death and resurrection of Jesus
(b) are not into doing nasty things, in fact are nice folks
(c) aren't tetched in the head
(d) are unfortunately NOT committed to living the Gospel every day.
Sad to say, this is a rejection of Christ too, in a way that IMHO is
worse than those who believe he is not Lord.
> I suppose I probably *would* want to be a Christian
>if I really believed the whole NT story...literally, anyway. I would be
>crazy *not* to want to be a part of Christianity if I did.
Are you sure about that? Christianity ain't easy. Imagine for a
minute that you suddenly were struck by the belief in the whole of the
Christian story--just the facts, just the historicity of it--that
Christ died for your sins, rose from the dead and is your Redeemer.
OK, so you're a "believer" now. Well, what's the next part?
Recognition that you're a sinner, have failed in many ways when you
could have pleased God. That takes a while to swallow. Then real
repentance. This is not necessarily an instantaneous thing. Some
things it took me years to repent of because that's how long it took
me to bend my stubborn, rebellious will. Then there are the long,
long years of changing your life and remembering at every moment that
now that you are a Christian, you must go the long way round when it
might be easier to cheat, you must pay the full price when it might be
easier to defraud, you must be faithful to a spouse when it might be
easier to abandon him/her, you must gather for the sacrament when
you'd rather stay in bed, you must go on living when it might be
easier to end it all, and you must learn to put God in the center of
all your actions. If you think you'd be crazy not to want to be part
of Christianity, go back and read all the demands Jesus makes of
people. They are hard--they involve swords, and leaving family
members, and cutting off one's offending hand. Even if you believed,
the doing is difficult. Christ is telling you to jump from a high
floor of a burning building when it's the only way out. Some folks,
not crazy, just folks who don't trust him, would feel safer to stay
and burn.
>I figure if I die and meet Jesus after all, I'll just say, "Lord, next time
>leave behind a letter in your handwriting like the Prophet Muhammed did,
>okay?" ;)
I realize you're being facetious here, but seeing as you are not a
Muslim despite the existence of Muhammad's handwriting, I seriously
doubt that the existence of Jesus' handwriting samples would help you
be a Christian either...
Erin Glaser
>X-No-Archive: yes
>Erin Glaser <glas...@NOSPAM.tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
><6tpvr8$go5$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>> In article, "Frenchy" <fre...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >I would sort of have to think if you're convinced of the death and
>> >resurrection of Jesus Christ, and you still reject it, you're either
>> >*really* committed to doing nasty deeds or maybe you're a little bit
>> >tetched in the head.
>>
>> Or, you are among those who say "Lord, lord" but fail to feed the
>> hungry, clothe the poor, visit the prisoner, etc. etc.
>One little side note on the aforementioned Christian encouragements.
<snip stuff about doing good works that can be dangerous>
Yes, this is all part of what makes it tough to be a Christian. Not
that Christians are supposed to put themselves in danger in order to
do the things you describe (write letters to prisoners, give money to
panhandlers, etc.) But that Christians are called to do *something,*
and these days it is sometimes tough to figure out what the best thing
to do is.
It is NOT necessarily true that Jesus would have given the panhandler
money (the coat off his back, maybe). If there is reason to believe
the panhandler is going to use the money to buy drugs, it is not
particularly Christian to enable this behavior. If there is reason to
fear that one might become a crime victim by approaching people, it's
not particularly Christian to (a) tempt someone to sin or (b) put
your loved ones in mourning when you can avoid it. I used to carry a
pack of cards with the phone numbers and addresses of local soup
kitchens and homeless shelters; this is what I gave to panhandlers
when I lived in Columbus.
Writing to prisoners isn't necessarily dangerous if you do it through
a reputable organization who will protect your identity, which will
review your letters for safety and which has strict rules to protect
your privacy: no photos, no detailed discussion of your children, no
last names or addresses. If you are still concerned about the safety
of this type of service, but want to do it anyway, become involved in
Amnesty International.
Then, you *could* take the attitude that an old priest once took in a
memorable homily I heard on the subject of that passage which I've
never forgotten:
"For I was hungry for affection, understanding and compassion, and you
fed me.
