As the Kingdom Turns
Ovum
Inspired by various recent threads on a.r.b-c, here for your viewing
pleasure is the first episode of "As the Kingdom Turns." Tonight, we meet
our heroes Bob and Carol, a young married couple in the ICC, as they meet
with their discipling couple Ted and Alice*...
TED: Alright gang, I gotta get going. I have special leaders meeting
with the "Sharp White Guys" Sector tonight. Let's synchronize our
daytimers for our next Intimacy Techniques discipling time.
Carol: I thought we were going to do that tonight!
Alice: (Looking at her sharply) Sister, you should let your husband take
the lead in this area! Are you trying to usurp his authority?
Carol: (Submissively) No....it's just that....you guys said it was OK for
us to sleep together on Friday nights...
TED: Yeah, but THIS is the LAST FRIDAY of the month! We gotta get
somebody baptized by midnight so we can make our numbers for the month!
Let's see.....I think we'll baptize Phil Bodner tonight...
Carol: But Phil is our Bible Talk Leader!
Alice: (Looking at her sharply) Carol, Phil hasn't had a visitor at
Wednesday night in over two weeks! That is obviously a sign of unrepented
sin! He must not have understood the commitment he was being called to
when we baptized him last month!
TED: Yup! Obviously not a true Christian. Anyway.....why don't we get
with you guys, say, Saturday night around 1 a.m.?
Carol: Why can't we just sleep together without you guys being there?
Alice: (Looking at her sharply) Sister! What are you saying?! Do you
NOT WANT TO GET DISCIPLED??? (She looks at Ted. He nods.) I can't
believe you, Carol! Drop right now and give me 20!!
Carol: (Obediantly gets down on the floor and starts doing sit-ups)
TED: Honey, you're such a great discipler! Isn't she, Bob? (He gives
Bob a hearty side hug with exactly three pats on the back.)
Bob: Oh yeah! (Laughing nervously) Carol is much more fit now that Alice
is discipling her...
TED: As soon as she loses 10 more pounds, she'll be ready for leadership!
Whaddaya say, Carol?
Carol: (huffing) 12....13....14....
Alice: (Looks at her sharply.)
**************************************************************************
****
Well, folks, that's our episode for tonight! Join us again next week,
when Bob and Carol get discipled on Personal Hygiene! Don't miss the next
episode of ......."As the Kingdom Turns."
*any similarities to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Or,
maybe not.
Tracy Kreckman
Great stuff! Do you write for Hollywood?
BTW, here’s an excerpt from a pilot of a Star Trek spinoff that was never
aired because it was deemed too scary for the viewing audience; "Disciple
Trek: The Next Generation".
Worf: Captain, I’m picking up a vessel on sensors on an intercept course
at high warp speed.
Picard: Can you identify it Mr. Worf?
Worf: No sir. It is roughly cubic in shape, but many times the size of
the Enterprise.
Data: The vessel is now within visual range.
Worf: We are receiving a communication…we are being invited to a Bible
Talk".
Troi: Captain, I sense deception in their invitation. I’m also sensing
something very strange; it seems that their thoughts are more collective
than individual.
Riker: Sounds like a trick, captain.
Picard: Agreed, number one. Mr. Worf, extend our regrets and tell
them…perhaps another time.
Worf: Captain, the alien ship is firing!
Riker: Go to red alert! Raise the shield of faith!
Worf: Love bomb hits on the forward and starboard shields…no damage.
Captain, we are being hailed.
Picard: On screen.
Alien (in a mechanical monotone voice): This is Locutus McKean, Galactic
sector leader of ICC. Your vessel has been scanned, and it has been
determined that you are ordinary Christians. You are inferior. You will
be assimilated, discipled and baptized. Resistance is futile.
Data: I have gained access to a communications node of their primary
neural net.
Picard: Can you make anything out?
Data: Much is confused and garbled, but I am able to isolate a few often
repeated sequences in the data stream such as "awesome" and "preach it
bro’"!
Picard: Data, insert I John 2:26 and 27 into the net. It may initiate
some sort of individualistic response.
Data: Accessing…interesting; each time the verse is inserted, certain
command nodes respond with other data, often containing the sequences of
"pride" or "arrogance".
Troi: As that happens I’m sensing a lot of guilt coming from the rest of
the collective.
Worf: The ship is firing again! It is a ray of some kind that has
penetrated the shields, and has hit decks 14, 15 and 16…personnel on
those decks are abandoning their posts and heading for holodeck 2.
LaForge: LaForge to Picard!
Picard: What is it Geordi?
LaForge: You’re not gonna believe this captain, but holodeck 2 has
spontaneously initiated a program of a an olympic sized swimming pool,
about a meter and a half deep!
Picard: Try to divert power from the holodeck and seal the doors! We’ll
try to cut off the beam.
Will the entire Enterprise crew be baptized? Will they be assimilated
into the ICC collective? Will Geordi have to lose the visor because he
doesn’t look sharp while witnessing? Tune in for the next exciting
episode of "Disciple Trek: The Next Generation"!
shhhh! Nobody tell Paramount, OK?
Tracy
Ovum
In article <31F649...@sympatico.ca>, Tracy Kreckman
<tkre...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>Will the entire Enterprise crew be baptized? Will they be assimilated
>into the ICC collective? Will Geordi have to lose the visor because he
>doesn’t look sharp while witnessing? Tune in for the next exciting
>episode of "Disciple Trek: The Next Generation"!
EXCELLENT! Hey Kreckman, let's collaborate on an ICC version of
"X-Files!" :-)
Starr
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>Inspired by various recent threads on a.r.b-c, here for your viewing
>pleasure is the first episode of "As the Kingdom Turns." Tonight, we meet
>our heroes Bob and Carol, a young married couple in the ICC, as they meet
>with their discipling couple Ted and Alice*...
<snip>
Oh, Ovum....
<shaking head in both humor and disbelief>
Catherine Hampton
<laughing almost too hard to type>
Bravo! And I needed that. Thanks :>
Catherine
Jason
I like this show too.
MJ Stallworth
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>Inspired by various recent threads on a.r.b-c, here for your viewing
>pleasure is the first episode of "As the Kingdom Turns." Tonight, we meet
>our heroes Bob and Carol, a young married couple in the ICC, as they meet
>with their discipling couple Ted and Alice*...
>TED: Alright gang, I gotta get going. I have special leaders meeting
>Carol: (huffing) 12....13....14....
>**************************************************************************
>****
LOL - FOC - ROFLM*O!!!!!!
Ovum,
This has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read on the ng!!
As my old drill sargeant used to say : OUTSTANDING!
MJ
EOshiro
Nice story, Tracy.
Doesn't quite have the time-lasting value of Revelations, however. I find
that a bit more inspiring.
Mark Davis
ja...@sonicsys.com (Jason) wrote:
>In article <4t6hec$j...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>> ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>>
>> >Inspired by various recent threads on a.r.b-c, here for your viewing
>> >pleasure is the first episode of "As the Kingdom Turns." Tonight, we meet
>> >our heroes Bob and Carol, a young married couple in the ICC, as they meet
>> >with their discipling couple Ted and Alice*...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Oh, Ovum....
>>
>> <shaking head in both humor and disbelief>
>I like this show too.
I'm waiting for the episode where Arnold Schwarzennegger, Bruce
Willis, Sylvester Stallone, and Chuck Norris bust in and liberate all
the ICCers from their oppressors...
:)
Mark Davis
Starr
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Nice story, Tracy.
Now, come, on EO, lighten up just a *bit*?
It *was* pretty funny....
EOshiro
kcstarr writes:
>Now, come, on EO, lighten up just a *bit*?
>
>It *was* pretty funny....
I suppose it's funny, if you use the criteria of humor by itself, having
no influence from the subject matter.
But it really doesn't amuse me any more than the first thread I ever
posted in, which was a short listing of songs substituting Kip's name for
Jesus'
DAnder9518
In article <4t99d9$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>Doesn't quite have the time-lasting value of Revelations, however. I
find
>that a bit more inspiring.
Well, if you like, I'm sure the creators of "Disciple Trek" could write in
some characters like the "Beast with 7 Heads", etc. . .
---->Dave : )
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>But it really doesn't amuse me
"Submit, and obey"
-Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
R.L. Measures
In article <4t8cun$9...@news.ecn.bgu.edu>, bs...@bgu.edu (MJ Stallworth) wrote:
> ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>
snip...
> This has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read on the ng!!
> As my old drill sargeant used to say : OUTSTANDING!
>
> MJ
--------------
Amen, MJ. This is on a par with the writings of George Orwell.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
EOshiro (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
: Scott wrote:
: What?
It's typical of ICC critics to quote out-of-context sound-bites to try to
demonize the speaker. Sort of like the way the "God's man" quote is
proliferated in reference to Kip.
BTW, I don't use a dash preceding my signature, so you can make that
correct the next time you want to misquote me.
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Oh yes, let's all have a laugh at the ICC's expense.
Feeling persecuted again EO?
How about going down to the corner store and buying a sense of humor.
We don't *have* to stick strictly to serious, somber discussion.
That's what ICC member Karma Carrier told us just before his
mysterious disapearance.....
>(Or am I trying to oppress you now?)
Try whatever you'd like......it's a pretty free net....
EOshiro
This is getting to be a pesky trend.
Oh yes, let's all have a laugh at the ICC's expense.
Could we restrict our efforts to something constructive, perhaps?
Smlleecat6
Roger wrote:
>It's typical of ICC critics to quote out-of-context sound-bites to try to
>demonize the speaker.
But the ICC uses out-of-context bible passages to prove to anyone not in
the ICC that they are headed straight for hell if they don't join the ICC.
Isn't that wrong?
COneill182
In article <4tnfeb$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>
>How effective is humor as a medium, really? For those of you who have
>been hurt by the various branches of the ICC, do you find this "humor"
>offensive at all? Is it making light of your pain?
>
>
I think humor is a very effective medium, and didn't find it offensive at
all. I almost laugh out loud everytime I even think about the original
post, and am anxiously awaiting the next episode. I don't think it's
making light of my pain, but it definitely made my pain lighter!
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>How effective is humor as a medium, really? For those of you who have
>been hurt by the various branches of the ICC, do you find this "humor"
>offensive at all? Is it making light of your pain?
Funny. I saw absolutely NO SUCH CONCERN while EMjay65 was posting
"humor." All I saw then was a bunch of ICC-ers fighting tooth and
nail to defend his right to free speech etc etc........
What's it gonna be? Don't be so wishy washy
EOshiro
patv writes:
>YES, let us have a laugh at the laughable ICC. A little humor
>can be much more effective way of spreading warnings about this cult.
>I downloaded the "Disciple Trek" post, added a few Star Trek fonts, put
>the newsgroup name and two other homepages about the ICC and cults in
>bold and handed it out at work.
>
>Just trying to keep my little corner of the world safe from
>ICC.
Well, gee, then you shouldn't object any time the ICC points out the
errant doctrine that every other church in the world has, right? I mean,
if you can condemn all of the ICC, the ICC can certainly condemn all of
you?
Martin Hinves
pa...@teleport.com (P.W. Vinciguerra) wrote:
>In article <4tksho$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>>Oh yes, let's all have a laugh at the ICC's expense.
> YES, let us have a laugh at the laughable ICC. A little humor
>can be much more effective way of spreading warnings about this cult.
>I downloaded the "Disciple Trek" post, added a few Star Trek fonts, put
>the newsgroup name and two other homepages about the ICC and cults in
>bold and handed it out at work.
> Just trying to keep my little corner of the world safe from
>ICC.
Disciple Trek ?
I would have thought "The Man who would be King" or "Ruthless People"
even " Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" would have been a better choice.
As a person who was once rebuked by his discipler for watching Star
Trek (it was an unspiritual show you know) I must reconsider my
subscription to your product <VBG>.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Smlleecat6 (smlle...@aol.com) wrote:
: Roger wrote:
Out-of-context Bible passages?! Such as...? Pick one out of the study
series, if you would, so we have some reference material. This way we
eliminate the wild stories and the jokes, like when Jesus sent the demons
into the herd of pigs, he was preparing "deviled ham". :)
P.W. Vinciguerra
R. L. Measures
In article <4tnfeb$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
> patv writes:
>
> >YES, let us have a laugh at the laughable ICC. A little humor
> >can be much more effective way of spreading warnings about this cult.
> >I downloaded the "Disciple Trek" post, added a few Star Trek fonts, put
> >the newsgroup name and two other homepages about the ICC and cults in
> >bold and handed it out at work.
> >
> >Just trying to keep my little corner of the world safe from
> >ICC.
>
> Well, gee, then you shouldn't object any time the ICC points out the
> errant doctrine that every other church in the world has, right? I mean,
> if you can condemn all of the ICC, the ICC can certainly condemn all of
> you?
>
Lighten up, EOshiro. These guys will loose their silly grins in
nanoseconds when they find out that they are going to be burning forever
in Hell and bobbing for road apples in a cesspool.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
Rich (I'm assuming jokingly) writes:
>Lighten up, EOshiro. These guys will loose their silly grins in
>nanoseconds when they find out that they are going to be burning forever
>in Hell and bobbing for road apples in a cesspool.
I find no pleasure in that vision. For anyone.
Starr
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
Well, I don't disagree with you, EO, but I also assume that Rich has
the occasionally warped sense of humor and making a joke. Whether in
good taste or not is rather debatable, but let's give him the benefit
of the doubt, shall we?
Chris Garland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Rich (I'm assuming jokingly) writes:
>
>>Lighten up, EOshiro. These guys will loose their silly grins in
>>nanoseconds when they find out that they are going to be burning forever
>>in Hell and bobbing for road apples in a cesspool.
>
>I find no pleasure in that vision. For anyone.
Well, then, stop running around saying your church is IT. You are
basically saying exactly what Rich jokingly said above, only under a veil
of deception and secrecy.
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Well, then, stop running around saying your church is IT. You are
>basically saying exactly what Rich jokingly said above, only under a veil
>of deception and secrecy.
I don't recall ever actually having said that myself. In fact, I've
explained my veiw in other threads.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Chris Garland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
: eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
: >Rich (I'm assuming jokingly) writes:
: >
: >>Lighten up, EOshiro. These guys will loose their silly grins in
: >>nanoseconds when they find out that they are going to be burning forever
: >>in Hell and bobbing for road apples in a cesspool.
: >
: >I find no pleasure in that vision. For anyone.
: Well, then, stop running around saying your church is IT. You are
: basically saying exactly what Rich jokingly said above, only under a veil
: of deception and secrecy.
Here we go with this "deception and secrecy" malarky again. Hell is a
real place, Jesus talked about it, and he told people how to avoid going
there. Jesus made no bones about saying that he was "the way, the truth,
and the life" (John 14:6) and that "no one comes to the Father except
through me" (John 14:6). Maybe you want to debate that "no one" really
means "some" according to some ancient cave writings and that "you just
know" that Mother Teresa and a few other good people will be saved by
some other salvation doctrine than what the Bible says about repentance
and baptism.
But hell is real, it exists. God uses heaven and hell and the thoughts
of eternity to give us some initital motivation to seek him out. You
would be amazed how many people suddenly became interested in church
right after the Loma Prieta earthquake! But the right motivation to
become a follower of Jesus is love--that you love God and understand how
much he loves you. The ICC is not about scaring or bribing people into
getting baptized, but rather of teaching them about God and how to love
God. Hell is still there, heaven is still there, and Jesus is still
there. You make the choice which one is going to occupy your thoughts
and motivate your actions.
Smlleecat6
Roger writes:
> The ICC is not about scaring or bribing people into
>getting baptized, but rather of teaching them about God and how to love
>God.
How many people were told things like the following: after the light and
darkness study, the people studying with me repeatedly said things like
"be very careful getting home today. Satan knows you know the truth. He
is going to try to get a foothold. I suggest you don't step out into any
traffic." There were comments about getting hit by a truck or bus, etc,
etc. It sounds hilarious to me now but I remember at the time they had me
a bit nervous.
Chris Garland
>there. You make the choice which one is going to occupy your thoughts
>and motivate your actions.
Roger, thanks for your insightful post. I agree with almost all of it.
Unfortunately, I find the ICC's definition/interpretation/version of
salvation to be completely in error. I don't doubt Hell or Heaven. I
don't "just know" Mother Theresa will be saved (as in, just because she's
a good person), I believe she follows biblical commands; she was
baptized, and is therefore under the grace of God through the blood of
Christ. Anything else is ICC nonsense.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> snip>
> real place, Jesus talked about it, and he told people how to avoid going
> there. Jesus made no bones about saying that he was "the way, the truth,
> and the life" (John 14:6) and that "no one comes to the Father except
> through me" (John 14:6).
Jesus was talking about attaining eternal life through Himself, not
through an organization. The church, whatever it is called, is not
"the way, the truth and the life." Only Jesus claimed that ultimate
authority.
The ICC claims to be the "only church." The ICC claims to be "Jesus'
church." Jesus did not say, "my church is the way, the truth and
the life." Jesus will judge those who are going to heaven or hell
based on their individual lives, not on what church they attended.
<snip>
> But hell is real, it exists. God uses heaven and hell and the thoughts
> of eternity to give us some initital motivation to seek him out.
I do not disagree with this, but the Bible nor Jesus gives the ICC
the authority it claims to make judgments about people's eternal
salvation.
Roger, you and the ICC leadership ought to get off your high horses.
Sarah
>The ICC is not about scaring or bribing people into
> getting baptized, but rather of teaching them about God and how to love
> God. Hell is still there, heaven is still there, and Jesus is still
> there. You make the choice which one is going to occupy your thoughts
> and motivate your actions.
The ICC uses scare tatics all the time. We used to use the "Chariot
Ride" for this very purpose. Get a group of people together who are
close to making the decision to get baptized. Show them a video on
the crucifiction, and study the impact their sins had on nailing
Jesus to the cross.
Literally, we would scare the hell out of people. Been there, done
that!
Scott W. Schreiber
Roger, your response had NOTHING to do with the post you responded to.
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Roger, thanks for your insightful post. I agree with almost all of it.
>Unfortunately, I find the ICC's definition/interpretation/version of
>salvation to be completely in error. I don't doubt Hell or Heaven. I
>don't "just know" Mother Theresa will be saved (as in, just because she's
>a good person), I believe she follows biblical commands; she was
>baptized, and is therefore under the grace of God through the blood of
>Christ. Anything else is ICC nonsense.
So you believe that incorrect doctrine is irrelevant?
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>>Unfortunately, I find the ICC's definition/interpretation/version of
>>salvation to be completely in error. I don't doubt Hell or Heaven. I
>>don't "just know" Mother Theresa will be saved (as in, just because
she's
>
>>a good person), I believe she follows biblical commands; she was
>>baptized, and is therefore under the grace of God through the blood
of
>>Christ. Anything else is ICC nonsense.
>
>So you believe that incorrect doctrine is irrelevant?
My thoughts:
- Incorrect doctrine is not irrelevant we must be seekers of truth.
- In Mother Theresa's case it is not up to me to limit God's grace
and say she will not be saved, that's up to God. Will God forgive
doctrinal sin?
- In the ICC disciples case, it is not up to me to limit God's grace
and say the disciple will not be saved because he or she failed to
love a brother or sister who disagreed with a doctrine of the
movement. Will God forgive sin against the greatest commandment?
Jesus died on the cross so our sins could be forgiven. Let us not
continue in sin, but let us not nullify his death by limiting God's
grace.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian)
COneill182
In article <4u91p6$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, smlle...@aol.com
(Smlleecat6) writes:
>"be very careful getting home today. Satan knows you know the truth. He
>is going to try to get a foothold. I suggest you don't step out into any
>traffic." There were comments about getting hit by a truck or bus, etc,
>etc.
We heard almost the exact same words - although we were also told we
needed to schedule the rest of our studies and "get ourselves baptized
ASAP!!!".
Catherine O'Neill
ChrisGarland
Incorrect Doctrine? That's your opinion. The Catholic church never says
things like "the bible teaches this, but we are going to disregard it and
teach this." The believe everything they teach is biblical, and will
show you scriptures to prove it. So will Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists,
etc. The point being, NO ONE HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON THE TRUTH. So stop being
self-righteous.
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
In <4ui7pl$g...@news.ios.com> ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com>
writes:
>robs...@ix.netcom.com(ROBBIN VUGRNICK) wrote:
>>In <4uhgfs$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>>
>>>
>>>So you believe that incorrect doctrine is irrelevant?
>>
>>My thoughts:
>> - Incorrect doctrine is not irrelevant we must be seekers of truth.
>> - In Mother Theresa's case it is not up to me to limit God's grace
>> and say she will not be saved, that's up to God. Will God forgive
>> doctrinal sin?
>> - In the ICC disciples case, it is not up to me to limit God's
grace
>> and say the disciple will not be saved because he or she failed
to
>> love a brother or sister who disagreed with a doctrine of the
>> movement. Will God forgive sin against the greatest commandment?
>>Jesus died on the cross so our sins could be forgiven. Let us not
>>continue in sin, but let us not nullify his death by limiting God's
>>grace.
>>
The believe everything they teach is biblical, and will
>show you scriptures to prove it. So will Baptists, Lutherans,
Methodists,
>etc. The point being, NO ONE HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON THE TRUTH. So stop
being
>self-righteous.
>
I think you called me self-righteous because you did not understand my
post, which I admit may not have been clear. Whatever religious group
we are in, there will be issues that we think are more correct than
other groups. Sometimes a person believes that the other groups are
lost because their beliefs and practices are different. I believe God
will forgive doctrinal error when the error is due to an honest
misunderstanding of scripture (which may not even be a sin). If you
believe different than I do and you follow your beliefs, do I have a
right to say God will not accept you? NO! Do I have a right to say you
are lost? NO! I do not have a right to say that because if I do, I am
defining and limiting God's grace.
Am I clear?
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a humble Christian who does have opinions)
ChrisGarland
to someone who said something like I don't doctrinal errors are
important. That post wasn't quoted in the above string.
Mark Davis
ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>Incorrect Doctrine? That's your opinion. The Catholic church never says
>things like "the bible teaches this, but we are going to disregard it and
>teach this." The believe everything they teach is biblical, and will
>show you scriptures to prove it. So will Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists,
>etc. The point being, NO ONE HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON THE TRUTH. So stop being
>self-righteous.
Chris this was my whole point about bringing up Mother Theresa.
On the one hand - you have the ICC saying she's going to hell.
On the other you have Mother Theresa who sincerely holds her beliefs
to be what she considers truth and who's life demonstrates her
commitment to those beliefs.