"For I was thirsty for truth, and you gave me to drink.
"For I was a stranger, an outcast, I looked different, I spoke
differently, and yet you welcomed me.
"For I was stripped naked by the shameful jeers and ridicule of
others, and you clothed me with respect and dignity.
"For I was sick at heart, in the soul, in the mind, in the body, and
you cared for me, you reached out to me, you tried to understand me,
you listened to me.
"For I was imprisoned by my own prejudices and fears, and you came to
meet me there to show me a door."
>Geez! And here I thought he'd boiled it down to a really easy-to-remember
>"Just try to be nice to each other, okay?"
No, he didn't. There's no "try" about it. There's nothing simple
about it. And, there's more to it than that. Christ was hardly the
first person to have the "be nice to one another" idea. He gave good
advice, but what's different about that? We have had no shortage of
good advice for thousands of years. The different part, the hard
part, is not the being nice, but the being in the right relationship
with God.
Cosimo
glas...@tc.umn.edu wrote:
But that Christians are called to do *something,*
>and these days it is sometimes tough to figure out what the best thing
>to do is.
>
I recently read some interesting stuff on this topic. When Western
nations, charitable organizations, and/or Xian organizations initially go
out to help 3rd world nations, the #1 priority is often children. Rather
than distribute food & medical aid throughout the population, a
disproportionate amount of aid is given to children. In many of these
nations women commonly have 12 or so children because they know that 50%
of them won't make it to their 5th birthday. The help given these nations
often drastically lowers infant mortallity rate and women start actually
raising 12 of 12 kids (rather than 6 of 12).
We are now seeing (in some nations) a decrease in the amount of children
women have, but until these people manage to adjust their cultural norm
regarding reproduction to account for the new lower infant mortality rate,
overpopulation and starvation are serious problems.
Recently overpopulation in some areas of Africa has caused starvation
(civil wars are also a big cause of starvation ass well). Had the west
never sent hoards of doctors, medical supplies, food, vaccinations, peace
corps volunteers etc. to Africa, the population might have been quite a
bit lower than it is today and starvation and scarcity of natural
resources might not have been a big issue in late 20th century African
life. On the other hand, had we not interfered the infant mortality rate
would have been much higher as well.
Of course if you are a fundy, a high infant mortality rate might be a good
thing. All them Muslims & animists (whom jed claims cover the dark
continent) might not reach the age of accountability and so go straight
to heaven when they die. As soon as their life expectancy is increased,
the road leading to hell ends up being bumper-to-bumper traffic all the
way.
Erin Glaser
>I didn't know there were organizations that could protect your identity
>like that; who are they?
Some churches do it. My church has a ministry to Hispanic inmates at
a nearby prison, and they take great pains.
>Ah, yes, but *how* do you have the "right relationship with God" if you're
>not nice to all his children?
Being just ("nice" isn't very accurate) to all his children is a
necessary but not sufficient condition. IOW, you need it, but there's
more to it than that.
Erin \----------------------------------------------------/
| http://www.cems.umn.edu/~glaser/home.htm |
| gla...@cems.umn.edu |
/----------------------------------------------------\
Scott Eiler
glas...@NOSPAM.tc.umn.edu (Erin Glaser) wrote:
>I used to carry a
>pack of cards with the phone numbers and addresses of local soup
>kitchens and homeless shelters; this is what I gave to panhandlers
>when I lived in Columbus.
I used to give money to panhandlers, until I saw a sign in the Deep
Ellum district of Dallas, which said roughly this:
"Please don't give money to panhandlers; it just keeps them on the
streets. Give to homeless shelters instead."
Whenever Jesus cured a beggar, he got that beggar off the street. (Or
at least he took away their excuse to beg.)
Erin Glaser
>> Some churches do it. My church has a ministry to Hispanic inmates at
>> a nearby prison, and they take great pains.
>Wanna pass on an address? I might actually undertake this some day if I
>can be assured of total anonymity, and I know others who may be interested
>as well.
'Fraid that it's a local thing, not a national thing. But Amnesty
International does it (albeit for political prisoners.)