For me there is no contest. Mother Theresa is going to heaven. I may
not agree with her beliefs but I believe she has done everything in
her power to find the truth and put it into practice. God loves her
for that and will forgive any docturnal mistakes if indeed she has
made any at all.
The ICC's claim that Mother Theresa is going to hell is the PERFECT
example of its arrogance and spiritual bigotry.
Mark Davis
Spumoni (NJ Verenini)
In article <4u91p6$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6) writes:
-Roger writes:
-
-> The ICC is not about scaring or bribing people into
->getting baptized, but rather of teaching them about God and how to love
->God.
-
-How many people were told things like the following: after the light and
-darkness study, the people studying with me repeatedly said things like
-"be very careful getting home today. Satan knows you know the truth. He
-is going to try to get a foothold. I suggest you don't step out into any
-traffic." There were comments about getting hit by a truck or bus, etc,
-etc. It sounds hilarious to me now but I remember at the time they had me
-a bit nervous.
-
-
I got fed the same exact thing...something to the effect of, "Watch out,
the next few days are going to be tough, because Satan is going to try and
get you."
I saw where that was going right quick. Now that I had the body of the
group's teachings in hand, there was a chance that common sense (Satan)
could impart the light of clue into my otherwise doctrine-addled mind.
That's my spin on it. Oh, and don't forget...if you leave the ICC, you've
made an emotional decision (followed Satan), but if you join the ICC,
you've made a clearly rational decision. Bewildering.
--
annoying .sig, version 3.1a, ©96 SpooSoft, Inc.
---
IRC: Spumoni | C7 B1 17 FA 14 5F 8B BD 08 71 68 64 3F A2 85 65
ftp: spunet.znet.com | "I have nothing to say, and I am saying it."
www: spunet.znet.com | -John Cage
Catherine Hampton
Gintas Jazbutis (gin...@concentric.net) wrote:
: I for one am glad I am not the one deciding who
: gets into heaven and who doesn't. I'm confident
: that whatever God decides, no one will be able
: to say it wasn't right. I know all of us would love
: for life to end up right, like a cheaply sentimental
: Hollywood flick, and everybody (except that
: dread devil incarnate Hitler) makes it to heaven.
Oh, I dunno. Most of us would cheerfully exclude Stalin, and
Ted Bundy, and Richard Allen Davis. <wry grin> But point well
made. It isn't just cheap sentimentality, though -- many of
the Church Fathers pondered this point, and some doubted that
a just and merciful God could possibly allow people to suffer
eternally. I don't think about this -- there's no way I can
handle the question at my current spiritual state. I have only
too easy a time seeing someone in power who makes others suffer
as sadistic and evil, and there is no clear answer to the question
of how a good and merciful God could allow much of what has
happened and is happening now in this world.
I can't see any ultimately positive resolution to life unless God
is just and merciful, though. And somehow I think there are
answers, although not what we expect or could have guesed.
Catherine
Gintas Jazbutis
>Chris this was my whole point about bringing up Mother Theresa.
>
>On the one hand - you have the ICC saying she's going to hell.
>
>On the other you have Mother Theresa who sincerely holds her beliefs
>to be what she considers truth and who's life demonstrates her
>commitment to those beliefs.
>
>For me there is no contest. Mother Theresa is going to heaven. I may
>not agree with her beliefs but I believe she has done everything in
>her power to find the truth and put it into practice. God loves her
>for that and will forgive any docturnal mistakes if indeed she has
>made any at all.
>
I for one am glad I am not the one deciding who
gets into heaven and who doesn't. I'm confident
that whatever God decides, no one will be able
to say it wasn't right. I know all of us would love
for life to end up right, like a cheaply sentimental
Hollywood flick, and everybody (except that
dread devil incarnate Hitler) makes it to heaven.
In my darkly introspective moments, I ponder my
just fate, and I know with
confidence that if true justice were done, I'd be
toast for sure. If God in his great mercy lets me
into heaven, I'll just die from excitement. ;-)
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Incorrect Doctrine? That's your opinion. The Catholic church never says
>things like "the bible teaches this, but we are going to disregard it and
>teach this." The believe everything they teach is biblical, and will
>show you scriptures to prove it. So will Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists,
>etc. The point being, NO ONE HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON THE TRUTH. So stop being
>self-righteous.
Of course you could have a church that doctrinally demands that they
always meet in an "upper room" and technically, the teaching would be
"Bible-based." But that doesn't mean it would be Biblical. I can't find
any biblical command that priests be celibate nor anything than justifies
infant baptism. To twist and turn an argument on you, just because it's a
big organization doesn't mean it's right.
Mark writes:
>For me there is no contest. Mother Theresa is going to heaven. I may
>not agree with her beliefs but I believe she has done everything in
>her power to find the truth and put it into practice. God loves her
>for that and will forgive any docturnal mistakes if indeed she has
>made any at all.
You know, if it's wrong to make comments like, "Mother Theresa will go to
hell," I think it would be equally as wrong to say, "Mother Theresa will
go to heaven." Either way, you're making a personal judgement.
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>I can't find
>any biblical command that priests be celibate nor anything than justifies
>infant baptism.
Yeah? Well what have you got that demonstrates it's wrong?
>You know, if it's wrong to make comments like, "Mother Theresa will go to
>hell," I think it would be equally as wrong to say, "Mother Theresa will
>go to heaven." Either way, you're making a personal judgement.
EO, for someone who has condemned all other denominations, you don't
know a whole lot about the Bible, do you?
The Bible says with the same measure you use, it will be given to you.
If you say "you are eternally damned", then you may be measured out
some eternal damnation. If you say "this person is a humble servant
who says she follows Jesus. Surely God will grant her salvation,"
then you just might be rewarded for your kindness with some salvation.
Blow the dust of that Bible of yours man..... (yeah, that's a
judgement, sorry.)
DAnder9518
In article <4unhe9$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>I can't find
>any biblical command that priests be celibate...
Good point -- there are no *commands* for celibate priests. BUT there are
a few verses which support not taking a mate. Perhaps the RC church has
over-emphasized these scriptures. But the ICC *also* practices "command
by example" -- taking scriptural examples and making them into commands.
>You know, if it's wrong to make comments like, "Mother Theresa will go to
>hell," I think it would be equally as wrong to say, "Mother Theresa will
>go to heaven." Either way, you're making a personal judgement.
How about "Kip McKean is going to heaven"? Are you comfortable making
*that* statement, or is that also a "personal judgement"?
------->Dave Anderson
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Chris G. writes:
>
>>Incorrect Doctrine? That's your opinion. The Catholic church never says
>>things like "the bible teaches this, but we are going to disregard it and
>
>>teach this." The believe everything they teach is biblical, and will
>>show you scriptures to prove it. So will Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists,
>
>>etc. The point being, NO ONE HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON THE TRUTH. So stop being
>
>>self-righteous.
>
>Of course you could have a church that doctrinally demands that they
>always meet in an "upper room" and technically, the teaching would be
>any biblical command that priests be celibate nor anything than justifies
>big organization doesn't mean it's right.
The key word, of course, being "right." Let me ask you something; if so
many really well-meaning people scower the scriptures daily and come up
with so many different interpretations, what makes you so sure YOUR
interpretation is right? Frankly, I think God is bigger than that
>Mark writes:
>
>>For me there is no contest. Mother Theresa is going to heaven. I may
>>not agree with her beliefs but I believe she has done everything in
>>her power to find the truth and put it into practice. God loves her
>>for that and will forgive any docturnal mistakes if indeed she has
>>made any at all.
>
EOshiro
Jesus wasn't afraid to say who would be with him and who wouldn't.
Matthew 7:21--"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
Kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father who is in
heaven."
Matthew 10:37-38--"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is
not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me; and
anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Revelations 22:15--"Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts,
the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone else who
loves and practices falsehood."
Paul says things as well:
Galatians 5:19-21--"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual
immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred,
discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions,
and envy; drunkeness, orgies, and the like. I warn you as I did before,
that those of you who live like this will not enter the kingdom of God."
Ephesians 5:5--"For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy
person--such man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and God.
These are just some of the standards set in the Bible. Some of the more
obvious, often wrongly thought of as the "more sinful", ones. But there
are other ones all over the NT. And I make no apology for neither holding
to these standards nor repeating them to other people. Call it "legalism"
if you want, but the Bible CLEARLY says that certain people will have NO
PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Let me ask you something; if so
>many really well-meaning people scower the scriptures daily and come up
>with so many different interpretations, what makes you so sure YOUR
>interpretation is right? Frankly, I think God is bigger than that
Another philisophical argument. Theoretically, we really can't know
anything. Theories exist from the idea that we could only be in a dream
to we are all in someone else's dream. Of course most of those theories
offer no hope, either. I can only be as sure of my interpretation as
evidence allows.
I think "God is bigger than..." having to put up with scattered remnants
of his followers. I sincerely believe that the ICC is God's modern day
movement. He saw some "sharp" people who were committed to being
disciples as he had designed it, and were committed to spreading the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he decided to bless them. He saw the
potential for people to be united together once again like in the first
century. He saw the potential for people to do things like Paul did, like
going around and strengthening churches around the world. And I think if
he decided to do all that, then he made sure he gave his true followers a
chance to reunite with each other. A chance to recommit. Kind of like
Jesus did when he "came first for the Jews" but at the same time, reaching
out to everyone else. The ICC is not even 20 years old, but there are
hundreds of churches all over the world, and hundreds of charity projects
in effect. (My personal belief is that there are Christians outside of
the ICC, but I don't know where. But I believe if ANY "Christian" turns
down being in a fellowship full of Christians unnecessarily, they may not
be a Christian.)
But of course, I also admit that there are problems and abuses that
occur--JUST LIKE the first century church. We're human. We make
mistakes, and we'll keep making mistakes. I don't think it's fair to pick
on every single mistake someone in the ICC makes if you're going to ignore
every other movement's problems. One of the "great reformists," Martin
Luther, actually wanted to exclude the book of James from his Bible!
Dave writes:
>>You know, if it's wrong to make comments like, "Mother Theresa will go
to
>>hell," I think it would be equally as wrong to say, "Mother Theresa will
>>go to heaven." Either way, you're making a personal judgement.
>
>How about "Kip McKean is going to heaven"? Are you comfortable making
>*that* statement, or is that also a "personal judgement"?
Actually, I said "if," meaning "for those of you who think...", not
necessarily meaning that those are my feelings. I was trying to create a
logical conclusion.
But in any case, I'm not going to make the statement "Kip McKean is going
to heaven," either. I can't predict the future. He may completly wig out
or go postal and have to be kicked out. He may lose faith or become
disenchanted with the Bible. Or he may actually go. I don't know. I can
compare their lives to the Bible, but I really don't personally know Kip
any more than I know Mother Theresa--or Bill Clinton, for that matter.
ChrisGarland
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>In article <4unhe9$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>writes:
>
>>any biblical command that priests be celibate...
>
>Good point -- there are no *commands* for celibate priests. BUT there are
>a few verses which support not taking a mate. Perhaps the RC church has
>over-emphasized these scriptures. But the ICC *also* practices "command
>by example" -- taking scriptural examples and making them into commands.
In fact, I believe the RCC is dead wrong in commanding priests to be
celibate. I believe it goes against scripture AND against human nature. I
think that celibate priests is the reason why we have had a decline in
the priesthood (and religous orders) in the U.S.; they had become a haven
for homosexuals unable to accept themselves, who were also hiding from an
unaccepting society. While I don't doubt that there were many, many
sincere repentant homosexuals who became superb priests, I'm certain
there were some who were just hiding from both themselves and society,
and the priesthood was of secondary importance. I also think that the
pedophelia some priests have engaged in (both homosexual and heterosexual
men) is the result of this enforced celibacy. Not to mention the fact
that many priests are simply unqualified to lead, because they have never
lead a family (as the bible dictates). I also beleive that God is
working to correct that situation, and the Vatican will come to realize
this as the crisis in declines in vocations in the U.S. reaches critical
mass.
That being said, a celibate priesthood, right or wrong, doesn't nullify
the salvation of the Lord.
ChrisGarland
Yes, the bible does say these things. But what does this have to do with
condemning whole denominations? I know scores of peoples in various
religious denominations that do not engage in these things, and I know
ICC members WHO DO. Get the point? It's *not* a denominational issue or
doctrinal issue, It's a heart issue.
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Yes, the bible does say these things. But what does this have to do with
>condemning whole denominations? I know scores of peoples in various
>religious denominations that do not engage in these things, and I know
>ICC members WHO DO. Get the point? It's *not* a denominational issue or
>doctrinal issue, It's a heart issue.
Yes, I realize that. This is especially evident in the Matthew 7
scripture. But this is soley on a personal level. I don't think the
Bible says anywhere that you can stand next to what you know is wrong and
still be right yourself. Church membership will not gurantee you a spot
in heaven any more than baptism will, but I think both play a seriously
important role.
EOshiro
Scott writes:
>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
>>I can't find
>>any biblical command that priests be celibate nor anything than
justifies
>>infant baptism.
>
>Yeah? Well what have you got that demonstrates it's wrong?
Certainly. Since it is impossible to be a priest or anything higher in
the Catholic church without being celibate, it is obvious that they are
forbidden to marry. 1 Timothy 4:1-5 says exactly what kind of people
forbid marriage, and why. Besides ALL Christians are priests, so even the
designation is incorrect (1 Peter 2:5,9)
Infant baptism is not anything like true baptism. You get baptized after
proclaiming a faith in Christ and repenting. Babies cannot contemplate
Christ, nor contemplate sin and repentance, nor proclaim anything. Most
babies are lucky if they can contemplate their navel. Besides, I find it
hard to believe that anyone would even want to believe in a God that would
send babies to hell.
>>You know, if it's wrong to make comments like, "Mother Theresa will go
to
>>hell," I think it would be equally as wrong to say, "Mother Theresa will
>>go to heaven." Either way, you're making a personal judgement.
>
>EO, for someone who has condemned all other denominations, you don't
>know a whole lot about the Bible, do you?
>The Bible says with the same measure you use, it will be given to you.
>If you say "you are eternally damned", then you may be measured out
>some eternal damnation. If you say "this person is a humble servant
>who says she follows Jesus. Surely God will grant her salvation,"
>then you just might be rewarded for your kindness with some salvation.
In the first place I've never said that I thought that Mother Theresa will
go to hell. I've never met her, and probably never will. And it's not my
job to decide where she will go. Personally, I don't think people should
say where other people are going at all. Mother Theresa may be used as an
example in studies, but I don't think it helps the person studying at all.
In the second place my supposed "condemnation" is due to their doctrinal
errors. I don't think you can have blatantly anti-biblical doctrine and
be right with God. Of course there are countless people out there who
don't have a clue what half their church's doctrine is, much less agree
with it. There's a lot of gray area out there. Way too much, IMO.
The Bible lists several behaviors of people who will go to hell. Nobody
has any problem believing that Hitler, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein will
burn in hell for all eternity. But you point out the 10% that somebody
may doing wrong out of their 90% right, and you get called judgemental.
The "measure" I use is the Bible. (Sorry to disappoint you, Rich ;-)) If
I hold to the Bible's standards, that's how I will be judged. If I don't
hold to the Bible's standards, I'll STILL be judged by it, but I'll be a
lot more disappointed at judgement.
(CONTINUED NEXT POST)
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>He may completly wig out or go postal and have to be kicked out.
ooooohhhhhhh man. If Kip goes postal, I hate to say it, but there
would be an awfull lot of gun toting folks in America suddenly.
nancy
On Aug 13, 1996 11:09:54 in article <Re: As the Kingdom Turns>,
'ChrisGarland <chr...@198.4.75.49>' wrote:
>dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>>In article <4unhe9$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>>writes:
>>
>>>any biblical command that priests be celibate...
<snipped>
Jesus on priestly celibacy:
Matthew 19:10
The disciples said to him "If this is the situation between a husband and
wife, it is better not to marry.
verse 11-Jesus replied: "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those
to whom it has been given."
verse 12-"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way, others were
made that way by men, and others have renounced marriage becasue of the
kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it".
Sounds like he endorsed it.
But only for those to whom it is given, to those who renounced marriage
becasue of the kingdom of heaven.
nancy
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Infant baptism is not anything like true baptism. You get baptized after
>proclaiming a faith in Christ and repenting.
Oh? so God is a liar for talking about how he knew me before I was in
the womb? What about the pre-natal John the baptist who leapt in his
mothers womb? Did he not have faith?
The Holy Spirit can't work faith in an infant? How do you know that
God doesn't have long, intimate talks with infants while they are in
the womb, and for any period after? You think God can't talk
baby-talk?? Why do (some of) you ICC people INSIST on limiting God!
HE is the almighty creator of the entire universe, yet He can't know a
child, nor can he communicate, or create a faith within that child.
Luke 1:41
41
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Psalm 22:9-10
9
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at
my mother's breast.
10
From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my
God.
But naw, God's a liar. He can't do that. You have to be a rational
(by human standards) adult.
HOOOOOEY~!
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Chris G. writes:
>
>>Let me ask you something; if so
>>many really well-meaning people scower the scriptures daily and come up
>>with so many different interpretations, what makes you so sure YOUR
>>interpretation is right? Frankly, I think God is bigger than that
>
>Another philisophical argument. Theoretically, we really can't know
>anything. Theories exist from the idea that we could only be in a dream
>to we are all in someone else's dream. Of course most of those theories
>offer no hope, either. I can only be as sure of my interpretation as
>evidence allows.
>
>I think "God is bigger than..." having to put up with scattered remnants
>of his followers. I sincerely believe that the ICC is God's modern day
>movement. He saw some "sharp" people who were committed to being
>disciples as he had designed it, and were committed to spreading the
>Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he decided to bless them.
Did God design deceitful recruiting? Did God desing mandatory, assinged
one-over-one discipling relationships? What's left, then? Also, you say
God decided to bless them. How? Numbers? Growth? Again, look at Islam,
the fastest growing religion on the globe. Is God blessing that, too?
Wouldn't that be contradictory?
He saw the
>potential for people to be united together once again like in the first
>century. He saw the potential for people to do things like Paul did, like
>going around and strengthening churches around the world.
The Pope does this; as do various Catholic Bishops. Indeed, in most
churches, leaders travel to encourage the faithful.
And I think if
>he decided to do all that, then he made sure he gave his true followers a
>chance to reunite with each other. A chance to recommit.
The assumption being that no one outside the ICC is committed.
Kind of like
>Jesus did when he "came first for the Jews" but at the same time, reaching
>out to everyone else. The ICC is not even 20 years old, but there are
>hundreds of churches all over the world, and hundreds of charity projects
>in effect.
Again, I point to Islam.
(My personal belief is that there are Christians outside of
>the ICC, but I don't know where. But I believe if ANY "Christian" turns
>down being in a fellowship full of Christians unnecessarily, they may not
>be a Christian.)
The assumption being that the ICC is the source of this Christianity, and
all other established churches are actually full of pagans -- woops,
sorry Kim. I mean, nonbelievers.
>But of course, I also admit that there are problems and abuses that
>occur--JUST LIKE the first century church. We're human. We make
>mistakes, and we'll keep making mistakes. I don't think it's fair to pick
>on every single mistake someone in the ICC makes if you're going to ignore
>every other movement's problems.
I can't recall hearing about any suicides attributable to the First
Century church, can you?
EOshiro
Scott writes:
>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
>>Infant baptism is not anything like true baptism. You get baptized
after
>>proclaiming a faith in Christ and repenting.
>
>Oh? so God is a liar for talking about how he knew me before
>I was in the womb? <snip>
I don't see the logic in that argument. God knows everything. He knows
what your entire life, from beginning to end, will be like. But that
doesn't mean you're his puppet. Just because he knows what will happen
doesn't mean he always makes it happen.
>What about the pre-natal John the baptist who leapt in his
>mothers womb? Did he not have faith?<snip>
I don't know. Pre-natal psychology is a relatively unexplored area. If
the Holy Spirit can impregnate a virgin, it can certainly fire off a few
muscles in a fetus.
>The Holy Spirit can't work faith in an infant? How do you know that
>God doesn't have long, intimate talks with infants while they are in
>the womb, and for any period after? You think God can't talk
>baby-talk?? Why do (some of) you ICC people INSIST on limiting God!
>HE is the almighty creator of the entire universe, yet He can't know a
>child, nor can he communicate, or create a faith within that child.
I think the evidence is fairly clear that infants don't have much of a
clue as to what's going on around them. Their body responds to eat,
sleep, and poop on instinct (no pun intended.) It's not that we "insist
on limiting God"--He simply doesn't work that way. I don't know if how
many "Look Who's Talking" movies you've been watching lately.
But this is irrelevant, since the entire concept of infant baptism is
based on the erroneous doctrine of Original Sin. The very idea that we
are held accountable for an act we did not commit is unbiblical. (Ezekiel
18:20) Babies are supposedly somehow guilty, and would go to hell for
something they never did, so that is why they are baptized.
>Psalm 22:9-10
>9
>Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at
>my mother's breast.
>10
>From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my
>God.
>
>But naw, God's a liar. He can't do that. You have to be a rational
>(by human standards) adult.
It's called "hyperbole." An overstatement for purpose of emphasis. The
same way Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 are. Otherwise, the Psalm you just quoted is
in direct conflict with the two I just mentioned. (The authors are one in
the same--David.)
Nancy writes:
>Jesus on priestly celibacy:
>Matthew 19:10
>The disciples said to him "If this is the situation between a husband and
>wife, it is better not to marry.
>verse 11-Jesus replied: "Not everyone can accept this word, but only
those
>to whom it has been given."
>verse 12-"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way, others
were
>made that way by men, and others have renounced marriage becasue of the
>kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it".
>
>Sounds like he endorsed it.
>But only for those to whom it is given, to those who renounced marriage
>becasue of the kingdom of heaven.
I seriously disagree here. The subject is divorce in this section. In
verses 19:4-6, Jesus essentially says that man and woman were created to
stay together for life. His disciples reponse in verse 10 is to Jesus'
limits on divorce, possibly a doubt on human nature. Jesus' comment in
verse 11 I think means that his his words on divorce would have no effect
on the following people. Those people either chose or would have no
reason to get married. His command on has an effect on those who are or
want to get married.
Some people can choose not to get married and remain celibate, that's
their choice. But Paul strongly sugggest in 1 Cor. 7 that those who have
sexual needs get married. But if you don't have the need, you can be
better focused on God. In any case, the church has no right to demand
that you cannot be a priest unless you are celibate. Paul was not
married, but Peter was, and supposedly Peter was the first Pope. Go
figure.
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>It's called "hyperbole."
OK Scholar. Then so is the greek word for baptism. It exagerates the
point to emphasize the fact that the baptized is immersed in Christ.
Glad to know you think the Holy Spirit is just gonna "fire off" a few
muscles, and that God won't talk to babies. Yer an arrogant ass.
ChrisGarland
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
>>Infant baptism is not anything like true baptism. You get baptized after
>>proclaiming a faith in Christ and repenting.
>
>Oh? so God is a liar for talking about how he knew me before I was in
>mothers womb? Did he not have faith?
>God doesn't have long, intimate talks with infants while they are in
>the womb, and for any period after? You think God can't talk
>baby-talk?? Why do (some of) you ICC people INSIST on limiting God!
>HE is the almighty creator of the entire universe, yet He can't know a
>child, nor can he communicate, or create a faith within that child.
>
>41
>When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and
>Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
>
>9
>Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at
>my mother's breast.
>10
>From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my
>God.
>
>But naw, God's a liar. He can't do that. You have to be a rational
>(by human standards) adult.
>
>
>
Those who baptize infants do so on the faith of the church and, in
particular, the parents and Godparents,who pledge to bring the child up
in the faith. The child confirms his faith at confirmation (which RCC
celebrates at bar-mitzvah age, while the Orthodox celebrate this at
baptism, calling it Chrismation).
As there is absolutely no scripture reference to the baptism of
non-converts, you have no authority, EOshiro, to say that what is being
done is wrong. The bible only gives examples of conversions; that's it. A
child reared from birth into the Christian faith is not a conversion.
Stephen & Julie Franzon
ChrisGarland <chr...@198.4.75.49> wrote:
<snip>
>The key word, of course, being "right." Let me ask you something; if so
>many really well-meaning people scower the scriptures daily and come up
>with so many different interpretations, what makes you so sure YOUR
>interpretation is right? Frankly, I think God is bigger than that
I read something the other day along the lines of: "if you think you
understand, then it isn't God"
Just another way of putting it, but I like it.
Julie
Jason Place
Scott,
I do understand your frustration in not being able "break through". You
should not be verbally abusive though. I know you have reasons to be
very angry and hurt. Good reasons. I want you to be blameless in your
fight for Truth.
Jason
DAnder9518
In article <4upjsn$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>But you point out the 10% that somebody
>may doing wrong out of their 90% right, and you get called judgemental.
Only if you say that this 10% will send someone to hell.
Scott W. Schreiber
Jason Place <ja...@macmail.sonicsys.com> wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I do understand your frustration in not being able "break through". You
>should not be verbally abusive though. I know you have reasons to be
>very angry and hurt. Good reasons. I want you to be blameless in your
>fight for Truth.
Jason
You're right, and thanks. I tend to get carried away after beating my
head against a wall for so long. I should just get up and walk away
from the computer, but....
Thanks for the msg. Hope everything is well with you.
In Christ's love,
Scott
Soli DEO Gloria
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Scott writes:
>
>>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>>
>>>Infant baptism is not anything like true baptism. You get baptized
>after
>>>proclaiming a faith in Christ and repenting.
>>
>>Oh? so God is a liar for talking about how he knew me before
>
>I don't see the logic in that argument. God knows everything. He knows
>what your entire life, from beginning to end, will be like. But that
>doesn't mean you're his puppet. Just because he knows what will happen
>doesn't mean he always makes it happen.
>
>
>I don't know. Pre-natal psychology is a relatively unexplored area. If
>the Holy Spirit can impregnate a virgin, it can certainly fire off a few
>muscles in a fetus.
>
>>God doesn't have long, intimate talks with infants while they are in
>>the womb, and for any period after? You think God can't talk
>>baby-talk?? Why do (some of) you ICC people INSIST on limiting God!
>>HE is the almighty creator of the entire universe, yet He can't know a
>>child, nor can he communicate, or create a faith within that child.
>
>clue as to what's going on around them. Their body responds to eat,
>sleep, and poop on instinct (no pun intended.) It's not that we "insist
>on limiting God"--He simply doesn't work that way. I don't know if how
>many "Look Who's Talking" movies you've been watching lately.
>
>But this is irrelevant, since the entire concept of infant baptism is
>based on the erroneous doctrine of Original Sin.
This is incorrect. This is what the ICC teaches its members that the
concept of infant baptism comes from; not where the teaching actually
comes from. To prove this, look at the Roman Catholic Church AND the
Orthodox Churches (I'm lumping the various Orthodox churches into 1 for
the sake of this discussion). Both of these churches baptise infants.
Yet, the Orthodox position on original sin is completely different from
the Roman Catholic position. Now, these are the only 2 churches that can
claim direct lineage to the Apostles, and both are baptizing infants, but
they have differing views on original sin. What does this tell you? It
says that infant baptize arose from some other need, not simply original
sin. My guess is it arose from the need to deal with the issue of
baptizing non-converts (children reared in a christian household are not
converts), because the only scripture guidance is dealing with the
baptism of converts from other religions. This is an area that I am
continuing to study.
EOShiro, if your base of knowledge of what other churches teach is
limited to what the ICC tells you, then I'm afraid you don't have all of
the facts. I have found multiple things tought to me by the ICC that were
incorrect about RCC teaching when I studied it on my own. I assume that
the same holds true for the other faiths they condemn. In light of this,
I don't see how you can trust anything the ICC teaches you; clearly,
their research is wanting.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
> Jesus wasn't afraid to say who would be with him and who wouldn't.
Ah, and the point is that Jesus is the judge. Jesus is the
standard, not the ICC or those who make up its arbitrary rules.
> Matthew 7:21--"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
> Kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father who is in
> heaven."
This includes those members of *any* church who do not do the will
of the Father. There are some members within the ICC who won't
make the cut, but only God will be the judge of that!
> Matthew 10:37-38--"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is
> not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me; and
> anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Did Jesus treat his mother with love and respect? I can show love
for God by showing love and respect to my parents, sons and husband.
It does not have to be an either / or issue.
> Revelations 22:15--"Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts,
> the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone else who
> loves and practices falsehood."
Yes, I agree this is the Biblical standard. The ICC deems single
dating, not imitating your discipler, and not obeying advice in this
same category. Show me the Scriptures for the latter.
<snip>
> These are just some of the standards set in the Bible. Some of the more
> obvious, often wrongly thought of as the "more sinful", ones. But there
> are other ones all over the NT. And I make no apology for neither holding
> to these standards nor repeating them to other people. Call it "legalism"
> if you want, but the Bible CLEARLY says that certain people will have NO
> PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
The problem is not with direct quotes from Scripture, EO, it is with
the ICC taking liberty with these verses and adding to them. The
ICC does not have Biblical authority to dictate what is sinful where
the Bible is silent.
Sarah
James Winter
Eric (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
>These are just some of the standards set in the Bible. Some of the more
obvious, often wrongly thought of as the "more sinful", ones. But there
are other ones all over the NT. And I make no apology for neither holding
to these standards nor repeating them to other people. Call it "legalism"
if you want, but the Bible CLEARLY says that certain people will have NO
>PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
1) Of course certain people have no place in the kingdom - *but they
aren't named*. No one (including me and you) has lived up to those
standards, before the ICC, during the ICC or after the ICC. Remember
First Principles - "when you look at a pile of sin from God's
perspective, (above) all you see is a pile, not how big or small it
is, but rather, that it is there". The fact that some sin exists
condemns us EO - in your words "Jesus wasn't afraid to say who would
be with him and who wouldn't." That is incorrect, in reality he was
saying who deserved to be with him and who didn't. He didn't name
names here and say who was(n't) going to heaven (as the ICC is so
fond of doing - particularly in my case). The point of the
scriptures that you quoted is: without Jesus sacrifice on the cross
we are condemned no matter how "good" we are. The point is not:
designating EO->heaven and Gary->hell.
The ICC tries to use these "sin scriptures" to guilt people into
thinking that the members that are studying with them are "better
people" (read as more deserving of salvation) now that they are in
the church. I hate to break your bubble EO, but nobody deserves
salvation and you and everyone else in the ICC are just as much
dirtbag sinners as I am. Your pile may (or may not be) a little
smaller than mine - but you still have a pile.
Therefore, stay away from using scriptures about "the standard" in
order to delineate who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.
Why not say "Jesus is the standard, none of us measure up, that's not
an excuse to do what you want, but that's also not an excuse to
determine who goes to heaven or hell based on how they live."
In another conversation, Roger gave us a wonderful example of his own
conditional love that is based on performance. Here, you show us a
good example of scripture quotation in an attempt to lend validity to
your argument. Fortunately, the Word is "God-breathed" and
infallible and as a result speaks for itself in this situation.
Gary
Gary Winter
(former member Fresno CoC)
ChrisGarland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>ChrisGarland (chr...@198.4.75.49) wrote:>: >But of course, I also admit that there are problems and abuses that
>: >occur--JUST LIKE the first century church. We're human. We make
>: >mistakes, and we'll keep making mistakes. I don't think it's fair to pick
>: >on every single mistake someone in the ICC makes if you're going to ignore
>: >every other movement's problems.
>
>: I can't recall hearing about any suicides attributable to the First
>: Century church, can you?
>
>with that Nazarene sect. If it wasn't for Jesus and his influence on
>Judas's life, Judas would have lived to a ripe old age.
>
>If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide, who is?
>Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
>The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No, that
>would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that 1st
>Century Jesus cult. ;)
Only you, Roger, would make light of a serious topic. Judas killed
himself before Pentecost; therefore the church had nothing to do with his
death.
If you want me to get more specific, fine. I can't recall anyone
committing suicide in the early church because of the manipulative
pressures put on them by overbearing discipling partners.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >But of course, I also admit that there are problems and abuses that
: >occur--JUST LIKE the first century church. We're human. We make
: >mistakes, and we'll keep making mistakes. I don't think it's fair to pick
: >on every single mistake someone in the ICC makes if you're going to ignore
: >every other movement's problems.
: I can't recall hearing about any suicides attributable to the First
: Century church, can you?
Judas Iscariot committed suicide as a direct result of being associated
with that Nazarene sect. If it wasn't for Jesus and his influence on
Judas's life, Judas would have lived to a ripe old age.
If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide, who is?
Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No, that
would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that 1st
Century Jesus cult. ;)
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide,
who is?
>Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
>The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No,
that
>would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that
1st
>Century Jesus cult. ;)
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Hopefully, we have learned that depression is a medical condition that
requires medical help. If I suffer from depression and turn to the
church and instead of receiving support, I receive guilt trips and
pressure that I'm not good enough, or I'm turned away because I'm not
worthy to be a disciple, and I kill myself. Yes, the church is
responsible.
Roger, How does the ICC handle severe depressed feelings in regard to
discipleship. Would I be encouraged to get medical help?
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian)
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
ROBBIN VUGRNICK (robs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide,
: who is?
: >Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
: >The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No,
: that
: >would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that
: 1st
: >Century Jesus cult. ;)
: >
: >Roger Poehlmann
: >member, SF Church of Christ
: >(International Church of Christ)
: Hopefully, we have learned that depression is a medical condition that
: requires medical help. If I suffer from depression and turn to the
: church and instead of receiving support, I receive guilt trips and
: pressure that I'm not good enough, or I'm turned away because I'm not
: worthy to be a disciple, and I kill myself. Yes, the church is
: responsible.
So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
"destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
and faith-building Scriptures.
You have things very backwards in your post, Robbin. The church is
focussed on getting people into the Bible, and getting sin out of their
lives so they can be confident, joyful, and authentic in dealing with
emotions and problems.
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>You have things very backwards in your post, Robbin. The church is
>focussed on getting people into the Bible, and getting sin out of
their
>lives so they can be confident, joyful, and authentic in dealing with
>emotions and problems.
I can not speak for how the ICC handles someone who suffers from
depression. I can speak for the way the COC, especially my
congregation would handle such a person.
We would:
- For severe depression make sure the person gets medical help.
- Help the person understand they are valued & loved by God & Christ.
- Help the person understand they are valued and loved by the church.
- Offer the availability of elders who are wise and experienced
(though they are not medical doctors).
- Pray for and with the person.
- Never make the person feel they do not "measure up".
I don't feel you answered my questions before but I'll ask them in a
different way. These are the impressions I get about the ICC
especially from this newsgroup.
1) Would you recommend a brother or sister get medical help if they
were severely depressed?
2) Would you tell a person to leave the church because they did not
measure up, were not a strong enough disciple even if they suffered
from depression?
3) Would you ever tell a brother or sister that it was their fault
they were depressed and their depression was a result of sin?
These questions are important because medical science teaches that
there are many reasons for depression, and that depression can be a
direct result of a physiological problem. You have to admit the ICC
challenges people in many ways. Certainly, the way you respond to
these challanges can vary depending on your psychological makeup, not
just the honesty of your heart, or the level of sin in your life.
ChrisGarland
This is moronic. I can't even BEGIN to tell you how many people I knew in
the church (who are still IN the church) who have serious emotional
problems, even suicidal. What, did you take Rich Measures lessons today,
Roger?
>You have things very backwards in your post, Robbin. The church is
>focussed on getting people into the Bible, and getting sin out of their
>lives so they can be confident, joyful, and authentic in dealing with
>emotions and problems.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>
You got your answer Robbin. The ICC teaches that scripture alone cures
emotional illness and that all emotional illness is sin. And the earth is
flat.
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <4ve4mj$t...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> And the earth is
>flat.
>
>
I _knew_ it, I just knew it all along!
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
SpeakerForTheDead
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Judas Iscariot committed suicide as a direct result of being associated
: Judas's life, Judas would have lived to a ripe old age.
To begin with, we have no idea how judas' life would have
continued had he not interacted with jesus. Further, the NT indicates
that judas suicide was the result of remorse for having orchestrated the
turn of events that lead to the crucifiction of jesus. In fact, in the
synoptic version (matthew I believe) judas tries to return the money,
storms out when the priests dont accept it, and proceeds to hang himself.
Given this, I think it reasonable to conclude that the grief
associated with having played a pivotal role in the torture and execution
of jesus was the primary cause of judas' suicide.
There are also some theological implications for Mr. Poehlmann's
earlier statement. Jesus states that judas was doomed for destruction;
the context is that of prophecy (I am referring to the passage where jesus
thanks the father for not having lost anyone the father had given him,
except the one who was doomed for destruction). If this is the case, then
at no point in judas life was there ever the possibility that he would not
behave as he did. I would venture to say that this interpretation is
probably theologically incompatible with variants of christianity that
de-emphasize predestination. I mention this mainly to show that other
interpretations of this passage both exist and are plausible.
: If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide, who is?
I'd like to point out that this kind of question, an unanswerable
one, is the sort of rhetorical device often employed by members of the
ICC during exegesis, "discipling", and during the recruitment process.
Suicide is a complex issue involving the interplay of spiritual,
emotional, and physical forces. Oversimplification gives the member the
opportunity to both skirt the issue (roger is neither a theologian or
a psychiatrist. As such, he provides us with very little information to
support his ideas on complex psychological/theological issues) and
provide a concise answer that reinforces a given theological tenet. More
specifically, "If jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas'
suicide, who is?" already frames the only acceptable answer; judas'
suicide *must* be attributable to some one entity (technically this is
the fallacy of the false dichotomy).
Given that this oversimplification leads to the conclusion of
roger's argument, we are provided with no reason to accept the validity
of his conclusion.
: Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
: The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No, that
: would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that 1st
: Century Jesus cult. ;)
I think this post is a perfect example of some of the dangers of
a group like the ICC. Living beings tend to place an extremely high
value on life; in the United States we've gone so far as to acknowledge
the ethical construct, the Right to Life, in government documents (I always
get these mixed up; it's in either the declaration of independence or the
constitution). Whenever an individual is led to end his/her life, it
saddens most of us deeply; we can all emphathize with someone who's been
feeling down. In a group like the ICC since ideological totalism is at a
premium (that is, the primary binder in this community is centered around
an extreme devotion to a person/idea) even the natural empathy we feel
for another's loss is muted should that loss be understood as having
negative implications for the group.
In the ICC, the way you reason through moral issues is structured
along the lines that the ICC is right and the ICC must be advanced at all
costs. Contact with information that indicates anything to the contrary
a) is wrong [the information is incorrect, therefore the person telling it
is a liar and an enemy; this 'reasoning' can be switched at will.
Oftentimes in the ICC, "the person telling me this is a liar and an enemy
of the church, therefore the information is incorrect" is used
automatically when encountering certain well-known individuals], and b)
the church has an explanation for it (the idea of "secret knowledge" is
found in most destructive-cultic organizations; before the
oversimplification tapes start playing and whatever ICC member is reading
this laughs, "We dont have any secret knowledge! We teach openly.."
understand that what I mean by secret knowledge is the idea that the
answers to all of life's moral dilemmas can be had within the group).
So the member is confronted with the following problem; a
disturbingly high number of people have, primarily as a result of their
interaction with the ICC, gone so far as to kill themselves. The member
realizes that people aren't in the habit of killing themselves and that
many of the issues that drive someone to suicide, stress, self-esteem,
depression are manipulated rather strongly in the ICC. On the other
hand, the ICC is god's kingdom on earth, is the only true church, and is
speeding up the return of christ! The result is the sort of callousness
members exhibit, even in the face of issues as severe as suicide.
Anything that tends against ICC doctrine is presumed fallacious; should
the member be pressed, some reasons will be provided. Doctrine is more
important than people, in this group.
DAnder9518
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>Judas Iscariot committed suicide as a direct result of being associated
>with that Nazarene sect. If it wasn't for Jesus and his influence on
>Judas's life, Judas would have lived to a ripe old age.
>
>If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide, who
is?
>Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
>The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No, that
>would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that 1st
>Century Jesus cult. ;)
Yeah, but the 1st Century Christians were honest and open about Judas's
suicide (even writing about it in their manuscripts), whereas the ICC
seems less than forthcoming about the suicides within it's membership.
If you see the ICC hedging about suicide issues, it's a sign that you
should run -- not walk -- away from this group.
---->Dave
SpeakerForTheDead
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote:
: So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
: church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
: from the fellowship.
This is untrue. For starters, leaving the ICC is a difficult
process that takes a long time. Very few people wake up one day and
decide to leave (especially since the church places enormous pressure on
people to organize their lives in the highest retention fashion. I've
listened to the evangelist here as he 'was being frank'; the pressure to
date very frequently, the pressure to eat, drink, sleep, work, and play
*only* with members of the church, these are all very specific tools the
church knowingly employs to keep people in the group). The enormous
emotional and spiritual abuse that members are forced to endure under the
one-over-another discipling structure in the ICC plays a large role in
why people leave the church to begin with. Membership in the ICC takes
over one's life so much that, like any prolonged situation, it has it's
own inertia. There are always a significant number of members on the
verge of leaving (many do; as clayton lane has shown in his posts,
ICC membership is in a constant state of flux akin to a revolving door).
Beyond this, your own theology insists that the fault lies with
the church. One of the difficulties in leaving the ICC is the emotional
duress you receive during the 'exit studies'. These are basically a few
scriptures aimed at frightening the member into staying in the group.
"like a dog eating it's own vomit....", "it would have been better off
for them not to have known the way of truth..." (both taken from 1 or 2
pet). Members of the church feel justified in putting this much pressure
on people who choose to leave, just as they feel justified in the
pressure and deception they engage in everyday while interacting with
non-members and 'disciples'.
: The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
: worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
: would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
: and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
: and faith-building Scriptures.
*sigh*. It's funny roger, you dont even bother to pretend that
you think through your position anymore. It's exactly the sort "network
of relationships and people" that causes the revolving door membership in
the church. Most people that join are gone within 3 years.
This is something that totalist christian groups like the ICC have
to come to grips with. Science has shown us that depression is in many
cases a physiologically based mental illness. And that depression doesn't
go away because you and your discipler invited 15 people together,
converted 1, and prayed 3 hours that day; it requires medical attention.
I think it's telling, how the ICC deals with this issue; it doesn't. The
blame gets shuffled between the bauers, exit counselors in general,
satan, family members, basically whatever non-icc influence presents
itself. And the people still stagger out of the ICC with crushed
spirits.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
ROBBIN VUGRNICK (robs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
: Poehlmann) writes:
: >You have things very backwards in your post, Robbin. The church is
: >focussed on getting people into the Bible, and getting sin out of
: their
: >lives so they can be confident, joyful, and authentic in dealing with
: >emotions and problems.
: I can not speak for how the ICC handles someone who suffers from
: depression. I can speak for the way the COC, especially my
: congregation would handle such a person.
Nor can I; since I am just a member and have not had direct experience
with anyone suffering from 'severe depression'.
: We would:
: - For severe depression make sure the person gets medical help.
: - Help the person understand they are valued & loved by God & Christ.
: - Help the person understand they are valued and loved by the church.
: - Offer the availability of elders who are wise and experienced
: (though they are not medical doctors).
: - Pray for and with the person.
: - Never make the person feel they do not "measure up".
All those things sound good and right to me, as well.
: I don't feel you answered my questions before but I'll ask them in a
: different way. These are the impressions I get about the ICC
: especially from this newsgroup.
: 1) Would you recommend a brother or sister get medical help if they
: were severely depressed?
Absolutely. They should seek medical help.
: 2) Would you tell a person to leave the church because they did not
: measure up, were not a strong enough disciple even if they suffered
: from depression?
The greatest command is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and
strength. For some, their emotional and physical strength is greater
than others, so more would be expected. The 'measure' would be less in
terms of time, endurance, etc. for someone who was being treated for a
medical condition, be it cancer, pregnancy, depression, etc.
: 3) Would you ever tell a brother or sister that it was their fault
: they were depressed and their depression was a result of sin?
: These questions are important because medical science teaches that
: there are many reasons for depression, and that depression can be a
: direct result of a physiological problem. You have to admit the ICC
: challenges people in many ways. Certainly, the way you respond to
: these challanges can vary depending on your psychological makeup, not
: just the honesty of your heart, or the level of sin in your life.
You're discussing a very serious case here; not one where the person was
just moody and feeling selfish (which affects every one of us from time
to time), but rather where the individual is being treated medically.
Having known disciples who were undergoing treatment for schitzophrenia,
Alzheimer's disease (so much for the 'no senior citizens' lie) and other
conditions, this would be a case that would require much sensitivity to
meet the person's special needs.
Mark Davis
>So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
>"destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
>church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
>from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
>worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
>would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
>and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
>and faith-building Scriptures.
Roger I can't tell sometimes whether you are blind, brainwashed, or
some of both - but I'll go ahead and state the obvious. They left the
church BECAUSE the church was THE PROBLEM - not THE SOLUTION.
Here's an analogy for you:
That poor guy who was freed from the concentration camp and walked out
in front of a car should never have left. If he hadn't left he
wouldn't have been hit by the car would he? Like it's their fault he
was so fatigued? Heck if he had just obeyed the rules we wouldn't
have had to keep him chained to the wall for 3 days would we?
Mark Davis
DAnder9518
>So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
>"destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
>church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
>from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
>worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
>would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
>and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
>and faith-building Scriptures.
Roger, if you're not a spokesman for the ICC, it puzzles me why you
continue to do their damage control for them! I'm surprised you continue
to pitch the same hooey when it concerns matters of life and death!
The last two times I heard of someone committing suicide or being suicidal
because of the ICC, it was BEFORE they left, not after.
Then again, if a current member commited suicide, you would probably
rationalize it by saying they already "left God" by forgiving an
unforgiveable sin, wouldn't you? This would be an effective way of
"sanitizing" the ICC and making it suicide-free -- just like the ICC
washes it's hands of divorces in the Movement.
---->Dave
Gareth
>In article <4u91p6$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, smlle...@aol.com
>(Smlleecat6) writes:
>>"be very careful getting home today. Satan knows you know the truth. He
>>is going to try to get a foothold. I suggest you don't step out into any
>>traffic." There were comments about getting hit by a truck or bus, etc,
>>etc.
This sounds like a "control by fear" technique or more bluntly put -
Scare Mongering.
Gareth
RICK & SARAH BAUER
cla...@blue.seas.upenn.edu (SpeakerForTheDead) wrote:
>
> Roger/Michelle Poehlmann (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
> : church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
> : from the fellowship.
The most recent suicide I've heard about was not that of a former
member, but of one who was a leader in the Boston church.
Roger makes it sound like only those who have "walked away" from
the fellowship of the ICC are suicidal. This is simply not ture.
Get your facts straight Roger.
Sarah
Mark Davis
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>The last two times I heard of someone committing suicide or being suicidal
>because of the ICC, it was BEFORE they left, not after.
Yea but this'll turn out just like the divorce question I bet.
I can hear it now, "well obviously they had left the church in their
heart before they committed suicide" - "and I still say the earth is
flat"
:)
Mark Davis
Michael
Ok. To be completely honest, this was originally sent private email, but
lately some of the things I've been seeing, specifically in this thread, have
made me decide that it belongs here. So....
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
>
> ROBBIN VUGRNICK (robs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : >If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide,
> : who is?
> : >Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
> : >The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No,
> : that
> : >would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that
> : 1st
> : >Century Jesus cult. ;)
> : >
> : >Roger Poehlmann
> : >member, SF Church of Christ
> : >(International Church of Christ)
>
> : Hopefully, we have learned that depression is a medical condition that
> : requires medical help. If I suffer from depression and turn to the
> : church and instead of receiving support, I receive guilt trips and
> : pressure that I'm not good enough, or I'm turned away because I'm not
> : worthy to be a disciple, and I kill myself. Yes, the church is
> : responsible.
>
> So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
> "destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
> church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
> from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
> worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
> would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
> and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
> and faith-building Scriptures.
>
> You have things very backwards in your post, Robbin. The church is
> focussed on getting people into the Bible, and getting sin out of their
> lives so they can be confident, joyful, and authentic in dealing with
> emotions and problems.
>
> Roger Poehlmann
> member, SF Church of Christ
> (International Church of Christ)
Sorry, Roger, but I don't actually post to the newsgroup, but this one
just kinda, well, ticked me off. You see, I left the church BECAUSE of
feelings of depression, wanting to commit suicide, and that my life was
generally a mess and not worth living. Funny thing is, the counselor
that I was seeing (a non-member) felt that it was good for me to be
active in a church. And the doctor who was prescribing my medication
(so I wouldn't go off the deep end and hurt someone) felt the same way.
And less than two weeks after leaving the church, I was well enough to
stop the counseling, stop the medication, and start living again. I
just had to realize that my opinion of me was more important than
(collectively speaking of the icc) YOUR opinion of me. See, I'm one of
those horrible overweight people that you've been talking about. Let's
see. I eat less than 1500 calories a day, drink a lot of water, go to
the gym 3 times a week (as recommended by my physician), and still weigh
in at a hefty 300 pounds. Yeah, I stand 6'4 in my good shoes, but
that's still a little more than I should weigh, right? So, tell me,
where am I going wrong in my diet plan? Should I maybe cut back to 500
calories a day? Should I condense the 5-300 calorie meals that I'm
eating now (again as recommended by my physician) to one big one early
and try to work it all off that afternoon? Learn to KNOW about what
you're speaking sometime, OK? The reason you probably don't know anyone
like me, who left because of depression, is cause you didn't want to.
Just like most of the "disciples" that I've known.
Even though you've probably tuned out and turned off by now,
Mike Kleymann, formerly of the DFWCOC
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
: >"destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
: >church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
: >from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
: >worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
: >would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
: >and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
: >and faith-building Scriptures.
: Roger I can't tell sometimes whether you are blind, brainwashed, or
: some of both - but I'll go ahead and state the obvious. They left the
: church BECAUSE the church was THE PROBLEM - not THE SOLUTION.
: Here's an analogy for you:
: That poor guy who was freed from the concentration camp and walked out
: in front of a car should never have left. If he hadn't left he
: wouldn't have been hit by the car would he? Like it's their fault he
: was so fatigued? Heck if he had just obeyed the rules we wouldn't
: have had to keep him chained to the wall for 3 days would we?
Mark, I've been in the ICC for 7 years, and I "flat out" love being in
the church. It's "flat out awesome", i.e. I have close, honest, and
genuine friendships and do not personally experience any of this 'abuse',
'brainwashing', etc. I'm at all the services, so when does all this
crazy stuff go on? After I leave? Before I get there? How many Jews
think the concentration camps were terrific and wanted their families to
go to them and take a nice long shower. I'd guess a big Zero. And yet
we disciples who are part of the church very much want anyone within the
sound of our voice to see what we've seen, to study the Bible, and to
become a Christian in the ICC.
My wife and I are not in a "concentration camp", nor are we "chained to
the wall", or finding ourselves hindered and pressured and abused after
years of discipleship. If the church is 'the problem', how are we
somehow unafflicted? If the church is a 'concentration camp' why have we
not been gassed? If the church is 'abusive', why do I look around the
fellowship and see no evidence of scars?
Mark, no doubt you've got a personal bone to pick with individuals in the
church. Pick it if you must, but you're not going to get me to buy into
your ravings. The ICC is a great church and I'm proud to be part of it.
I've listened to your posts, read the critical literature, seen the
finances, talked to ex-members, considered your position, and rejected
your claims and bogus analogies. Concentration camp my foot. The ICC is
a great church, made up of great people who love God and believe in the
Bible. Save your Nazi analogizing for those who would deny us our
freedom to worship God as we choose.
nancy
On Aug 29, 1996 02:46:43 in article <Re: As the Kingdom Turns>, 'Michael
<mkle...@isource.net>' wrote:
>Ok. To be completely honest, this was originally sent private email, but
>lately some of the things I've been seeing, specifically in this thread,
have
>made me decide that it belongs here. So....
>
>
>Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
>>
>> ROBBIN VUGRNICK (robs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>> : >If Jesus and the disciples weren't responsible for Judas's suicide,
>> : who is?
>> : >Judas himself? No, that would be "blaming the victim", wouldn't it?
>> : >The Pharisees and those who helped him leave Jesus's ministry? No,
>> : that
>> : >would be blaming the "exit counselors". The fault must lie with that
>> : 1st
>> : >Century Jesus cult. ;)
>> : >
>> : >Roger Poehlmann
>> : >member, SF Church of Christ
>> : >(International Church of Christ)
>>
>> : Hopefully, we have learned that depression is a medical condition that
>> : requires medical help. If I suffer from depression and turn to the
>> : church and instead of receiving support, I receive guilt trips and
>> : pressure that I'm not good enough, or I'm turned away because I'm not
>> : worthy to be a disciple, and I kill myself. Yes, the church is
>> : responsible.
>>
>> So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
>> "destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
>> church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
>> from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
>> worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
>> would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to
them
>> and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
>> and faith-building Scriptures.
>>
>> You have things very backwards in your post, Robbin. The church is
>> focussed on getting people into the Bible, and getting sin out of their
>> lives so they can be confident, joyful, and authentic in dealing with
>> emotions and problems.
>>
>> Roger Poehlmann
>> member, SF Church of Christ
>> (International Church of Christ)
>
Amen to you Mike, I had pretty much the same thing happen to me, severe
depression when I was in the ICC, I only got better once I was outta
there!!!!
And I plan on becoming active in another church, but I'm through with
fundamentalist type churches!!! They're too judgemental!!! Good luck!
nancy
ChrisGarland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: >So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
>: >church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
>: >from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
>: >worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
>: >would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
>: >and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
>: >and faith-building Scriptures.
>
>: some of both - but I'll go ahead and state the obvious. They left the
>: church BECAUSE the church was THE PROBLEM - not THE SOLUTION.
>
>: Here's an analogy for you:
>
>: That poor guy who was freed from the concentration camp and walked out
>: in front of a car should never have left. If he hadn't left he
>: wouldn't have been hit by the car would he? Like it's their fault he
>: was so fatigued? Heck if he had just obeyed the rules we wouldn't
>: have had to keep him chained to the wall for 3 days would we?
>
>Mark, I've been in the ICC for 7 years, and I "flat out" love being in
>the church. It's "flat out awesome", i.e. I have close, honest, and
>genuine friendships and do not personally experience any of this 'abuse',
>'brainwashing', etc. I'm at all the services, so when does all this
>crazy stuff go on? After I leave? Before I get there? How many Jews
>think the concentration camps were terrific and wanted their families to
>go to them and take a nice long shower. I'd guess a big Zero. And yet
>we disciples who are part of the church very much want anyone within the
>sound of our voice to see what we've seen, to study the Bible, and to
>become a Christian in the ICC.
>
>My wife and I are not in a "concentration camp", nor are we "chained to
>the wall", or finding ourselves hindered and pressured and abused after
>years of discipleship. If the church is 'the problem', how are we
>somehow unafflicted?
I reiterate my earlier question: How is it that you, Jason Place and
Michelle Campbell all come from the same church, but they see the abuses
and you don't? Could it be....
I-Chun Lin
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>,
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann <rogn...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The ICC is a great church and I'm proud to be part of it.
>I've listened to your posts, read the critical literature, seen the
>finances, talked to ex-members, considered your position, and rejected
>your claims and bogus analogies. Concentration camp my foot.
The ICC is a cult and I am glad to be out of it. I've listened to
your posts, read the ICC materials, seen the deception, seen ICC
members flunk out of college and get put on probation at rates higher
than the general student body, seen the ridiculous dating rules,
quotas and convoluted authority structure, considered your position,
and rejected your claims and bogus arguments. An awesome church my
foot. The ICC is a cult.
[Ms.] I-Chun ("ee-CHUN") Lin
i...@leland.Stanford.EDU
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
Mike
Thanks for posting the below comments. I wish more people would post
atual experiences which helps us all learn.
When I read the words of Jesus, I am challenged to understand and obey
many of the words he says. When I read his words, I see nothing but
love, mercy and forgiveness. He does criticize others, but it is
always the religious people at that time who put stumbling blocks in
front of others as they try to find God. I encourage you to base your
life on the words of Jesus, for he will belp you love yourself and love
others. I hope you have found a church where you will be loved and you
will be allowed to freely serve as your talents provide.
When I read the words of Paul, I am challenged by many things he says,
and sometimes he says unkind things, he is a man, yes inspired, but he
often wrote freely as a man, stating opinions, stating mysteries that
even he did not understand, and he always spoke in words which
encourages us not to follow him but Jesus. Yet, even when I read Paul
the people he really speaks unkindly of are people in total unrepentent
sin much differently than defined by the ICC.
May God bless your life and may you find the peace that is available in
Jesus.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a CHrisitan)
>> So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide,
and
>> "destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
>> church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced
themselves
>> from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those
who
>> worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
>> would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to
them
>> and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to
useful
>> and faith-building Scriptures.
>>
Catherine Hampton
Michael -- for what it's worth, I fought the same battle in the
CofC, although perhaps not to quite the extent you did. Your
story does not surprise me at all -- the bigotry against fat people
in the ICOC and entire discipling movement reminds me of the bigotry
against AIDS victims in other circles. :(
Some of us weren't born with the genes to be svelte model-wannabees.
And, fortunately, some of us don't base our opinions of people on
how much they weigh and other external matters that are really none
of our business. Plenty of leaders in the discipling movement
berated overweight people (especially women), when they should have
been repenting of their feeding their own problems with lust and
their bigotry. :(
Catherine
RICK & SARAH BAUER
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> Mark, I've been in the ICC for 7 years, and I "flat out" love being in
> the church. It's "flat out awesome", i.e. I have close, honest, and
> genuine friendships and do not personally experience any of this 'abuse',
> 'brainwashing', etc. I'm at all the services, so when does all this
> crazy stuff go on? After I leave? Before I get there? How many Jews
> think the concentration camps were terrific and wanted their families to
> go to them and take a nice long shower. I'd guess a big Zero. And yet
> we disciples who are part of the church very much want anyone within the
> sound of our voice to see what we've seen, to study the Bible, and to
> become a Christian in the ICC.
I recall seeing a documentary on the Jonestown Massacre several
years ago on A&E. There were members of Jonestown who were
interviewed just hours before the mass suicide. On camera they
expressed how happy they were, and that there were no abuses
taking place in Jonestown; that Jim Jones was like a father to
them, and they wanted their families to not be concerned about
their well-being.
We all know the end to this particular story.
> My wife and I are not in a "concentration camp", nor are we "chained to
> the wall", or finding ourselves hindered and pressured and abused after
> years of discipleship. If the church is 'the problem', how are we
> somehow unafflicted? If the church is a 'concentration camp' why have we
> not been gassed? If the church is 'abusive', why do I look around the
> fellowship and see no evidence of scars?
The thought reform is working in Roger's case. Why have there been
tens of thousands of people who have left the ICC that agree with
what the critics on this newsgroup speak about?
There is *evidence of scars* that Roger is unwilling to face or
acknowledge.
Those who chose to leave Jim Jones on that fateful day were
gunned down for their treason. The ICC simply tries to ignore
those who leave their organization; although, some are slandered,
marked and vehemently opposed!
Roger's denial does not change what is true, nor what their
critics will continue to expose.
Sarah
Mudpies
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> Mark, I've been in the ICC for 7 years, and I "flat out" love being in
> the church. It's "flat out awesome", i.e. I have close, honest, and
> genuine friendships and do not personally experience any of this
'abuse',
> 'brainwashing', etc. I'm at all the services, so when does all this
> crazy stuff go on? After I leave? Before I get there? How many Jews
> think the concentration camps were terrific and wanted their families to
> go to them and take a nice long shower. I'd guess a big Zero. And yet
> we disciples who are part of the church very much want anyone within the
> sound of our voice to see what we've seen, to study the Bible, and to
> become a Christian in the ICC.
Sara writes:
:I recall seeing a documentary on the Jonestown Massacre several
:years ago on A&E. There were members of Jonestown who were
:interviewed just hours before the mass suicide. On camera they
:expressed how happy they were, and that there were no abuses
:taking place in Jonestown; that Jim Jones was like a father to
:them, and they wanted their families to not be concerned about
:their well-being.
:We all know the end to this particular story.
Roger writes:
> My wife and I are not in a "concentration camp", nor are we "chained to
> the wall", or finding ourselves hindered and pressured and abused after
> years of discipleship. If the church is 'the problem', how are we
> somehow unafflicted? If the church is a 'concentration camp' why have
we
> not been gassed? If the church is 'abusive', why do I look around the
> fellowship and see no evidence of scars?
Sara writes:
:The thought reform is working in Roger's case. Why have there been
:tens of thousands of people who have left the ICC that agree with
:what the critics on this newsgroup speak about?
:There is *evidence of scars* that Roger is unwilling to face or
:acknowledge.
:Those who chose to leave Jim Jones on that fateful day were
:gunned down for their treason. The ICC simply tries to ignore
:those who leave their organization; although, some are slandered,
:marked and vehemently opposed!
:Roger's denial does not change what is true, nor what their
:critics will continue to expose.
I have a friend who lost her best friend in the Waco incident back in '93.
Her friend was only 21yrs old. My friend Janet often tells the story of
how she got the opportunity to talk to her friend about five months before
the incident and what her friend told her. It was basically the same
things that Roger says about his involvement in the ICC. Janet not knowing
all that much about cults back then accepted her friend's response as
something positive and did not question her any further. She thought what
her friend was involved in was having a good impact on her life and that
she appeared to be happy. Janet found out that cults teach their members
to lie and deny any negative feelings they maybe having about their
"sacred" group(Doctrine over the person).
Unfortunately Janet received a rude awakening and what is most tragic is
that her friend lost her life. The ICC can and probably will continue to
deny any wrong doing, but you're right Sara it doesn't excuse that fact
that they have some serious problems that in result the members pay the
price.
Michelle C.
"A heart held humble will level and light your way"
ChrisGarland
I think it's important to post here for those concerned family members
that lurk on this newsgroup that the ICC is *not* stockpiling arms or
engaging in talk of a fiery end or a conflict of mass destruction. Some
cults (like the moonies) never evolve into this kind of group.
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Mark, no doubt you've got a personal bone to pick with individuals in the
>church. Pick it if you must, but you're not going to get me to buy into
>your ravings. The ICC is a great church and I'm proud to be part of it.
>I've listened to your posts, read the critical literature, seen the
>finances, talked to ex-members, considered your position, and rejected
>your claims and bogus analogies. Concentration camp my foot. The ICC is
>a great church, made up of great people who love God and believe in the
>Bible. Save your Nazi analogizing for those who would deny us our
>freedom to worship God as we choose.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
What I will save Roger - is this post. It will be useful down the
road. One day - when you wake up and get out of that cult, and your
eyes open, and you can clearly see what they have done to your life -
you will refute what you just said.
Your blind devotion to this cult is classic. The fact that it is
obvious to those who read your posts but not to you is also
predictable. One day I will have the before and after posts from you
to demonstrate this to others in your position.
Once again - thank you Roger.
Mark Davis
Martin Hinves
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: >So far, the postings on this group regarding depression, suicide, and
>: >"destroyed lives" have been in reference to people who have LEFT the
>: >church, and encounter these problems once they have divorced themselves
>: >from the fellowship. The blame, in these cases, would rest on those who
>: >worked to get the person out of the church, since as disciples they
>: >would have a network of relationships and people who could listen to them
>: >and help them through just about any situation, and guide them to useful
>: >and faith-building Scriptures.
>: Roger I can't tell sometimes whether you are blind, brainwashed, or
>: some of both - but I'll go ahead and state the obvious. They left the
>: church BECAUSE the church was THE PROBLEM - not THE SOLUTION.
>: Here's an analogy for you:
>: That poor guy who was freed from the concentration camp and walked out
>: in front of a car should never have left. If he hadn't left he
>: wouldn't have been hit by the car would he? Like it's their fault he
>: was so fatigued? Heck if he had just obeyed the rules we wouldn't
>: have had to keep him chained to the wall for 3 days would we?
>Mark, I've been in the ICC for 7 years, and I "flat out" love being in
>the church. It's "flat out awesome", i.e. I have close, honest, and
>genuine friendships and do not personally experience any of this 'abuse',
>'brainwashing', etc. I'm at all the services, so when does all this
>crazy stuff go on? After I leave? Before I get there? How many Jews
>think the concentration camps were terrific and wanted their families to
>go to them and take a nice long shower. I'd guess a big Zero. And yet
>we disciples who are part of the church very much want anyone within the
>sound of our voice to see what we've seen, to study the Bible, and to
>become a Christian in the ICC.
But by your own words you are part of a church that defines not
turning up to a church service (even with a valid reason) as SIN.
Christ did not teach this yet you teach it.
>My wife and I are not in a "concentration camp", nor are we "chained to
>the wall", or finding ourselves hindered and pressured and abused after
>years of discipleship. If the church is 'the problem', how are we
>somehow unafflicted?
You are NOT unaffected by it Roger, you are by your reasoning and
postings showing how affected by it.
>If the church is a 'concentration camp' why have we
>not been gassed?
You are breathing the air of legalism and authoritarism.
You are also judging others where you should not.
You are also part of a church that has serious unbiblical teachings.
> If the church is 'abusive', why do I look around the
>fellowship and see no evidence of scars?
Because just as the Pharisees looked around and saw how "wonderful"
and "perfect" what they belonged to was, you cannot see beyond you it
too.
There is a saying "You cannot see the forest for the trees".
You are caught up concentrating on the trees, missing the forest.
Concentrating on minor issues such as quota's and works whilst the
major issue of God's Love and Grace goes unanawered.
>Mark, no doubt you've got a personal bone to pick with individuals in the
>church. Pick it if you must, but you're not going to get me to buy into
>your ravings. The ICC is a great church and I'm proud to be part of it.
>I've listened to your posts, read the critical literature, seen the
>finances, talked to ex-members, considered your position, and rejected
>your claims and bogus analogies. Concentration camp my foot. The ICC is
>a great church, made up of great people who love God and believe in the
>Bible. Save your Nazi analogizing for those who would deny us our
>freedom to worship God as we choose.
So if it's a great church Roger why are so many people leaving it ?
Why do your leaders say that 90% of people who join will leave ?
Why does the doctrine keep changing ?
Why when people tell about what happened to them in the ICC are they
always in the wrong as far as the ICC leadership states ?.
Sure you are free to exercise your constitutional (and God given
right) to attend the ICC.
Though we may disagree on many issues, I respect your defending in
part at least what you beleive in persay.
But at least allow the same rights and respect to those around you.
Treat other's with the love that Jesus died for.
I was taught in the ICC whenever I was in a situation to say to myself
"what would Jesus have done in such a situation".
When I read the bible I see the Love that God had for us, the Grace
that he bestowed upon us by the sacrifice of his son.
I see Power and wonderment, compassion and ability.
I see works done by individuals from their faith, alone.
I do not see works done by quota, coercion or authoritarianism.
Read your bible, pray and try and see the light that shines through to
you.
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves