What if?
Bradley
What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
rather than attacking the person?
What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
response?
What if we show love without being judgemental?
What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
convictions are actually wrong?
What if we always take a deep breath and a pause for prayer before we
respond?
What if we try to understand others and if something isn't clear ask
nicely for clarification?
What if we are certain that our conviction is right but we don't need to
argue with people about it or feel threatened by them?
What if we never again feel the need to belittle, name-call, shout,
persecute others?
What if we don't need to advertise how right we are and how wrong others
are?
What if we never point fingers at others?
What if everything we said was to build each other up instead of proving
them wrong?
What if?
--
regards,
Bradley
Mark T
> What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
> rather than attacking the person?
That would be a nice change. ;-)
> What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
> convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
> convictions are actually wrong?
That would be nice.
Celsus reported in 178 CE:
'Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander
each other constantly with the vilest forms
of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each
sect fills the heads of its own with deceitful nonsense and makes perfect
little pigs of those it wins over to its side.'
Pastor Dave
Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:00:52 +1000, "Bradley"
<spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>What if we leave the past there and all move on?
>
>What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
>rather than attacking the person?
>
>What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
>response?
>
>What if we show love without being judgemental?
If someone claim to be a Christian and also claims, for
example, that God approves of homosexual acts, then we
are told in Scripture, to judge that person. It is
those outside the church that we are not to judge,
since they make no claim of salvation. There is a
difference in this matter, depending on which category
a person falls into.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/evcha3.htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bradley
news:07o0j05459e21lglo...@4ax.com
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:00:52 +1000, "Bradley"
> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>> What if we show love without being judgemental?
>
> If someone claim to be a Christian and also claims, for
> example, that God approves of homosexual acts, then we
> are told in Scripture, to judge that person. It is
> those outside the church that we are not to judge,
> since they make no claim of salvation. There is a
> difference in this matter, depending on which category
> a person falls into.
Yup.
P'haps it should be something like "What if we needed to correct others
but did so with love?".
--
regards,
Bradley
Pastor Dave
<spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:07o0j05459e21lglo...@4ax.com
>> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
>> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:00:52 +1000, "Bradley"
>> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
><snip>
>
>>> What if we show love without being judgemental?
>>
>> If someone claim to be a Christian and also claims, for
>> example, that God approves of homosexual acts, then we
>> are told in Scripture, to judge that person. It is
>> those outside the church that we are not to judge,
>> since they make no claim of salvation. There is a
>> difference in this matter, depending on which category
>> a person falls into.
>
>Yup.
>
>P'haps it should be something like "What if we needed to correct others
>but did so with love?".
Love does not equal always being lovey dovey.
Sometimes love equates to a strong hand (Heb 12:6).
Sometimes love equates to admonishment and bringing
shame to someone (2 Thes 3:14-15).
Sometimes love equals tossing someone out of the church
(1 Cor 5:1-5).
While we attempt to bring someone into living for the
Lord again in love, we are not tolerate those who live
in constant repeated sin. And we are especially not to
tolerate those who claim their sin is righteousness
before God. They are not even brothers and sisters in
Christ and do not belong as members of the church.
They are pretenders and heretics.
Titus 3:10-11
10) A man that is an heretick after the first and
second admonition reject;
11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and
sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Love should not be directed only at one person, but
also to the rest of the flock. What good does it do
the flock, to allow perversion and corruption and call
that "Christian"? Take a look around and you'll see
why that's a bad thing.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Bradley
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:54:33 +1000, "Bradley"
> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>
>> "Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:07o0j05459e21lglo...@4ax.com
>>> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
>>> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:00:52 +1000, "Bradley"
>>> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> What if we show love without being judgemental?
>>>
>>> If someone claim to be a Christian and also claims, for
>>> example, that God approves of homosexual acts, then we
>>> are told in Scripture, to judge that person. It is
>>> those outside the church that we are not to judge,
>>> since they make no claim of salvation. There is a
>>> difference in this matter, depending on which category
>>> a person falls into.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> P'haps it should be something like "What if we needed to correct
>> others but did so with love?".
>
> Love does not equal always being lovey dovey.
Certainly. I've always said that kind of love is easy.
> Sometimes love equates to a strong hand (Heb 12:6).
>
> Sometimes love equates to admonishment and bringing
> shame to someone (2 Thes 3:14-15).
>
> Sometimes love equals tossing someone out of the church
> (1 Cor 5:1-5).
>
> While we attempt to bring someone into living for the
> Lord again in love, we are not tolerate those who live
> in constant repeated sin.
>
> And we are especially not to
> tolerate those who claim their sin is righteousness
> before God. They are not even brothers and sisters in
> Christ and do not belong as members of the church.
> They are pretenders and heretics.
>
> Titus 3:10-11
>
> 10) A man that is an heretick after the first and
> second admonition reject;
> 11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and
> sinneth, being condemned of himself.
>
> Love should not be directed only at one person, but
> also to the rest of the flock. What good does it do
> the flock, to allow perversion and corruption and call
> that "Christian"? Take a look around and you'll see
> why that's a bad thing.
Agreed. You don't need to prove anything about this to me.
Difference is we are not in a church here are we? We're in a type of
"town square" if you like.
What do you think about "correcting" a sister/brother in public outside
of the Church?
--
regards,
Bradley
Pastor Dave
<spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
The same. While this is not a church building, it is
supposed to be a gathering of Christians, which is all
a church is (believers gathered) to discuss the Bible
and Christian life. A kill filter replaces tossing
someone out. The same rules apply and those who
tolerate these people and converse with them in some
kind of "friendship", thinking that love always does
equate to being "lovey dovey", when we are commanded to
have nothing to do with them if they continually reject
the Gospel, or claim to be Christian and are actually
heretics, are not following Scripture.
With these pretenders and heretics, it is wise to
follow Titus 3:10-11.
Now of course, those with questions should always be
welcome and encouraged. But I don't tolerate someone
telling me they're a Christian and that, for example,
gay is okay with God. Nor do I pretend that they are
just mislead Christians. They have Bibles and know the
passages condemning it. They have also been admonished
here. These people were never born again. No one of
the Spirit of God, calls sin righteousness.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that
put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
- Isaiah 5:20
Read the following, by Luther. I'm not a Lutheran, but
I think there is a lot of wisdom in this quote...
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
And btw, I disagree with this being a town square.
This is supposed to be a gathering of Christians (and
maybe some who aren't, who have sincere questions). If
we were watching Christian television shows, they are
not all in a church and herald forth the Gospel, yet
should we entertain homosexuals on the shows, saying
that gay is okay with God (that's the easiest example
to us, as there are some of those here)?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"To belittle is to be little."
Griz
>of the Church?
>--
>regards,
>
>Bradley
That presents a bit of a spiritual oxymoron Bradley:
When is a 'brother or a sister' (a title indicating they are a part of the
Church), 'outside of the Church'?
Having been purchased by the blood of God, do we set that aside to walk
apart from Him and quash the various manifestations of the Spirit working
within the worldwide Body of Christ? We are given a good working definition
of the Church in Acts 20 28
.
..
.....
Unless you are still talking about the building and not about the worldwide
fellowship of true believers. The Church of God is a Spiritual entity --
not a building of Man's creation.
God's flock is not contained in concrete and wood, brick and mortar. A
building is not the only place where the Church is exercised. Are we to
'shut off' the many functions of the Body just because we are not hidden
away in a particular building on a particular day?? Grieve the Spirit
because we are not in a particular place, on a certain day???
The Adversary would really love placing such temporal restrictions upon that
which transcends space and time into all Eternity.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Blobert!
news:41301fb1$1...@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> What if we leave the past there and all move on?
Beacuse nothing has changed. Some folks here are not believers and
others thing they are.
>
> What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
> rather than attacking the person?
Been there, done that. Got called a f*cking d*ckhead.
>
> What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
> response?
That's why we have killfiles.
>
> What if we show love without being judgemental?
There's not anyone here I hate. But you cannot reject someone's
teachings without them becoming personally offended; especially you know
who.....
>
> What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
> convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
> convictions are actually wrong?
LOL!!! That's what human history has been all about. People being right
in trying to straighten out those who are wrong.
>
> What if we always take a deep breath and a pause for prayer before we
> respond?
We are not all praying to the same God.
>
> What if we try to understand others and if something isn't clear ask
> nicely for clarification?
If you do, then you're labeled a f*cking d*ckhead or worse.
>
> What if we are certain that our conviction is right but we don't need to
> argue with people about it or feel threatened by them?
Again, that is why there are killfiles.
>
> What if we never again feel the need to belittle, name-call, shout,
> persecute others?
THat's pretty much been coming from your side of the aisle, so yes, we
would appreciate it.
>
> What if we don't need to advertise how right we are and how wrong others
> are?
Luke 8:16 ś "Now no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a
container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, so that
those who come in may see the light.
>
> What if we never point fingers at others?
Jesus did. A lot.
>
> What if everything we said was to build each other up instead of proving
> them wrong?
Proving someone is wrong =is= building them up because =then= they have
the TRUTH!!!
>
> What if?
A lot of what if's but no real answers from you, Bradley.
Are you listening to "Imagine" by John Lennon right now? I'm listening
to The Messiah by Handel.
Bob<><
Blobert!
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:00:52 +1000, "Bradley"
> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>
>
> >What if we leave the past there and all move on?
> >
> >What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
> >rather than attacking the person?
> >
> >What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
> >response?
> >
> >What if we show love without being judgemental?
>
> If someone claim to be a Christian and also claims, for
> example, that God approves of homosexual acts, then we
> are told in Scripture, to judge that person. It is
> those outside the church that we are not to judge,
> since they make no claim of salvation. There is a
> difference in this matter, depending on which category
> a person falls into.
>
our favorite agnostics and unbelievers. :-)
pedro
>
> And btw, I disagree with this being a town square.
> This is supposed to be a gathering of Christians (and
> maybe some who aren't, who have sincere questions).
You are posting to ARC. And as ppl love to keep telling me, this is not
a 'gathering of Christians'. It's a forum for discussing Christianity.
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
'What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered
plant?'
::: vera :::
Bradley <spam...@blokd.com> wrote:
> What if we leave the past there and all move on?
>
> What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they
> disagree rather than attacking the person?
>
> What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
> response?
You mean blocking people whose posts you do not like?
Start with those of Mark Tindall, please, and go and do your homework first.
The 'past' has not started yet.
And I have also not started yet.
> What if we show love without being judgemental?
If pigs can fly?
> What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
> convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
> convictions are actually wrong?
>
> What if we always take a deep breath and a pause for prayer before we
> respond?
That will not work with Mark.
> What if we try to understand others and if something isn't clear ask
> nicely for clarification?
Oh - I perfectly understand you all.
> What if we are certain that our conviction is right but we don't need
> to argue with people about it or feel threatened by them?
>
> What if we never again feel the need to belittle, name-call, shout,
> persecute others?
You mean Mark Tindall could do so? And Rowland Croucher would take down ALL
belittling and persecuting and inflaming articles things from his 13,000+
website?
In that case I would agree. Show me concrete steps.
> What if we don't need to advertise how right we are and how wrong
> others are?
>
> What if we never point fingers at others?
>
> What if everything we said was to build each other up instead of
> proving them wrong?
>
> What if?
What if? Words only, now show actions.
First do your homework. Second...
::: vera :::
--
::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::
::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::
John McComb
> Love does not equal always being lovey dovey.
True, true. But under what circumstances has it ever meant
'hatey datey'?
Yours in Christ
John
Ben Mitts
Bradley! I looked at all the comments this
header raised , and have come to the con-
clusion that we believers may as well take
our Bibles and proceed to the nearest dark
dank lonely beach on some island in the
middle of nowhere and forget the world!
This is not what Jesus commanded of us!
He said we are to spread the Gospel in the
world and baptize in the Spirit of His Father
His Son, and His Holy Spirit. No where does
it say we will have a snap duty all the time
On the contrary we are given all the tools
necessary to destroy the enemies of our
Heavenly Father! If we stop doing what
your idea entails we die! The World dies
I spent enough time in the streets to see
what your thinking can and does to all
those who really need us! Many of these
people just about all admit that had some
one taken it upon themselves to "fight"
through the walls they put up the, they
would not have ended up the derelicts
of life!
To keep the message shorter than I would
like to keep it, there is a modern term for
what you propose- it's called Post modernism!
It is pretty much the state of what a lot of
churches are in!
We have some people out here who broke in
with me on these many NG's who can remem-
ber the damage this theory caused when it
was first brought in- it wasn't pretty!
--
May God continue to richly Bless you!
Peace and Love in The Name of Jesus Christ!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."
Similarly, God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him should not
perish, but Have eternal life.
Ben Mitts
BTW Bradley! I forgot to mention that
this old preacher believes most of us
understand the enemies of God more
than you give us credit for!
What if you take to the streets of the world
What if you only spend your witnessing in
the shanty towns of life- there all over the
world.
Have you ever been accused by well meaning
friends that what you do is wrong and shouldn't
be wasted on those "types of people?"
Have you ever been threatened by someone for
what you teach?
You ever had anyone stand outside and wait to
kill you for what you teach?
You ever been called on by people who got in your
face and called you a liar as they spit all over your
face!
If you have had at least one incident like I describe
or worse, than fire away! If not, than your proposal
will not work! Basically, every one of us has tried
everything you propose and they dont work on most
out here! Time to come up with something different
Bradley
Just remember- Jesus Christ tried the same things
and more, but the world only got worse!
So, if you have a better proposal this old preacher
will listen!
Have a good day
Feather Forestwalker
> What if we leave the past there and all move on?
Healing could and would begin. . .
>
> What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
> rather than attacking the person?
Rational thought might prevail? *grin* Seriously, though, we'd probably
faint from seeing people actually getting along. . .rather than calling
names, pointing fingers and veritably sending people to hell for not
agreeing. . .
>
> What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
> response?
Ahhh, wouldn't that be best?
>
> What if we show love without being judgemental?
How? Can people really do that? Can I? Can you? Can any of us here in these
newsgroups? I will make it a point to do so, however, and ONLY with God's
strength - in my own strength, I fail miserably. . .
>
> What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
> convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
> convictions are actually wrong?
Inasmuch as our convictions are in line with what we are taught in
Scripture, it would also do us good to allow ourselves the chance for Godly
reproof and correction when we need it most and not stand firm on something
that might be sandy. . .standing firm in Jesus as our ROCK, however. . .is
another story and ALL of us as CHRISTIANS should be striving for that.
>
> What if we always take a deep breath and a pause for prayer before we
> respond?
Good thing. Sitting on one's hands helps to take that breath and pray, also.
. .I like this, but Bradley, guess what?
This is going to come across as not mere suggestions, but, *gasp* new
"guidelines" and "moderated FAQ" for several unmoderated forums. . .
>
> What if we try to understand others and if something isn't clear ask
> nicely for clarification?
*I am so sorry, I didn't get that, would you please reiterate?* (You mean
like that?)
>
> What if we are certain that our conviction is right but we don't need to
> argue with people about it or feel threatened by them?
Pointing to Scriptural references without slamming, you mean? *S*
>
> What if we never again feel the need to belittle, name-call, shout,
> persecute others?
Oh, Lord, that we could all rise above our milky childish stages and sink
our teeth into some hearty, chunky meat of not only Your Word, but in our
relationships, as well! :)
>
> What if we don't need to advertise how right we are and how wrong others
> are?
Would anything get discussed?? hehehe. . .wow, that's convicting of me. .
.sheesh. . .
>
> What if we never point fingers at others?
We'd never have three more plus one thumb, pointing back at ourselves?
"Remove the mote from your own eye before seeking to remove the speck from
your brothers," eh?
>
> What if everything we said was to build each other up instead of proving
> them wrong?
Encourage one another. . .love one another. . .be at peace, one with the
other. . .bless your enemies, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU. . . .
>
> What if?
> --
> regards,
>
> Bradley
>
>
Ah, what IF, indeed? In Deed?
God bless you Bradley,
Feather
Brenda G. Kent
love Bren
--
Blobert!
news:4130A807...@comcast.net...
Hey!!! It's NICE here!!! :-)
Mark T
> > What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they disagree
> > rather than attacking the person?
>
> Rational thought might prevail? *grin* Seriously, though, we'd probably
> faint from seeing people actually getting along. . .rather than calling
> names, pointing fingers and veritably sending people to hell for not
> agreeing. . .
... but you'd spoil Trew Kristyun Monopoly!
"Go to hell! Go directly to hell! Do not pass Go! Do not get 200 Trew
Kristyun Brownie points."
::: vera :::
Amen to that, Ben! You are speaking from my heart! We cannot expect peace
everywhere, and we will have to fight for our faith. That's what Jesus meant
when He spoke of the sword. I will not give up here either, just to make
Mark Tindall happy - there is too much at stake!
I can see what secularism has done to Germany and Europe. Now 80 per cent of
the children born in my town are Muslims. Do you know what this will mean
for the future? For Christians?
Now, Rowland Croucher can take all the slanderous attacks against
fundamentalist Christians and all other heretic stuff (which suggest Jesus
was a homosexual, for example and such things) off his website, take
concrete steps against Mark Tindall to stop him in Christian bashing (this
could mean to block him here, to take his articles from the website and
other things - no idea) and then we might talk about moving on.
I am thinking of all those people that have to suffer persecution now and in
future.
Love to my Brother in Christ,
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
So let's get this straight.
You're blaming secularism (MW definition: indifference to or rejection
or exclusion of religion and religious considerations) for the rise of
Muslim (a competing religion) births in your town ?
How is exclusion of religious belief responsible for rise of a competing
religion? It just doesn't add up.
> Do you know what this will mean
> for the future?
It means Germany will be multicultural. It does not mean Germany will be
Muslim. Deal with the changes in your culture, and ADAPT.
> For Christians?
Well, if Christians remain unable to listen to the community around them
(in whatever form that community that takes), then they will continue to
be relegated to the sidelines because they will be unable to help anyone.
Christians are meant to minister to people. Ministry means help. If you
don't understand the times and culture around you, you have no credible
basis to help them. Meet people where they are at, Vera, not where you
want them to be..
<snip>
> I am thinking of all those people that have to suffer persecution now and in
> future.
I doubt the babes being born in your town are responsible for carrying
out gross acts of terrorism so why are YOU the one painting them with a
brush of "possible persecutor" in the future ?
And anyway, two to three generations down the line, most of the "old
country" mentality/ideology is kicked out / rejected. It's happened time
and time again in resettlement; Australia being a prime example of how
much the "old country" mentality fails after a while.
I'm thinking with all the Muslim babies grown up in 20 years you're
going to have a lot of Muslim people seeking to work with you, and if
you can't handle that now, what's the consequences for the future?
lawrence
Bradley
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:00:53 +1000, "Bradley"
> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
<snip>
>> Difference is we are not in a church here are we? We're in a type of
>> "town square" if you like.
>>
>> What do you think about "correcting" a sister/brother in public
>> outside of the Church?
> The same. While this is not a church building, it is
> supposed to be a gathering of Christians, which is all
> a church is (believers gathered) to discuss the Bible
> and Christian life.
I don't fully agree, but understand your point. Although it is a
gathering of Christians it is in a public pace and it is also a
gathering of non-Christians.
> A kill filter replaces tossing
> someone out. The same rules apply and those who
> tolerate these people and converse with them in some
> kind of "friendship", thinking that love always does
> equate to being "lovey dovey", when we are commanded to
> have nothing to do with them if they continually reject
> the Gospel, or claim to be Christian and are actually
> heretics, are not following Scripture.
>
> With these pretenders and heretics, it is wise to
> follow Titus 3:10-11.
>
> Now of course, those with questions should always be
> welcome and encouraged. But I don't tolerate someone
> telling me they're a Christian and that, for example,
> gay is okay with God. Nor do I pretend that they are
> just mislead Christians. They have Bibles and know the
> passages condemning it. They have also been admonished
> here. These people were never born again. No one of
> the Spirit of God, calls sin righteousness.
I'm not really disagreeing with you.. I just think the situation is a
little different than being in a local Church congregation where
relationships are more real and you can get a much broader picture of
someone's beliefs etc.
> "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that
> put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
> put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
> - Isaiah 5:20
>
> Read the following, by Luther. I'm not a Lutheran, but
> I think there is a lot of wisdom in this quote...
>
> "I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
> as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
> faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
> neither love nor patience are in order... For
> a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
> but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
> and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
> these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
> are in order, but only anger, dispute and
> destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
> of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
Agreed.
> And btw, I disagree with this being a town square.
> This is supposed to be a gathering of Christians (and
> maybe some who aren't, who have sincere questions). If
> we were watching Christian television shows, they are
> not all in a church and herald forth the Gospel, yet
> should we entertain homosexuals on the shows, saying
> that gay is okay with God (that's the easiest example
> to us, as there are some of those here)?
It is supposed to be a place where anyone can come and discuss
Christianity and religion. (ARC for example, other groups probably
vary).
Thanks for your input. I understand where you are coming from and mostly
agree. I just have a slightly different opinoin on what Usenet is and
don't think it is the same as being part of a local congregation. I
think Usenet is basically what each individual wants it to be.. it's
just a medium after all:)
How's your weekend going?
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley
news:10j124a...@corp.supernews.com
>> What do you think about "correcting" a sister/brother in public
>> outside of the Church?
>> --
>> regards,
>>
>> Bradley
>
> That presents a bit of a spiritual oxymoron Bradley:
>
> When is a 'brother or a sister' (a title indicating they are a part
> of the Church), 'outside of the Church'?
> Having been purchased by the blood of God, do we set that aside to
> walk apart from Him and quash the various manifestations of the
> Spirit working within the worldwide Body of Christ? We are given a
> good working definition of the Church in Acts 20 28
>
> .
> ..
> .....
>
> Unless you are still talking about the building and not about the
> worldwide fellowship of true believers. The Church of God is a
> Spiritual entity -- not a building of Man's creation.
I agree.
> God's flock is not contained in concrete and wood, brick and mortar.
> A building is not the only place where the Church is exercised. Are
> we to 'shut off' the many functions of the Body just because we are
> not hidden away in a particular building on a particular day??
> Grieve the Spirit because we are not in a particular place, on a
> certain day???
I'm not saying that.
Would you judge another Christian on a street corner while in front of
non-Christians? (I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, I'm just
throwing questions out there as this is an interesting discussion.. how
the Church functions on Usenet).
> The Adversary would really love placing such temporal restrictions
> upon that which transcends space and time into all Eternity.
I'm not placing restrictions.
eg. if you felt I needed correction wouldn't the best way to do that be
on private (or at least attempt that first?).
I don't have all the answers, I'm just working out for myself how Church
relationships/authority/correction/etc can work on Usenet without
leading to the flame wars we often see.
Thanks for the post:)
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley
Bradley
"Ben Mitts" <bmit...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4130A807...@comcast.net
I'm not sure what you are getting at Ben?
> This is not what Jesus commanded of us!
> He said we are to spread the Gospel in the
> world and baptize in the Spirit of His Father
> His Son, and His Holy Spirit. No where does
> it say we will have a snap duty all the time
> On the contrary we are given all the tools
> necessary to destroy the enemies of our
> Heavenly Father! If we stop doing what
> your idea entails we die! The World dies
>
> I spent enough time in the streets to see
> what your thinking can and does to all
> those who really need us! Many of these
> people just about all admit that had some
> one taken it upon themselves to "fight"
> through the walls they put up the, they
> would not have ended up the derelicts
> of life!
>
> To keep the message shorter than I would
> like to keep it, there is a modern term for
> what you propose- it's called Post modernism!
> It is pretty much the state of what a lot of
> churches are in!
I don't think your view of what post-modernism is about is quite right
there Ben?
The Church doesn't follow post-modernism, it tries to understand what
post-modernism means and how it effects our presentation of the Gospel.
In other words it helps us be relevant to people today who are more than
ever seeking a spirituality of some sort.
(I'm no expert though:) )
> We have some people out here who broke in
> with me on these many NG's who can remem-
> ber the damage this theory caused when it
> was first brought in- it wasn't pretty!
What ya up to this weekend Ben? I just saw off my sister-in-law who has
left for Sri Lanka for a cricket tour.
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley
What do you mean? I've never discredited anyone understanding of the
enemies tactics.
> What if you take to the streets of the world
> What if you only spend your witnessing in
> the shanty towns of life- there all over the
> world.
Depends if I am called to do so:)
> Have you ever been accused by well meaning
> friends that what you do is wrong and shouldn't
> be wasted on those "types of people?"
I'm assuming "what you do" is "preaching to gospel to a certain people"
?
No, I haven't had that happen.
> Have you ever been threatened by someone for
> what you teach?
Yep.
> You ever had anyone stand outside and wait to
> kill you for what you teach?
Not that I know of. I'm also not a pastor/preacher. My ministry is more
of a supportive one a my gifts major in helps and admin.
> You ever been called on by people who got in your
> face and called you a liar as they spit all over your
> face!
Fortunately no.
What's you point here Ben?
> If you have had at least one incident like I describe
> or worse, than fire away!
Ben, I an not firing at anyone! My posts sole purpose was for self
reflection by everyone, including me.
> If not, than your proposal
> will not work!
I make no proposal Ben, please don't put word in my mouth. I simply
asked a whole bunch of rhetorical questions for the purpose that each
person may reflect on them. They were not aimed at anyone nor was there
any other motive.
> Basically, every one of us has tried
> everything you propose and they dont work on most
> out here! Time to come up with something different
> Bradley
Then why not discuss why they don't work and what can be done?
> Just remember- Jesus Christ tried the same things
> and more, but the world only got worse!
I don't follow that reasoning. If Jesus did it then should not we do the
same, regardless of the wordly consequence?
> So, if you have a better proposal this old preacher
> will listen!
Again, it wasn't a proposal Ben.
> Have a good day
You yoo:)
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley
news:zP2Yc.865$8d1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
> "Bradley" <spam...@blokd.com> wrote in message
> news:41301fb1$1...@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>> What if we leave the past there and all move on?
>
> Healing could and would begin. . .
That would be very good thing indeed.
>> What if when people disagree with someone they discuss why they
>> disagree rather than attacking the person?
> Rational thought might prevail? *grin* Seriously, though, we'd
> probably faint from seeing people actually getting along. . .rather
> than calling names, pointing fingers and veritably sending people to
> hell for not agreeing. . .
>
>> What if we just ignore people when they launch personal attacks in
>> response?
>
> Ahhh, wouldn't that be best?
>
>>
>> What if we show love without being judgemental?
>
> How? Can people really do that? Can I? Can you? Can any of us here in
> these newsgroups? I will make it a point to do so, however, and ONLY
> with God's strength - in my own strength, I fail miserably. . .
Yes, we all fail at times.
>> What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
>> convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
>> convictions are actually wrong?
> Inasmuch as our convictions are in line with what we are taught in
> Scripture,
Yes, that was what was meant.
> it would also do us good to allow ourselves the chance for
> Godly reproof and correction when we need it most and not stand firm
> on something that might be sandy. . .standing firm in Jesus as our
> ROCK, however. . .is another story and ALL of us as CHRISTIANS should
> be striving for that.
Amen to that.
>> What if we always take a deep breath and a pause for prayer before we
>> respond?
> Good thing. Sitting on one's hands helps to take that breath and
> pray, also. . .I like this, but Bradley, guess what?
>
> This is going to come across as not mere suggestions, but, *gasp* new
> "guidelines" and "moderated FAQ" for several unmoderated forums. . .
I got that impression from Ben's responses. They were simply rhetorical
questions for self reflection. (perhaps I should have made than more
obvious?:))
>> What if we try to understand others and if something isn't clear ask
>> nicely for clarification?
> *I am so sorry, I didn't get that, would you please reiterate?* (You
> mean like that?)
Yeah.
>> What if we are certain that our conviction is right but we don't
>> need to argue with people about it or feel threatened by them?
> Pointing to Scriptural references without slamming, you mean? *S*
:)
>> What if we never again feel the need to belittle, name-call, shout,
>> persecute others?
> Oh, Lord, that we could all rise above our milky childish stages and
> sink our teeth into some hearty, chunky meat of not only Your Word,
> but in our relationships, as well! :)
Amen.
>> What if we don't need to advertise how right we are and how wrong
>> others are?
> Would anything get discussed?? hehehe. . .wow, that's convicting of
> me. . .sheesh. . .
Scary how true that is eh?
>> What if we never point fingers at others?
> We'd never have three more plus one thumb, pointing back at ourselves?
>
> "Remove the mote from your own eye before seeking to remove the speck
> from your brothers," eh?
>
>> What if everything we said was to build each other up instead of
>> proving them wrong?
>
> Encourage one another. . .love one another. . .be at peace, one with
> the other. . .bless your enemies, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU. . . .
>
>
>>
>> What if?
>> --
>> regards,
>>
>> Bradley
>>
>>
>
> Ah, what IF, indeed? In Deed?
>
> God bless you Bradley,
>
> Feather
How are you going Feather? I haven't caught up on your updates for a lil
bit....
--
regards,
Bradley
Griz
Griz:
>> God's flock is not contained in concrete and wood, brick and mortar.
>> A building is not the only place where the Church is exercised. Are
>> we to 'shut off' the many functions of the Body just because we are
>> not hidden away in a particular building on a particular day??
>> Grieve the Spirit because we are not in a particular place, on a
>> certain day???
Bradley:
>I'm not saying that.
>
>Would you judge another Christian on a street corner while in front of
>non-Christians? (I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, I'm just
>throwing questions out there as this is an interesting discussion.. how
>the Church functions on Usenet).
I think that each person needs to develop an understanding before God of
just what manner of "judging" is allowed. Personally I see judgment (the
Godly variety of course, where we simply note the fruits that are in
abundance and recognize the only outcome possible from such actions
according to God's word) and I see discernment (a look ahead if you will, of
where the various spiritual currents and eddies are leading). If a
Christian in front of non-Christians is saying or doing something that the
Spirit makes amply clear that they are going to have to answer for --
especially if it will have the effect of working against God's kingdom in
the hearts of the non-believers -- then to simply walk away would be denying
the responsibility we bear for each other.
I would bring up the example of ACC several years ago. Several believers
got together and decided to try something on an all-but-abandoned NG. It
was a body of mostly believers, and many of the manifestations of the body
were there -- including correcting. But then several non-believers came
along sowing contention. Then more. Then more. There was then a body
composed of both believers and non-believers. Should the functions of the
body cease simply because non-believers come along to watch and heckle?
There is definitely room for tact in manifesting gifts that they will have a
hard time understanding, but what I'm asking is this:
Is all the adversary has to do is introduce a few non-believers into the mix
to render the functioning of Christ's body as disallowed? If a handfull of
atheists walk into a worship service, are we to shut it down? If a
smattering of Gaia-worshippers walk in, can we no longer call on God's name
publically for fear of offending them?
These are CHRISTIAN groups. It is not unreasonable to expect ALL of the
functions of the body of Christ to be active here! One doesn't go to a
politics group to talk about the weather, or a bird group to talk about
earthquakes!
>I'm not placing restrictions.
>eg. if you felt I needed correction wouldn't the best way to do that be
>on private (or at least attempt that first?).
That's Scriptural.
But especially in this forum, there are numerous people who have excluded
themselves from private e-mails.
Plus I would add that unless it is something spiritually earth-shaking -- a
spiritual error for example, that needs to be brought to light for the sake
of stumbling in the young -- that most functions of the body happen between
those who have already established a trust-base with each other. I believe
that GODLY corrections, are one of the 'pearls' that Jesus spoke of in Matt
7:6.
So this creates the possibility of two different actions: personal
corrections to those who are open to them and are likely to respond as Peter
did to Paul; and general corrections aimed at presenting the Truth from
Scripture so that none might stumble for lack of knowing what God's word
actually says.
We already know that some here are thick as posts and will resist all wisdom
from God's word that we might bring to light. But we need to remember that
there are others out there who are still open to what God's word says and
will heed it.
>I don't have all the answers, I'm just working out for myself how Church
>relationships/authority/correction/etc can work on Usenet without
>leading to the flame wars we often see.
>
>Thanks for the post:)
Well, those on the path of Christ are trying to do somthing that the world
definitely doesn't want to see happen. To that end, those in the world will
create whatever magnitude of fuss they need to in order to stop the body of
Christ from functioning as God intended. If all it takes are a few fusspots
to cower the Christians into silence or quash the moving of the Spirit, then
we are giving the adversary ground that he is not entitled to.
Our function is not to cause contention and flame wars. But dare we say
that the flash-point for them is inevitable -- the flash-point where flesh
rejects Spirit.
I would suggest that the only way to control the various out-breaks of
flame-wars, is for the Christians to pray for the discernment of the Holy
Spirit so they might know when a particular reply is according to God's
Kingdom -- and when a reply is more of service to their own personal
kingdom.
As time goes on it becomes very obvious what camp a person is in by the
fruits that they regularly and effortlessly manifest. We need to return to
Scripture to find out just when our duty before God is discharged in regards
to those who simply will not listen. We are given the power of the Holy
Spirit to contend for the faith -- but not to become contentious. With that
power comes also the wisdom to know when it is time to walk away -- or let
them walk away.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Pastor Dave
<pe...@nowhere.com> screamed out:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>>
>> And btw, I disagree with this being a town square.
>> This is supposed to be a gathering of Christians (and
>> maybe some who aren't, who have sincere questions).
>
>You are posting to ARC. And as ppl love to keep telling me, this is not
>a 'gathering of Christians'. It's a forum for discussing Christianity.
Actually, I am posting to alt.christnet.christianlife
but your point is taken. After this message, I will
strip it out of my responses. Sorry to all in ARC.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Don't let the littleness in others
bring out the littleness in you."
Pastor Dave
<spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
I'm not saying it's identical to a local congregation.
I am posting from alt.christnet.christianlife and so
therefore, I saw it as a place to discuss Christian
life, you see?
I am going to trim out ARC from my responses, because
my statements aren't accurate for that group. Are you
posting from ARC? I did not wish to trim it out of
this one and have you think I ignored you.
>How's your weekend going?
It's going pretty well. I also have a break today from
my normal functions, which good and bad. :)
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said
He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
Pastor Dave
<Gotta_lose@this_spam.com> screamed out:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>
>> Love does not equal always being lovey dovey.
>
>True, true. But under what circumstances has it ever meant
>'hatey datey'?
You equate not being lovey dovey, with hate for the
person, instead of hate for the sin and love for the
person, which sometimes must be expressed through
telling them their sin is sin and not allowing them to
continue with a charade, calling themselves brothers
and sisters, while claiming that God approves of their
sinful ways.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
Pastor Dave
<fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
>
>"Bradley" <spam...@blokd.com> wrote in message
>news:41301fb1$1...@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>> What if we leave the past there and all move on?
>
>Healing could and would begin. . .
Healing begins when we do not hide the truth, to make
people feel comfortable. If there's one thing Jesus
never made me feel, it's comfortable calling sin
righteousness.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Blobert!
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:24:51 +1000, pedro
> <pe...@nowhere.com> screamed out:
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And btw, I disagree with this being a town square.
> >> This is supposed to be a gathering of Christians (and
> >> maybe some who aren't, who have sincere questions).
> >
> >You are posting to ARC. And as ppl love to keep telling me, this is not
> >a 'gathering of Christians'. It's a forum for discussing Christianity.
>
> Actually, I am posting to alt.christnet.christianlife
> but your point is taken. After this message, I will
> strip it out of my responses. Sorry to all in ARC.
But =what if= just =one= person in ARC wants to see your post.
What if they are only lurking even?! Will you strip even if one person still
wants/needs you? This thread included ARC for some reason, it didn't just
happen accidentally.
Gen 18:32 Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak
only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not
destroy {it} on account of the ten."
Feather Forestwalker
> "Feather Forestwalker" <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:zP2Yc.865$8d1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
> > "Bradley" <spam...@blokd.com> wrote in message
> > news:41301fb1$1...@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> >
<snipped for points only>
> >>
> >> What if we show love without being judgemental?
> >
> > How? Can people really do that? Can I? Can you? Can any of us here in
> > these newsgroups? I will make it a point to do so, however, and ONLY
> > with God's strength - in my own strength, I fail miserably. . .
>
> Yes, we all fail at times.
Only because during those times we are relying on our selves rather than
God. When we cast all our cares upon Him, when we lay all of our burdens at
the foot of the cross, when we let go and let God - that is when we find out
what real strength is - not ours, but Your will be done, Lord. . .
>
> >> What if we understand that doesn't mean we need to change our
> >> convictions but should be open to being challenged in case our
> >> convictions are actually wrong?
>
> > Inasmuch as our convictions are in line with what we are taught in
> > Scripture,
>
> Yes, that was what was meant.
I knew that's what you meant. :) I was merely making it clearer.
>
> > it would also do us good to allow ourselves the chance for
> > Godly reproof and correction when we need it most and not stand firm
> > on something that might be sandy. . .standing firm in Jesus as our
> > ROCK, however. . .is another story and ALL of us as CHRISTIANS should
> > be striving for that.
>
> Amen to that.
>
> >> What if we always take a deep breath and a pause for prayer before we
> >> respond?
>
> > Good thing. Sitting on one's hands helps to take that breath and
> > pray, also. . .I like this, but Bradley, guess what?
> >
> > This is going to come across as not mere suggestions, but, *gasp* new
> > "guidelines" and "moderated FAQ" for several unmoderated forums. . .
>
>
> I got that impression from Ben's responses. They were simply rhetorical
> questions for self reflection. (perhaps I should have made than more
> obvious?:))
Yes, that would have helped more, eh?
>
> >> What if we try to understand others and if something isn't clear ask
> >> nicely for clarification?
>
> > *I am so sorry, I didn't get that, would you please reiterate?* (You
> > mean like that?)
>
> Yeah.
>
> >> What if we are certain that our conviction is right but we don't
> >> need to argue with people about it or feel threatened by them?
>
> > Pointing to Scriptural references without slamming, you mean? *S*
>
>
> :)
>
> >> What if we never again feel the need to belittle, name-call, shout,
> >> persecute others?
>
> > Oh, Lord, that we could all rise above our milky childish stages and
> > sink our teeth into some hearty, chunky meat of not only Your Word,
> > but in our relationships, as well! :)
>
> Amen.
>
> >> What if we don't need to advertise how right we are and how wrong
> >> others are?
>
> > Would anything get discussed?? hehehe. . .wow, that's convicting of
> > me. . .sheesh. . .
>
>
> Scary how true that is eh?
YES. Because I am very guilty of same. . ."I am right, you are wrong, blah
blah blah," when in fact, what I might mean to say is "God is right and I am
wrong." *lol @ myself*
>
> >> What if we never point fingers at others?
>
> > We'd never have three more plus one thumb, pointing back at ourselves?
> >
> > "Remove the mote from your own eye before seeking to remove the speck
> > from your brothers," eh?
> >
> >> What if everything we said was to build each other up instead of
> >> proving them wrong?
> >
> > Encourage one another. . .love one another. . .be at peace, one with
> > the other. . .bless your enemies, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU. . . .
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What if?
> >> --
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Bradley
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Ah, what IF, indeed? In Deed?
> >
> > God bless you Bradley,
> >
> > Feather
>
> How are you going Feather? I haven't caught up on your updates for a lil
> bit....
Oh, pretty good, Bradley, pretty good. I left for church this morning after
reading Bob's post called "Evil Empire," singing, oddly enough, "GREAT IS
THY FAITHFULNESS." I couldn't get the song out of my head. . .had totally
forgotten we'd had it planned for the morning hymn this morning because I
had done the bulletins much earlier in the week. . .and had a lot of other
things going on. . .*LOL* So, after reading that post, I had this response
all written up. . .and realized that it would be best to not say anything at
all. . .
. . . .instead, I started humming that song and it wouldn't get out of my
head. Then we not only sang it for our morning hymn, but the sextet that
sang for us this morning had their pianist play it for us in a very special
solo. . .man, talk about getting that song in triplicate! :)
Am going to post the words. . .in response, rather than my own verbose one.
God bless, and please do keep praying for our pastor; his surgery is
September 1st.
Feather
> --
> regards,
>
> Bradley
>
>
Feather Forestwalker
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:57:03 GMT, "Feather Forestwalker"
> <fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
>
> >
> >"Bradley" <spam...@blokd.com> wrote in message
> >news:41301fb1$1...@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> >
> >> What if we leave the past there and all move on?
> >
> >Healing could and would begin. . .
>
> Healing begins when we do not hide the truth, to make
> people feel comfortable. If there's one thing Jesus
> never made me feel, it's comfortable calling sin
> righteousness.
It's not about making anyone "comfortable." I am reminded of one of our
pastor's sermons from before his heart attack.
It was called "Please, Be UNcomfortable!" and I remember how he talked about
how God keeps us constantly in a state of uncomfortableness when He's doing
works in our lives. . .and how TRUE that is. I pray that yes, we WOULD be
uncomfortable,
. . .and sometimes, FORGIVING and MOVING ON is the most uncomfortable thing
to do!
LOVE KEEPS NO RECORDS OF WRONGS.
Let it go, let God do the healing, and MOVE FORWARD and stop looking back
once you have your hand on that ploughshare!
:)
God bless,
Feather
::: vera :::
Of course. At least here in Germany. To accept all cultures and religions in
one nation can only work if ALL are tolerant - but Islam is NOT, and will
NEVER be. Opening a door to Islam will mean they will try to govern in
future, and they will NOT allow Christians the same rights as they have. You
can see that in ALL countries where Muslims are in. Try to read a Bible in
Saudi Arabia, please!
> How is exclusion of religious belief responsible for rise of a
> competing religion? It just doesn't add up.
I did not speak of that. The Muslims have come to Germany as guest workers
in masses. But then they said they have a right to be here. The people were
not asked if they wanted it or not. Germany will be a Muslim country in
about ten to twenty years - you will see. Just because there are no other
people getting the children here anymore. Just think of the fact that the
first Christian churches that Paul opened up were in Turkey - which is
Muslim now!
>> Do you know what this will mean
>> for the future?
>
> It means Germany will be multicultural. It does not mean Germany will
> be Muslim. Deal with the changes in your culture, and ADAPT.
Not multicultural, but Muslim! Muslims have always taken a leadership in
every state where thea are the majority. Christians will be happy to be able
to gather publicly in future. Islam is dangerous, and trying to take over
everywhere. That's lying in this religion. Just have a look at Jerusalem and
the old Temple of the Jews there, and what they did with it, claiming it was
their holy place. Weird, however, that they show Jerusalem their backside
when praying... Do you think this was right? Do you think it was right to
call out an "Intifada" after Mr. Sharon went to a place where he was told to
have access to anytime?
>> For Christians?
>
> Well, if Christians remain unable to listen to the community around
> them (in whatever form that community that takes), then they will
> continue to be relegated to the sidelines because they will be
> unable to help anyone.
LOL!
You speak of Christians like about others... But claim to be one of them?
> Christians are meant to minister to people. Ministry means help. If
> you don't understand the times and culture around you, you have no
> credible basis to help them. Meet people where they are at, Vera,
> not where you want them to be..
I do not know if you have many Muslims in Australia - if you had you would
know that Muslims will NEVER integrate themselves into a non-Muslim society.
They neither need not want any help. All they want is to live without Jews
and Christians, no matter how to reach that aim.
> <snip>
>> I am thinking of all those people that have to suffer persecution
>> now and in future.
>
> I doubt the babes being born in your town are responsible for carrying
> out gross acts of terrorism so why are YOU the one painting them with
> a brush of "possible persecutor" in the future ?
Young girls are sent back to Turkey today to marry someone they have never
seen. They cannot finish their education, but have to be pregnant all the
time.
> And anyway, two to three generations down the line, most of the "old
> country" mentality/ideology is kicked out / rejected. It's happened
> time and time again in resettlement; Australia being a prime example
> of how much the "old country" mentality fails after a while.
>
> I'm thinking with all the Muslim babies grown up in 20 years you're
> going to have a lot of Muslim people seeking to work with you, and if
> you can't handle that now, what's the consequences for the future?
You are a dreamer, Lawrence - or worse. Muslim people will not work with me,
but command, because they are more brutal. Have a look at that 16-year-old
hanged girl in Iran!
But you seem to be pro-Muslim and and anti-Christian.
> lawrence
Bradley
Sounds fair enough.
> I would bring up the example of ACC several years ago.
I wouldn't. Given the sensitivies on both "sides" of the that "battle" I
think it is very poor to bring it up and "stir the pot".
> Several
> believers got together and decided to try something on an
> all-but-abandoned NG.
ie. take it over.
> It was a body of mostly believers, and many of
> the manifestations of the body were there -- including correcting.
But the methods being used were being questioned, hence the "cult" label
some applied.
> But then several non-believers came along sowing contention. Then
> more. Then more. There was then a body composed of both believers
> and non-believers.
A good example of how a public, unmoderated NG is not an easy meeting
place to conduct Church?
> Should the functions of the body cease simply
> because non-believers come along to watch and heckle?
Now why do you assume that all non-Christians are there to "watch and
heckle" ?
The "functioning of the body" IMO can only really operate in a real
personal medium. Usenet can only form a part as it is just a medium,
like a telephone. It has limitations.
So how can a Church function properly on Usenet in an unmoderated forum
where there is no leadership, no accountability, no real openess (people
can hide behind false names etc)? I think it would need to be
moderated... and would need to be supplimented by other mediums such as
telephone calls, e-mail, etc?
What do others think? (I'm just mulling over the subject as I'm
wondering how it'd all work).
> There is
> definitely room for tact in manifesting gifts that they will have a
> hard time understanding, but what I'm asking is this:
> Is all the adversary has to do is introduce a few non-believers into
> the mix to render the functioning of Christ's body as disallowed?
> If a handfull of atheists walk into a worship service, are we to shut
> it down?
My point is in a worship service you have many other factors in play.
You have a community that has a far greater depth of relationship,
accountability, leadership, etc.
> If a smattering of Gaia-worshippers walk in, can we no
> longer call on God's name publically for fear of offending them?
I think public NGs are more of an outreach rather than a church
building.
> These are CHRISTIAN groups.
No Griz, they aren't. ARC and AR for example are not.
> It is not unreasonable to expect ALL of
> the functions of the body of Christ to be active here!
I would think they are very limited in their application since real
relationships don't function as much (only perhaps those supplimented by
personal contact (like Roland and I) or perhaps by phone etc?
> One doesn't
> go to a politics group to talk about the weather, or a bird group to
> talk about earthquakes!
They are not exclusively Christian NGs Griz.
ARC for example has a much broader base for discussion.
>> I'm not placing restrictions.
>> eg. if you felt I needed correction wouldn't the best way to do that
>> be on private (or at least attempt that first?).
> That's Scriptural.
> But especially in this forum, there are numerous people who have
> excluded themselves from private e-mails.
But whom assumes the leadership of the community? Who has authority to
approach the person once you have approached them and they refuse to act
on the issue? Who says you are right?
> Plus I would add that unless it is something spiritually
> earth-shaking -- a spiritual error for example, that needs to be
> brought to light for the sake of stumbling in the young -- that most
> functions of the body happen between those who have already
> established a trust-base with each other. I believe that GODLY
> corrections, are one of the 'pearls' that Jesus spoke of in Matt 7:6.
> So this creates the possibility of two different actions: personal
> corrections to those who are open to them and are likely to respond
> as Peter did to Paul; and general corrections aimed at presenting the
> Truth from Scripture so that none might stumble for lack of knowing
> what God's word actually says.
But if we follow the scriptural process for correction who then do we
take it to if the person doesn't listen to this initial correction?
> We already know that some here are thick as posts and will resist all
> wisdom from God's word that we might bring to light. But we need to
> remember that there are others out there who are still open to what
> God's word says and will heed it.
>
>> I don't have all the answers, I'm just working out for myself how
>> Church relationships/authority/correction/etc can work on Usenet
>> without leading to the flame wars we often see.
>>
>> Thanks for the post:)
>
> Well, those on the path of Christ are trying to do somthing that the
> world definitely doesn't want to see happen. To that end, those in
> the world will create whatever magnitude of fuss they need to in
> order to stop the body of Christ from functioning as God intended.
> If all it takes are a few fusspots to cower the Christians into
> silence or quash the moving of the Spirit, then we are giving the
> adversary ground that he is not entitled to.
It seems you are only saying this because your "vision" for the NGs
didn't work out? I suggest you picked the wrong medium to enforce
something upon (an unmoderated group).
> Our function is not to cause contention and flame wars. But dare we
> say that the flash-point for them is inevitable -- the flash-point
> where flesh rejects Spirit.
Would flame wars happen in a Church service in real life? (perhaps
occasionally in some;))
> I would suggest that the only way to control the various out-breaks of
> flame-wars, is for the Christians to pray for the discernment of the
> Holy Spirit so they might know when a particular reply is according
> to God's Kingdom -- and when a reply is more of service to their own
> personal kingdom.
It will never happen unfortunately. There will alway be people on Usenet
who flame... it's the "nature of the Usenet beast".
> As time goes on it becomes very obvious what camp a person is in
Why do you need to put people in camps?
> by
> the fruits that they regularly and effortlessly manifest.
Should we encourage and challenge them before kicking them to the curb?
> We need to
> return to Scripture to find out just when our duty before God is
> discharged in regards to those who simply will not listen. We are
> given the power of the Holy Spirit to contend for the faith -- but
> not to become contentious. With that power comes also the wisdom to
> know when it is time to walk away -- or let them walk away.
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:31:25 +1000, "Bradley"
> <spam...@blokd.com> screamed out:
>> Thanks for your input. I understand where you are coming from and
>> mostly agree. I just have a slightly different opinoin on what
>> Usenet is and don't think it is the same as being part of a local
>> congregation. I think Usenet is basically what each individual wants
>> it to be.. it's just a medium after all:)
> I'm not saying it's identical to a local congregation.
> I am posting from alt.christnet.christianlife and so
> therefore, I saw it as a place to discuss Christian
> life, you see?
Yep. I think there are some major limitations on Usenet functioning as
would a local congragation. I see it more as an outreach since we are
going away from our local Church and being a part of a global
open/public community.
> I am going to trim out ARC from my responses, because
> my statements aren't accurate for that group. Are you
> posting from ARC? I did not wish to trim it out of
> this one and have you think I ignored you.
I also visit ACC so should still see your responses there. Good idea to
trim ARC out.
>> How's your weekend going?
> It's going pretty well. I also have a break today from
> my normal functions, which good and bad. :)
I'm working from home today as we're getting our carpets cleaned... not
the best weather for it.
--
regards,
Bradley
Mark T
> I would bring up the example of ACC several years >ago.
When you its Fuehrer and tried to moderate the unmoderated ng?????
> These are CHRISTIAN groups.
Your Griz Cult Reich was Trew Kristyun Lite and not about Christian Life.
Remember woz?
> We already know that some here are thick as posts
Unfortunately the Griz cult and POOP are exactly like that. Not everyone
can be normal.
> As time goes on it becomes very obvious what camp a person is in by the
> fruits that they regularly and effortlessly manifest.
That was very evident in the Griz cult ... and now in the POOP Inquisition.
> Yours in Christ,
The follower of Truth is free to be sane. He can simply say, "I got a job as
a farmhand because I needed the money." He does not have to take God's name
in vain and say, "The Lord led me to become a farnmhand." He can give good
common sense advice to his friends; he need not indulge in well meant lies
and presumptuously tell them that "the Lord laid thus and so on my heart to
tell you." The follower of Truth can begin a letter with "Dear friend ...
How are you?" He needn't pretend he is writing an epistle to the church at
Corinth and open a letter with "Greeting Brother! In the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, can you send me your recipe for Tortellini al Pesto?" He
understands that reality - the ordinary, the simple, the straightforward -
IS God's. He does not have to be a spiritual lunatic caught up in some
permanent spasm of sneezing out religious phlegm.
from Franky Schaeffer "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth & Hyatt;
Brentwood:1990) [Francis Schaeffer's son] p.136
Key Characteristics of the Griz cult are [adapted from Joanne Ruhland
1995]:
- Content Which Is Authoritarian
- Indoctrinates / clones
- Unquestioning obedience / Leaders do not discuss questions
- Love and loyalty are the bottom line
- Indoctrination /Leaders' conclusions must be accepted.
- Emphasis on uniformity
- Elitist / accepts SOME Christians
- Hidden agenda
- Manipulates
- Leaders "lord" it over the flock
- Results in conformity, rigidity
- Allows one avenue of service ... serving their group
- Individual is responsible to leaders
- Leaders tell individual what God's will is
- Analytical thinking hindered
- Simplistic approach to life
- Pick your own bible verse to lead you / Choices must conform to leaders'
dictates, leaders' approval
How's your flesh fetish going, Griz?
Bradley
> Bradley wrote:
> Sorry Bradlet, but you give
> evidence od waffling where
> the True Word or God!
You accused me of making a "proposal" and I have told you that I wasn't
making one. I also said I did not understand what you were "waffling" on
about... Your comment above is an example.. it doesn't make a lot of
sense.
I'm saddened you chose to respond like this. Here's my post again..... I
don't see what has caused such a reaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Ben Mitts" <bmit...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4130ABB0...@comcast.net
> Bradley wrote:
<snip>
Yep.
Fortunately no.
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
regards,
Bradley
Mark T
> > I would bring up the example of ACC several years ago.
>
> I wouldn't. Given the sensitivies on both "sides" of the that "battle" I
> think it is very poor to bring it up and "stir the pot".
&
> > Several
> > believers got together and decided to try something on an
> > all-but-abandoned NG.
>
> ie. take it over.
&
> > It was a body of mostly believers, and many of
> > the manifestations of the body were there -- including correcting.
>
> But the methods being used were being questioned, hence the "cult" label
> some applied.
Key Characteristics of the Griz cult are [adapted from Joanne Ruhland
1995]:
- Content Which Is Authoritarian
- Indoctrinates / clones
- Unquestioning obedience / Leaders do not discuss questions
- Love and loyalty are the bottom line
- Indoctrination /Leaders' conclusions must be accepted.
- Emphasis on uniformity
- Elitist / accepts SOME Christians
- Hidden agenda
- Manipulates
- Leaders "lord" it over the flock
- Results in conformity, rigidity
- Allows one avenue of service ... serving their group
- Individual is responsible to leaders
- Leaders tell individual what God's will is
- Analytical thinking hindered
- Simplistic approach to life
- Pick your own bible verse to lead you / Choices must conform to leaders'
dictates, leaders' approval
> It seems you are only saying this because your "vision" for the NGs
> didn't work out?
Yep!!! The ol' Faulty Vision ... fits in well with HGroz's faulty
discernment.
> Why do you need to put people in camps?
The Grizian Concentration Camps are the Final Solution for people who dare
ask such questions. Sieg heil!
John McComb
>>>Love does not equal always being lovey dovey.
>>
>>True, true. But under what circumstances has it ever meant
>>'hatey datey'?
>
>
> You equate not being lovey dovey, with hate for the
> person, instead of hate for the sin and love for the
> person, which sometimes must be expressed through
> telling them their sin is sin and not allowing them to
> continue with a charade, calling themselves brothers
> and sisters, while claiming that God approves of their
> sinful ways.
No I don't. Read it again. This time pay attention to what
your reading please.
Yours in Christ
John
Pastor Dave
<Gotta_lose@this_spam.com> screamed out:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
Your comment was taken by me, as a response to my
comment. Why would you say that, if it was not in
relation to what I said? It certainly seemed as if you
were. Maybe you can explain what it is you're trying
to say?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your
own image when it turns out that God hates all the same
people you do. - Anne Lamott
Pastor Dave
<fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
Agreed. However, let us realize, that as long as we
make people who call sin righteousness feel as if we
are being accepting of them, we cannot move on and are
not moving on. People may not think they're doing
that, but if they continue to communicate with them,
after these people have been presented with the truth,
then they are making them feel accepted. Moving on in
that case, would mean ceasing all communication. In
fact, kill filing them would be the proper action.
And just so you know my position, forgiveness is not
our job here (unless personally attacked). And
forgiveness does not mean accepting them. For example,
if a homosexual here insults me, I'll forgive them, but
I will not accept them and I will say the same thing to
them again, that caused the insult from them, because
it's the truth. Nor do I find any reason to be
friendly with someone, who continually rejects the
Gospel, in favor of their sin, saying it's okay with
God. They offend my God and offend me, by claiming
that my God approves of their sin and someone wishes to
tell me that the Christian thing to do, is to treat
them in a friendly manner? I don't think so, nor did
Jesus and why this does not make people angry, I do not
know. Jesus dealt with this in John 8 and frankly, He
let them have it. He blasted them. Not because they
were sinners, but because they were calling their sin
righteousness before God. They pretended to be serving
God, while they were really serving themselves and
Satan. That makes them heretics. So instead of
treating them as someone who has never heard the Gospel
in truth, let us remember that they have and still
reject the true Gospel, in favor of their own man made
doctrine. Paul didn't like the idea of heretics either
and this is evident, when dealing with the issue of
those who came into the Galatian church and preached
that Christians must also be under the Old Covenant.
Read Galatians 5:10-12.
Again, that makes them heretics and since the Gospel
has already been given to them, Titus 3:10-11 applies.
and in that I am not a Lutheran, but as Luther said...
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
There is a time to be nice and a time to be angry. The
Bible does not tell us not to be angry. It says, "BE
ANGRY and sin not". In other words, the sin isn't in
the anger, but in what the anger is about and what we
do with it. Jesus was very angry in Matthew 23 and in
John 8, yet no one would claim He sinned there. people
wish to claim we're supposed to be like Jesus and yet,
when someone is angry over heresy, they like to cut
those parts of the Bible out that demonstrate Jesus'
attitude toward heretics.
These folks also seem to like to tell others that we
aren't supposed to judge. That's not true at all. We
are not to judge those outside of the church. Those
within the church, claiming to be Christians, yet are
found not to be and those who are Christians, yet are
caught up in a sin, we are absolutely instructed to
judge and cast out of the church, if necessary. The
former for the purification of the church and the
latter, for the purification of the church, but also
for the hope of him/her coming to his/her senses, or
for them to be destroyed in the flesh, so that their
spirit may be saved, hoping that rather, they repent,
so that they may be welcomed back in.
For a heretic, we look for no such thing. A heretic is
one who claims to be a brother or sister in Christ and
yet, teaches, for example, that homosexual acts are
okay with God and that God approves of gay marriage,
etc.. This is not a saved person. This is not a
Christian who has simply strayed from the right path.
This is someone who seeks to devour and corrupt the
church of God. Folks may not see them that way,
because they seem so nice. That's because people can
be stupid. They read what God says and yet, act as if
they never saw it.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
- Matthew 7:15
"For I know this, that after my departing shall
grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the
flock." - Acts 20:29
And why do people keep thinking that evil always looks
like evil?
2 Corinthians 11:12-15
12) But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off
occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein
they glory, they may be found even as we.
13) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed
into an angel of light.
15) Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers
also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;
whose end shall be according to their works.
Let's let our love be for God first and then the church
and keeping the church pure (I use church in the sense
of a group of believers and this is just where we
happen to gather). We cannot stop anyone from posting
here, but we can stop our news readers from seeing
their messages and my kill filter list is quite long.
I will not keep reading messages from heretics and
attackers. I have given them the Gospel. Now I move
on and I will have peace, because I do not allow them
to destroy my day. These people don't need MY
forgiveness. They need God's forgiveness.
Let's call sin what it is and stop saying that they've
been told. If they've been told and made aware of a
believers position and still reject that and yet, claim
to be Christian, then why is that believer still
communicating with them in a friendly way?
Titus 3:10-11
10) A man that is an heretick after the first and
second admonition REJECT;
11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and
sinneth, being condemned of himself.
I use that as an example, because that's the area that
we see some trying to justify every day we read these
news groups. That is a person you hand the Gospel to
three times and then no longer treat then as if we want
to preach to them. This has been done already and I
defy anyone to show me one passage in the Bible that
says to keep company and be friendly with a heretic.
Now you may be discussing something different than I am
and if so, then my statements may not apply to your
position, which I know, comes from attempting trying to
love people. If so, then please clarify what it is
exactly, you are addressing. I put this in regardless,
because it is part of what we need to "move on" from.
Yet, no one does.
Ah, well, another quick comment that turned into a
sermon. :)
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of
creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then
one would expect to find fossils of transitional
creatures which were a bit like what went before them
and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet
found any evidence of such transitional creatures.
This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil
record which gradualists expected to fill when rock
strata of the proper age had been found. In the last
decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of
all divisions of the last 500 million years and no
transitional forms were contained in them." (The
Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
Feather Forestwalker
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:01:34 GMT, "Feather Forestwalker"
> <fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
<snipped some>
> >
> >It's not about making anyone "comfortable." I am reminded of one of our
> >pastor's sermons from before his heart attack.
> >
> >It was called "Please, Be UNcomfortable!" and I remember how he talked
about
> >how God keeps us constantly in a state of uncomfortableness when He's
doing
> >works in our lives. . .and how TRUE that is. I pray that yes, we WOULD be
> >uncomfortable,
> >
> >. . .and sometimes, FORGIVING and MOVING ON is the most uncomfortable
thing
> >to do!
> >
> >LOVE KEEPS NO RECORDS OF WRONGS.
> >
> >Let it go, let God do the healing, and MOVE FORWARD and stop looking back
> >once you have your hand on that ploughshare!
>
> Agreed. However, let us realize, that as long as we
> make people who call sin righteousness feel as if we
> are being accepting of them, we cannot move on and are
> not moving on.
I was referring to the name-calling and the spreading of lies, more than
anything else, Pastor Dave. Forgiveness is imperative if we are not to be
eaten up inside with the anger and the unforgiving heart. Trust me, I KNOW
what unforgiveness can do to a heart. . .it can slowly kill your spirit and
your love for God and His people. . .and the lost.
> People may not think they're doing
> that, but if they continue to communicate with them,
> after these people have been presented with the truth,
> then they are making them feel accepted. Moving on in
> that case, would mean ceasing all communication. In
> fact, kill filing them would be the proper action.
Hmmmm, this is applicable in a newsgroup? Would you mind showing me, again,
how? (I think we've been down this road before, haven't we?)
>
> And just so you know my position, forgiveness is not
> our job here (unless personally attacked).
Forgiveness is not our job? UNLESS personally attacked? Well, since that is
what this post was addressing, and that's what I was addressing - personal
attacks - I don't see how forgiveness cannot be our job? Of course the
forgiveness of sins (ALL sin) isn't our job - but this post was addressing
the what-if's of our own behavior in a newsgroup environment; ostensibly,
HOW do we put into practice, our belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior,
in order to be an effective witness to those who may not believe yet?
> And
> forgiveness does not mean accepting them. For example,
> if a homosexual here insults me, I'll forgive them, but
> I will not accept them and I will say the same thing to
> them again, that caused the insult from them, because
> it's the truth. Nor do I find any reason to be
> friendly with someone, who continually rejects the
> Gospel, in favor of their sin, saying it's okay with
> God.
And at the same time, can you say you are without sin?
To God, sin is sin, and in a message received yesterday at our church, God
deals with the individual right where they are. He doesn't say, "Change
first and then come to Me," He says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and
overburdened, and I will give you rest. . ." (paraphrase mine). So what if
someone is struggling with a certain sin and might *think* there's nothing
wrong with it? When confronted by the power of the Holy Spirit, His
CONVICTION is much more powerful than our chiding a person, though of course
we are to GENTLY admonish a brother or sister in sin - and yes, as you say
below, this is in order to purify the church - and after the third
admonition we are to reject, according to PAUL's words, eh?
What does Jesus say about someone who is abusive to you and who treats you
as if you were an enemy? (Which is the point I am addressing here).
> They offend my God and offend me, by claiming
> that my God approves of their sin and someone wishes to
> tell me that the Christian thing to do, is to treat
> them in a friendly manner? I don't think so, nor did
> Jesus and why this does not make people angry, I do not
> know. Jesus dealt with this in John 8 and frankly, He
> let them have it. He blasted them. Not because they
> were sinners, but because they were calling their sin
> righteousness before God. They pretended to be serving
> God, while they were really serving themselves and
> Satan. That makes them heretics. So instead of
> treating them as someone who has never heard the Gospel
> in truth, let us remember that they have and still
> reject the true Gospel, in favor of their own man made
> doctrine. Paul didn't like the idea of heretics either
> and this is evident, when dealing with the issue of
> those who came into the Galatian church and preached
> that Christians must also be under the Old Covenant.
> Read Galatians 5:10-12.
No argument here, Pastor Dave. . .as I agree. But we are not addressing this
point.
Hey, the notes you might want to hold onto, eh? Bring it to your church?
God bless,
Feather, who was addressing personal sin rather than someone seeking
acceptance as a brother or sister while in sin. . .and yet, at the same
time, Jesus takes us as we are and molds us and shapes us according to His
will, and not our limited human understanding of same. . .
Pastor Dave
<fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
>> >LOVE KEEPS NO RECORDS OF WRONGS.
>> >
>> >Let it go, let God do the healing, and MOVE FORWARD and stop looking back
>> >once you have your hand on that ploughshare!
>>
>> Agreed. However, let us realize, that as long as we
>> make people who call sin righteousness feel as if we
>> are being accepting of them, we cannot move on and are
>> not moving on.
>
>I was referring to the name-calling and the spreading of lies, more than
>anything else, Pastor Dave. Forgiveness is imperative if we are not to be
>eaten up inside with the anger and the unforgiving heart. Trust me, I KNOW
>what unforgiveness can do to a heart. . .it can slowly kill your spirit and
>your love for God and His people. . .and the lost.
Agreed.
>> People may not think they're doing
>> that, but if they continue to communicate with them,
>> after these people have been presented with the truth,
>> then they are making them feel accepted. Moving on in
>> that case, would mean ceasing all communication. In
>> fact, kill filing them would be the proper action.
>
>Hmmmm, this is applicable in a newsgroup? Would you mind showing me, again,
>how? (I think we've been down this road before, haven't we?)
It is applicable in a news group, because the Bible
does not limit it to a church building. It is a
general statement made in Titus 3:10-11, regardless of
where one is. Does the Bible say to reject a heretic
in church, but accept them outside of church?
>> And just so you know my position, forgiveness is not
>> our job here (unless personally attacked).
>
>Forgiveness is not our job? UNLESS personally attacked? Well, since that is
>what this post was addressing, and that's what I was addressing - personal
>attacks - I don't see how forgiveness cannot be our job? Of course the
>forgiveness of sins (ALL sin) isn't our job - but this post was addressing
>the what-if's of our own behavior in a newsgroup environment; ostensibly,
>HOW do we put into practice, our belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior,
>in order to be an effective witness to those who may not believe yet?
My statement is regarding heretics. The unbelievers,
if asking sincere questions, are of course, to be
responded to with love and truth. My point is also
that people here equate telling a heretic how it is,
with a hateful attitude. It doesn't equate to that.
>> And
>> forgiveness does not mean accepting them. For example,
>> if a homosexual here insults me, I'll forgive them, but
>> I will not accept them and I will say the same thing to
>> them again, that caused the insult from them, because
>> it's the truth. Nor do I find any reason to be
>> friendly with someone, who continually rejects the
>> Gospel, in favor of their sin, saying it's okay with
>> God.
>
>And at the same time, can you say you are without sin?
Irrelevant. Your statement claims that because I
commit a sin, I must be silent. Yet Paul claimed to be
a sinner and what did he do? He wrote letters to the
churches, calling them on their sin. Imagine if every
Christian stopped telling people that what they're
doing is sin before God and that they need to repent.
That's what the liberals do and try to get the true
believers to do.
You seem to miss the difference. I do not call my sin
righteousness. Heretics do. With all due respect, you
need to study and grasp this Scriptural truth and
adjust your attitude accordingly. I'm sorry if that
sounds rude, but your response is something a heretic
would say, in order to try to get the flashlight off
their sin (I'm not implying that you are a heretic).
Let me give you an example. Jesus showed mercy on the
adulteress. Obviously, He sensed repentance. Yet He
blasted the Pharisees. Both were sinners, were they
not? So what was the difference? Simple. The
adulteress knew that her sin was sin and the Pharisees
claimed that their sin was righteousness and were
therefore, heretics.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that
put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
- Isaiah 5:20
>To God, sin is sin, and in a message received yesterday at our church, God
>deals with the individual right where they are. He doesn't say, "Change
>first and then come to Me," He says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and
>overburdened, and I will give you rest. . ." (paraphrase mine). So what if
>someone is struggling with a certain sin and might *think* there's nothing
>wrong with it? When confronted by the power of the Holy Spirit, His
>CONVICTION is much more powerful than our chiding a person, though of course
>we are to GENTLY admonish a brother or sister in sin - and yes, as you say
>below, this is in order to purify the church - and after the third
>admonition we are to reject, according to PAUL's words, eh?
Again, you are confusing actual Christians who stray
and commit a sin, or those who have never been saved
and don't claim to be, with heretics. They are not in
the same class of people, according to Scripture, nor
did I prescribe treating them the same as heretics.
Heretics are not "brothers and sisters". Do you see
what I'm saying here?
As for genuine brothers and sisters, we are to forgive
them, of course. However, if they refuse to repent of
their sin, then even they are to be put out of the
church (1 Corinthians 5).
>What does Jesus say about someone who is abusive to you and who treats you
>as if you were an enemy? (Which is the point I am addressing here).
I have two responses, depending on how you are applying
your statement. Pick which one fits.
1) Once again, understand the difference. What you're
saying here, is that when the Pharisees treated Jesus
as an enemy, He sinned by blasting them in Matthew 23
and John 8. The fact is, they were heretics. They
called their sin righteousness before God. That makes
a difference in how we are to respond (after two
attempts, that is).
2) If you are making the statement in regard to enemies
who are unsaved and don't claim to be, then I would
simply ignore them, if it did not cease, after bringing
them the Gospel in truth. If they need something,
fine. But I won't waste my time trying to communicate
with them, if they reject the Gospel.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake
off the dust of your feet." - Matthew 10:14
As for your statement about personal sin, we all have
some kind of sin. The thing is, we want to acknowledge
that it is sin, instead of being a heretic and claiming
that God approves of gay marriage, for example and then
being accepted by others who say they are believers
(and may very well be), instead of rejected for that
heresy.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
- Pastor Dave Raymond
John McComb
> Your comment was taken by me, as a response to my
> comment. Why would you say that, if it was not in
> relation to what I said? It certainly seemed as if you
> were. Maybe you can explain what it is you're trying
> to say?
Certainly.
Of course I was responding to your comment, although, I should
confess that it was intended as an address to 'all' of the
finger pointers in this group and not just you (as a diversion,
I'm trying to see how many kill files I can find my way into
this week)
You said, "Love does not equal always being lovey dovey". I
agreed with that. That is the part of my post that goes,
"True, true". Now when I said, "But under what circumstances
has it ever meant 'hatey datey'?", I am inferring from that
question that Christian love is never 'hatey datey' either.
That is, I am denying either, or. It's not one or the other.
The suggestion that it must be either one or the other implies
that there are no other choices. I suggest that, when you see
it applied to yourself, then your conclusion that my meaning
must be either one or the other derives from your own
conviction that it is self evident that everything you say
in your posts are examples of Christian love.
Now this is where we part company, you see. For example
(a glaring one for effect), the remark, "You are a perverted
heretic", is not an example of Christian love. It is an
example of a vulgar, hateful, verbal assault on another human
being.
Yours in Christ
John
Pastor Dave
<Gotta_lose@this_spam.com> screamed out:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>
>> Your comment was taken by me, as a response to my
>> comment. Why would you say that, if it was not in
>> relation to what I said? It certainly seemed as if you
>> were. Maybe you can explain what it is you're trying
>> to say?
>
>Certainly.
>
>Of course I was responding to your comment, although, I should
>confess that it was intended as an address to 'all' of the
>finger pointers in this group and not just you (as a diversion,
>I'm trying to see how many kill files I can find my way into
>this week)
Man, I finished that last week. Try to keep up, okay?
>You said, "Love does not equal always being lovey dovey". I
>agreed with that. That is the part of my post that goes,
>"True, true". Now when I said, "But under what circumstances
>has it ever meant 'hatey datey'?", I am inferring from that
>question that Christian love is never 'hatey datey' either.
>That is, I am denying either, or. It's not one or the other.
>The suggestion that it must be either one or the other implies
>that there are no other choices. I suggest that, when you see
>it applied to yourself, then your conclusion that my meaning
>must be either one or the other derives from your own
>conviction that it is self evident that everything you say
>in your posts are examples of Christian love.
>
>Now this is where we part company, you see. For example
>(a glaring one for effect), the remark, "You are a perverted
>heretic", is not an example of Christian love. It is an
>example of a vulgar, hateful, verbal assault on another human
>being.
I disagree. It is a statement of truth. For example,
you cannot prove slander in a court of law, if what the
other person said about you is true. Jesus said, "You
are of your father the Devil". Was He making a
"vulgar, hateful, verbal assault on another human
being"? What about when He called them "whited
sepulchres"? Isn't it interesting that we all want to
be like Jesus, yet cut out the parts of the Bible where
He blasted people? Of course, we need to look at who
He blasted that way. Not the unsaved and not those who
believed, but lost their way and needed encouragement
to come back. Rather, He blasted the heretics. Those
who called their sin righteousness before God and claim
that God approves of their sinful ways, which they say
isn't sin. That is what Ninure does.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that
genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Griz
>> I would bring up the example of ACC several years ago.
>I wouldn't. Given the sensitivies on both "sides" of the that "battle" I
>think it is very poor to bring it up and "stir the pot".
I think that is exactly the point I was wishing to make Bradley.
God is still in control AND He uses ALL things for His greater glory. The
battle on ACC was a terrible thing . . . BUT God is NOT blocked from using
even that for His greater glory. There WERE and STILL ARE lessons there
(remembering that lessons are those things that we apply to ourselves, not
upon others!) . But if one is afraid to embrace them then they are destined
to have to live them out again at some future point -- or else to be
relegated to the ranks of the terminally heart-shy and spiritually
ineffective whenever the adversary might present you with a similar
situation. I don't think trashing the entire experience is the answer --
reconcilliation with all aspects of it, is.
What would have happened had Jesus Christ been afraid of "stirring the pot"
in ancient Jerusalem? There is no question that there was a bit of a
boiling cauldron in Jerusalem and Jesus' presence there, while not His
primary intention, did stir the pot.
The Apostles were more aware than most of just how dangerous it could be to
take a stand -- to stir the pot. What would have happened had they become
heart-shy and spiritually ineffective on this point . . . a slave to the
terror of the past and a fear of the future. Then the adversary could have
easily quashed them into silence by simply raising the spectre of a stirred
pot! That's granting him more ground that he is entitled to -- but he'll
still take it!
The impression Bradley is that you are too afraid of the past, too tenuous,
and too worried about making waves. Again, our purpose is NOT the making of
waves. Our purpose is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But as that
Truth impacts upon the shores of our pride and ignorance, waves will happen.
>> Several
>> believers got together and decided to try something on an
>> all-but-abandoned NG.
>ie. take it over.
So much for not stirring the pot! I guess you got over your fear!
You were not there Bradley, and have to rely on a fragmented google archive
and the testimony of others who were neither here, for your judgments. It
is
not a good place to stand in judgment. So please don't continue to even
years after-the-fact!
I sincerely doubt that your past is immaculate, or that you would welcome
the same upon yourself.
>> But then several non-believers came along sowing contention. Then
>> more. Then more. There was then a body composed of both believers
>> and non-believers.
>A good example of how a public, unmoderated NG is not an easy meeting
>place to conduct Church?
Are we talking the ceremony . . . or the lifestyle Bradley?
And does the lifestyle cease, just because it is making waves with
non-believers who happen by? They 'walk' into a Christian NG: should the
lifestyle of the true Church purchased with God's own blood cease because we
are fearful of what the non-believers might think of us -- or what they
might propogate in our midst?
That's giving the adversary ground that he is not entitled to Bradley.
>> Should the functions of the body cease simply
>> because non-believers come along to watch and heckle?
>Now why do you assume that all non-Christians are there to "watch and
>heckle" ?
I never said "all". You added that.
And if you believe there is no heckling occurring, then you may need to
re-focus your eyes.
>The "functioning of the body" IMO can only really operate in a real
>personal medium. Usenet can only form a part as it is just a medium,
>like a telephone. It has limitations.
So God's Spirit is 'blocked' by electronic media???? Phone lines flummox
the
Almighty? Does His VCR flash "12:00 . . . 12:00 . . . 12:00"??!!
Sorry, I don't buy that! (And I know I took that to the extreme -- but the
prospect of the theme we're heading towards with this is just to incredulous
to receive without at least some tongue-in-cheek!)
A simple look at the impact of Paul's 'long distance' and
relatively-impersonal ministering -- which is still with us today and
impacting lives for God -- would challenge this notion of God being limited
where there is face-to-face contact. Plus it raises the question of how
much more Paul might have been able to do HAD there been phones and e-mail
and newsgroups! Our feeble usages of the medium would pale by comparison
and cause us great shame at how we've mis-used what we've been given! The
Gospel of Christ, boldly proclaimed, does stir pots! It does create waves!
Not for the sake of stirred pots or crashing waves -- but as a natural
reaction of Spirit confronting flesh.
Why do you think Bradley, that you are so hesitant to let God move where He
will move? What spirit is there out there that would just LOVE for us to
believe that this media belongs to him and that God is limited here?? That
flamers will always win?? That the Body of Christ is a wasted effort in
electronic medium?
Stop and measure the spirit you are ministering for on this point Bradley.
Please!
>So how can a Church function properly on Usenet in an unmoderated forum
>where there is no leadership, no accountability, no real openess (people
>can hide behind false names etc)? I think it would need to be
>moderated... and would need to be supplimented by other mediums such as
>telephone calls, e-mail, etc?
I believe you may grieve the Holy Spirit with this Bradley.
Remember we are talking about God Almighty here, moving through His people
by the vehicle of His Holy Spirit. HE brings leadership thru Jesus Christ
for those who will hear His voice. HE brings accountability. And if you've
missed the openness, you must be blind.
God is ABLE Bradley!
Are you willing to 'allow' Him this?
>My point is in a worship service you have many other factors in play.
>You have a community that has a far greater depth of relationship,
>accountability, leadership, etc.
But the recipient of our worship should be ONE. (And I'm making the
assumption that we all know what Godly worship is when we see it! Is that a
safe assumption?)
Should we set that Godly worship aside -- along with the manifestations of
the Body of Christ that it entails -- just because we're worried about
offending the sensibilities of those who are NOT here to worship God?
Again Bradley, the impression is there that you are trying to resign God to
a little box, and assign unto the Almighty physical parameters within which
He can operate. Does the 'worship service' exist only in your local church
from this-time to that-time weekly? Or does it permeate the hearts of all
worshippers throughout the week and pop up spontaneously everywhere they
might find themselves together with a group of like-believers?
I met a previously-unknown woman in the back corner of a coffee-shop just
this morning, reading the book of Acts. We greeted, found a common Spirit,
and worship ensued. The Church was there -- wherever two or three are
gathered together in Jesus' name!
... ... ..
Or does God belong only in certain places, at certain times?
I repeat this theme Bradley, because it is a theme that seems to occur too
often in your posts.
>I think public NGs are more of an outreach rather than a church
>building.
You seem to be entirely TOO hung-up on the physical Bradley -- on the
'building'. And not enough on WHO inhabits the building and the hearts and
the lives of true believers -- and also inhabits their praises. God is NOT
relegated to a building.
>> These are CHRISTIAN groups.
>No Griz, they aren't. ARC and AR for example are not.
Hence my suggestion to cut them from the crossposting and to make a clean
break from them. Only because the foundation and theology and direction
seems to be different enough to be a significant source of on-going
contention.
But seriously aus.religion.CHRISTIAN is not a Christian group? How
embarassing. Maybe a change of name -- or a disclaimer -- would be in order
to avoid confusion?
>> It is not unreasonable to expect ALL of
>> the functions of the body of Christ to be active here!
>I would think they are very limited in their application since real
>relationships don't function as much (only perhaps those supplimented by
>personal contact (like Roland and I) or perhaps by phone etc?
But would it be unreasonable to expect that they COULD Bradley? I mean, how
powerful is God? What are your expectations of Him? What is He capable of?
If He can cause the stones to cry out should humans fail to give Him the
praises He deserves how much harder would it be for the functions of the
Spirit given to the Body for His greater glory, to operate in an electronic
forum that has maybe an hour or so lag to it?
If God's Holy Spirit can use words Paul penned TWO CENTURIES AGO to stir the
hearts of His children, why would He be precluded from moving in an
electronic forum with a lag of an hour or so? Or even a day? Or a week?
Or a year?
God is Spirit Bradley. The confines of the physical -- or even the
electronic are no barrier to Him.
>> One doesn't
>> go to a politics group to talk about the weather, or a bird group to
>> talk about earthquakes!
>They are not exclusively Christian NGs Griz.
>
>ARC for example has a much broader base for discussion.
Then perhaps a quirk of effective naming or effective application? Since
you have ordained a broad discussion base to be on ARC, would it be
unreasonable to request that at least ONE of the christnet groups be left
for discussions that are more directed into the Christ-centred paradigm?
I'll even let you pick it -- just make it one where the name remotely
resembles the function, OK?
Perhaps a place where some basics such as Jesus as God's Living Word and the
Bible as God's written word and the Holy Spirit as the inspirator and
interpreter of God's word are "given foundations"?
If the workmen are still disputing over the foundation, it is unlikely that
anything will ever be built upon it!
There are many public NG's out there. Why can there not be even one where
the more fundamental foundations of the Christ-centred paradigm are
honoured?
>> That's Scriptural [corrections offered privately first].
>> But especially in this forum, there are numerous people who have
>> excluded themselves from private e-mails.
>But whom assumes the leadership of the community? Who has authority to
>approach the person once you have approached them and they refuse to act
>on the issue? Who says you are right?
I'll bounce that one back on you Bradley.
Who does Scripture say fills this role?
Who grants the authority? Who chastizes? Who deals with unrepentant
hearts?
Think beyond the building.
Think Spiritual, for God is Spirit.
>> So this creates the possibility of two different actions: personal
>> corrections to those who are open to them and are likely to respond
>> as Peter did to Paul; and general corrections aimed at presenting the
>> Truth from Scripture so that none might stumble for lack of knowing
>> what God's word actually says.
>But if we follow the scriptural process for correction who then do we
>take it to if the person doesn't listen to this initial correction?
Would you suggest that God cannot work around this Bradley? He has ever
been able to chastize the hearts that are His. And those that are not His,
are beyond our reach at least for now. Pray for them, minister as we're
able; but recognize that even God will honour a person's decision to harden
their heart. Leave a hardened hear to God.
He is able! (Seems like another constant theme!)
Unless things are a lot different in your home church Bradley, I would offer
the suggestion that this point is actually a very minor one. How many times
a week does your Pastor have to approach someone in this manner? How many
times a year? How many times in his entire ministry? I would suggest it is
very few.
I would further suggest that for you to take this relatively minor point and
try to parlez it into a reason why God cannot move in the Christian NG's, is
profound.
>> Well, those on the path of Christ are trying to do somthing that the
>> world definitely doesn't want to see happen. To that end, those in
>> the world will create whatever magnitude of fuss they need to in
>> order to stop the body of Christ from functioning as God intended.
>> If all it takes are a few fusspots to cower the Christians into
>> silence or quash the moving of the Spirit, then we are giving the
>> adversary ground that he is not entitled to.
>It seems you are only saying this because your "vision" for the NGs
>didn't work out?
If "my vision" was of myself, then there is nothing that can be done to keep
it from dying. However if it was not, then not all of the shallow excuses
for not letting God be God will make it die. We get this from Gamaliel, and
see it confirmed by the Roman Arena.
God intends for His children to exist in unity in a corporate entity who's
intention is God's Kingdom. We are still tied very much up in the cult of
Self, so moving to that point of unity is proving very difficult -- with a
lot of people who are not yet ready to give up that cult entirely. But that
doesn't mean it's impossible: provided we will let God Be Who He Will Be --
WHERE He will be.
Remember that in the towns where the people believed it impossible that
Jesus be anything other than just a carpenter's son, that all He was to
them. Don't seek to limit God. You will simply cut yourself off from His
full blessings.
>I suggest you picked the wrong medium to enforce
>something upon (an unmoderated group).
'enforce' what Bradley??
It's been a long time since this has happened. Why are you still trying
hang me with sins of the past . . . and would you welcome the same? While
many of the points I make I simply release for you to answer or not answer
as you wish, I do believe this one should be answered. Would you welcome
the same?
What changes have there been in your life in the past year? The past 6
months? The past 6 weeks? Are you growing closer to God and stronger in
His Spirit?
>> Our function is not to cause contention and flame wars. But dare we
>> say that the flash-point for them is inevitable -- the flash-point
>> where flesh rejects Spirit.
>
>Would flame wars happen in a Church service in real life? (perhaps
>occasionally in some;))
They happen wherever people get their hearts and minds off of God and onto
the cult of Self -- both in physical and in electronic meeting-places.
But is this yet another excuse for trying to exclude God from an electronic
forum Bradley -- that there are flame wars?
This is a unique forum: that much is certain. A big difference in our
approaches however appears to be that while some are willing to believe that
God can and will work in this forum, others are busy looking for little
reasons why He cannot. (I heard one that was the epitome of rediculous a
while back . . . "who collects the tithe?". Just another shallow excuse
seeking to limit the blessings of God in electronic forums.)
As God's children turn their eyes towards Him, they will gain the wisdom to
deal with the flash-points of these 'flame-wars' and they will be
extinguished rather quickly. Right now, the cult of the Self is too much in
effect.
But that will change as God's people turn their eyes towards Him. They will
know when to respond, and when to walk away -- with the criteria being God's
glory and not their own.
This is something that we all (hopefully!) are learning.
>> I would suggest that the only way to control the various out-breaks of
>> flame-wars, is for the Christians to pray for the discernment of the
>> Holy Spirit so they might know when a particular reply is according
>> to God's Kingdom -- and when a reply is more of service to their own
>> personal kingdom.
>It will never happen unfortunately. There will alway be people on Usenet
>who flame... it's the "nature of the Usenet beast".
Well again there is a difference between us Bradley.
I never say 'never' when God is involved! Especially when it involves God's
children reaching for higher plateaus in Him.
Words like 'never' and 'impossible' only serve in such cases, to put human
limitations upon He who has no limits. And how much is that a battle-cry
for the cult of the Self -- to say that WE decide what God can and cannot
do, when and where?
There will always be people who flame.
But we do not always have to respond to them as we have been. They are
seeking a particular form of attention. Present the Truth from Scripture
and pray for them; seek to limit the spiritual repercussions for the young;
minister to the flamers and phishers and contenders of ill spirit ONLY as
the Spirit leads.
Anything beyond this is the cult of Self at work.
>> As time goes on it becomes very obvious what camp a person is in
>Why do you need to put people in camps?
I don't.
God does.
You're still thinking physical Bradley.
>> by
>> the fruits that they regularly and effortlessly manifest.
>Should we encourage and challenge them before kicking them to the curb?
Do you have a current beef on this, or is it something else?
Yours in Christ,
Griz
::: vera :::
Mark T <ma...@home.in.oz> wrote:
Will you be happy when they kill the French hostages?
You are like a Nazi, or like Al Quaida. I am not sure that you do not belong
to them.
--
news:2pc8bbF...@uni-berlin.de
news:2n3preF...@uni-berlin.de
::: vera :::
Fine, and why did you not just stay there and talk broader and leave us
where we were, talking Christian?
Bradley
> Hi Bradley
>
>>> I would bring up the example of ACC several years ago.
>
>> I wouldn't. Given the sensitivies on both "sides" of the that
>> "battle" I think it is very poor to bring it up and "stir the pot".
>
> I think that is exactly the point I was wishing to make Bradley.
Ok.
> God is still in control AND He uses ALL things for His greater glory.
If we let Him be in control... free will and all.
> The battle on ACC was a terrible thing . . . BUT God is NOT blocked
> from using even that for His greater glory.
Again, if we submit the whole situation to Him. My belief is Vera (and
maybe others) are holding onto past hurts.
> There WERE and STILL ARE
> lessons there (remembering that lessons are those things that we
> apply to ourselves, not upon others!) .
Sure, but nothing will be learnt from finger pointing.
> But if one is afraid to
> embrace them then they are destined to have to live them out again at
> some future point -- or else to be relegated to the ranks of the
> terminally heart-shy and spiritually ineffective whenever the
> adversary might present you with a similar situation.
Where has anyone "embraced" the lessons to be learnt from it? All I see
is complaints about who did what and who hurt whom.
> I don't think
> trashing the entire experience is the answer -- reconcilliation with
> all aspects of it, is.
I wasn't saying that. But it isn't terrible helpful to bring it up at
the time when people are obviously still dealing with hurts.
> What would have happened had Jesus Christ been afraid of "stirring
> the pot" in ancient Jerusalem? There is no question that there was a
> bit of a boiling cauldron in Jerusalem and Jesus' presence there,
> while not His primary intention, did stir the pot.
Is that what you call what Vera is doing?
> The Apostles were more aware than most of just how dangerous it could
> be to take a stand -- to stir the pot. What would have happened had
> they become heart-shy and spiritually ineffective on this point . . .
> a slave to the terror of the past and a fear of the future. Then the
> adversary could have easily quashed them into silence by simply
> raising the spectre of a stirred pot! That's granting him more
> ground that he is entitled to -- but he'll still take it!
> The impression Bradley is that you are too afraid of the past, too
> tenuous, and too worried about making waves.
Griz, you are way off base here. If people want to constructively work
through the past events I would love to see that! However, all I am
seeing now is people still holding onto hurts and lashing out.
> Again, our purpose is NOT the making of waves.
I'm getting confused... I thought you just said we are to "make waves" ?
We aren't to cause trouble...
> Our purpose is to share the Gospel of Jesus
> Christ. But as that Truth impacts upon the shores of our pride and
> ignorance, waves will happen.
>
>>> Several
>>> believers got together and decided to try something on an
>>> all-but-abandoned NG.
>
>> ie. take it over.
> So much for not stirring the pot!
You are presenting a very one-sided view of events Griz. I simply
presented the other.
> I guess you got over your fear!
> You were not there Bradley,
So? I've talked and read enough to form a valid and balanced opinion.
> and have to rely on a fragmented google
> archive and the testimony of others who were neither here, for your
> judgments.
No, personal testimony.
> It is
> not a good place to stand in judgment.
I am not standing in judgment.
My point is I'm concerned as to people's actions now. Not what happened
in ACC almost a year ago now.
> So please don't continue to even years after-the-fact!
> I sincerely doubt that your past is immaculate, or that you would
> welcome the same upon yourself.
I would welcome anyone to look at my past if I kept bring it up as
justification for my present day actions!!!
>>> But then several non-believers came along sowing contention. Then
>>> more. Then more. There was then a body composed of both believers
>>> and non-believers.
>
>> A good example of how a public, unmoderated NG is not an easy meeting
>> place to conduct Church?
> Are we talking the ceremony . . . or the lifestyle Bradley?
Lifestyle. I find it extremely hard to see "lifestyle" working
effectively on such a restrcited impersonal medium such as Usenet. It
can work in part, but I think it falls way short of real life
interpersonal relationships.
> And does the lifestyle cease, just because it is making waves with
> non-believers who happen by?
How does making waves in pulbic (ie. outsiders witnessing division
between believers) bring Glory to God?
> They 'walk' into a Christian NG:
It's not a Christian NG. It is a public discussion forum whose subject
is Christianity. It is not owned by Christians nor in fact run by
Christians.
> should the lifestyle of the true Church purchased with God's own
> blood cease because we are fearful of what the non-believers might
> think of us -- or what they might propogate in our midst?
It is not fear of what people will think.. it is using a scriptural
precedence for not taking our internal "squabbles" out into the public.
> That's giving the adversary ground that he is not entitled to Bradley.
I'd contend that taking internal "squabbles" out into the public is
doing just that.
>>> Should the functions of the body cease simply
>>> because non-believers come along to watch and heckle?
>
>> Now why do you assume that all non-Christians are there to "watch and
>> heckle" ?
>
> I never said "all". You added that.
It was implied. Otherwise you should have quantified it with a word such
as "some".
> And if you believe there is no heckling occurring, then you may need
> to re-focus your eyes.
Where did I say there wasn't?
>> The "functioning of the body" IMO can only really operate in a real
>> personal medium. Usenet can only form a part as it is just a medium,
>> like a telephone. It has limitations.
> So God's Spirit is 'blocked' by electronic media????
No. I'm saying that it is limited.. nothing beats real live in-your-face
interpersonal relationships.
> Phone lines
> flummox the
> Almighty? Does His VCR flash "12:00 . . . 12:00 . . . 12:00"??!!
> Sorry, I don't buy that!
Didn't ask you to.
> (And I know I took that to the extreme --
> but the prospect of the theme we're heading towards with this is just
> to incredulous to receive without at least some tongue-in-cheek!)
I'm just saying it has some limitations.
> A simple look at the impact of Paul's 'long distance' and
> relatively-impersonal ministering -- which is still with us today and
> impacting lives for God -- would challenge this notion of God being
> limited where there is face-to-face contact.
Yet, Paul himself said he wanted to be there in person so they could see
his real expression!
> Plus it raises the
> question of how much more Paul might have been able to do HAD there
> been phones and e-mail and newsgroups!
Electronic media will always be a "cheapened" form of relating to
others. It falls short. It is easy as there are less consequences. You
don't see the person's expressions. You don't know the person as you
would if you'd sat and ate with them (notice how important meals were to
Jesus' ministry!).
> Our feeble usages of the
> medium would pale by comparison and cause us great shame at how we've
> mis-used what we've been given! The Gospel of Christ, boldly
> proclaimed, does stir pots! It does create waves! Not for the sake
> of stirred pots or crashing waves -- but as a natural reaction of
> Spirit confronting flesh.
> Why do you think Bradley, that you are so hesitant to let God move
> where He will move?
The only thing I am hesitant about it equating Usnet with real life
interpersonal relationships. (Which I am then applying to the
functioning of the Church as a body of Christians working within
interpersonal relationship).
> What spirit is there out there that would just
> LOVE for us to believe that this media belongs to him and that God is
> limited here?? That flamers will always win?? That the Body of
> Christ is a wasted effort in electronic medium?
> Stop and measure the spirit you are ministering for on this point
> Bradley. Please!
Griz, you please stop misinterpreting what I am saying.
Why do you think I am involved in Internet/computer ministries???
>> So how can a Church function properly on Usenet in an unmoderated
>> forum where there is no leadership, no accountability, no real
>> openess (people can hide behind false names etc)? I think it would
>> need to be moderated... and would need to be supplimented by other
>> mediums such as telephone calls, e-mail, etc?
> I believe you may grieve the Holy Spirit with this Bradley.
Why? Because I am saying interpersonal relationship do not function over
wires?
> Remember we are talking about God Almighty here, moving through His
> people by the vehicle of His Holy Spirit. HE brings leadership thru
> Jesus Christ for those who will hear His voice. HE brings
> accountability. And if you've missed the openness, you must be blind.
> God is ABLE Bradley!
> Are you willing to 'allow' Him this?
Again, why do you think I am involved in several Internet/computer
minitries???
>> My point is in a worship service you have many other factors in play.
>> You have a community that has a far greater depth of relationship,
>> accountability, leadership, etc.
> But the recipient of our worship should be ONE.
We're talking about more than worship (which to me is almost always a
personal thing so is 'easy' to do on an electronic medium). The
discussion started because we are talking about how authority,
consequences, accountability etc function over wires.
> (And I'm making the
> assumption that we all know what Godly worship is when we see it! Is
> that a safe assumption?)
> Should we set that Godly worship aside -- along with the
> manifestations of the Body of Christ that it entails -- just because
> we're worried about offending the sensibilities of those who are NOT
> here to worship God?
You are off on a rant but it is misplaced as you haven't understood what
I said.
> Again Bradley, the impression is there that you are trying to resign
> God to a little box,
No, I'm saying that interpersonal relationship do not function over
wires anywhere near as well as they do in real life.
> and assign unto the Almighty physical parameters
> within which He can operate. Does the 'worship service' exist only
> in your local church from this-time to that-time weekly? Or does it
> permeate the hearts of all worshippers throughout the week and pop up
> spontaneously everywhere they might find themselves together with a
> group of like-believers?
> I met a previously-unknown woman in the back corner of a coffee-shop
> just this morning, reading the book of Acts. We greeted, found a
> common Spirit, and worship ensued. The Church was there -- wherever
> two or three are gathered together in Jesus' name!
And don't you think that it was much better being there in person?
> ... ... ..
> Or does God belong only in certain places, at certain times?
> I repeat this theme Bradley, because it is a theme that seems to
> occur too often in your posts.
Where?
All I am saying is that interpersonal relationships (which are a core
part of a functioning Church) are only truly possible in real life and
any other medium (not suplimented by other forms of contact) is limited
in it's effectiveness for relating.
I don't limit God at all. Again, why do you thini I am involced in
Internet/Computer ministry?
>> I think public NGs are more of an outreach rather than a church
>> building.
> You seem to be entirely TOO hung-up on the physical Bradley --
The only physical thing I am talking about it real life relationships as
opposed to limited electronic media.
> on the 'building'.
I'm not talking about the place.. I'm talking about how people relate.
> And not enough on WHO inhabits the building and the
> hearts and the lives of true believers -- and also inhabits their
> praises. God is NOT relegated to a building.
Of courses not. But we are limited if we only relate via an electronic
medium. Hence how can a Church function in every manner (namely
correction, authority, etc) in a limited medium.
God is not limited by wires.... our relationships are.
>>> These are CHRISTIAN groups.
>
>> No Griz, they aren't. ARC and AR for example are not.
>
> Hence my suggestion to cut them from the crossposting and to make a
> clean break from them.
But that is where I am posting from.
ALT.* groups are not Christian in the sense you are talking about
either. They are public discussion forums whose topic is Christianity.
> Only because the foundation and theology and
> direction seems to be different enough to be a significant source of
> on-going contention.
I don't see that at all.
> But seriously aus.religion.CHRISTIAN is not a Christian group?
Like all Usenet newsgroups it is a public forum whose topic is
Australian Christianity.
> How
> embarassing. Maybe a change of name -- or a disclaimer -- would be
> in order to avoid confusion?
It is not embarrasing at all. it is no different to an ALT.* group
except it is aimed at a particular local.
>>> It is not unreasonable to expect ALL of
>>> the functions of the body of Christ to be active here!
>
>> I would think they are very limited in their application since real
>> relationships don't function as much (only perhaps those
>> supplimented by personal contact (like Roland and I) or perhaps by
>> phone etc?
> But would it be unreasonable to expect that they COULD Bradley?
I think it is highly unlikely that real interpersonal relationships can
form on Usenet without suplimental forms of communitacion. ie. phone
calls, personal contact. Possible? Maybe. But highly unlikely.
> I
> mean, how powerful is God? What are your expectations of Him? What
> is He capable of? If He can cause the stones to cry out should humans
> fail to give Him the praises He deserves how much harder would it be
> for the functions of the Spirit given to the Body for His greater
> glory, to operate in an electronic forum that has maybe an hour or so
> lag to it?
> If God's Holy Spirit can use words Paul penned TWO CENTURIES AGO to
> stir the hearts of His children, why would He be precluded from
> moving in an electronic forum with a lag of an hour or so? Or even a
> day? Or a week? Or a year?
> God is Spirit Bradley. The confines of the physical -- or even the
> electronic are no barrier to Him.
I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about OUR confines.
>>> One doesn't
>>> go to a politics group to talk about the weather, or a bird group to
>>> talk about earthquakes!
>
>> They are not exclusively Christian NGs Griz.
>>
>> ARC for example has a much broader base for discussion.
>
> Then perhaps a quirk of effective naming or effective application?
No, the "quirk" is the fact it is Usenet.
> Since you have ordained a broad discussion base to be on ARC, would
> it be unreasonable to request that at least ONE of the christnet
> groups be left for discussions that are more directed into the
> Christ-centred paradigm?
That is up to whomever starts the ALT.* group I suppose.
> I'll even let you pick it -- just make it
> one where the name remotely resembles the function, OK?
Why are you so focused on a name? :)
> Perhaps a place where some basics such as Jesus as God's Living Word
> and the Bible as God's written word and the Holy Spirit as the
> inspirator and interpreter of God's word are "given foundations"?
> If the workmen are still disputing over the foundation, it is
> unlikely that anything will ever be built upon it!
> There are many public NG's out there. Why can there not be even one
> where the more fundamental foundations of the Christ-centred paradigm
> are honoured?
This is going off on a tangent. I'm sure there are groups like this and
I am sure that they would probably have to have moderation in place to
stick to the stated goal. Most likely this would not be an ALT.* group.
I think however that you just proved my point. If we want Usenet to
function more like a real life congregation it would need to have
mechanisms put in place such as moderations etc. Are you agreeing that
it won't function properly on an unmoderated public forum? (Yes God can
still work through it... but I'm talking about a group of believers
functioning as a congregation with full accountability etc).
>>> That's Scriptural [corrections offered privately first].
>>> But especially in this forum, there are numerous people who have
>>> excluded themselves from private e-mails.
>
>> But whom assumes the leadership of the community? Who has authority
>> to approach the person once you have approached them and they refuse
>> to act on the issue? Who says you are right?
> I'll bounce that one back on you Bradley.
> Who does Scripture say fills this role?
> Who grants the authority? Who chastizes? Who deals with unrepentant
> hearts?
> Think beyond the building.
> Think Spiritual, for God is Spirit.
Why do we have leaders Church congregations? Because they are mature and
have been ordained with authority to lead God's people. So I'll ask
again. How does this work on Usenet on a public unmoderated forum?
>>> So this creates the possibility of two different actions: personal
>>> corrections to those who are open to them and are likely to respond
>>> as Peter did to Paul; and general corrections aimed at presenting
>>> the Truth from Scripture so that none might stumble for lack of
>>> knowing what God's word actually says.
>
>> But if we follow the scriptural process for correction who then do we
>> take it to if the person doesn't listen to this initial correction?
>
> Would you suggest that God cannot work around this Bradley?
I'd suggest God gave us a template that is the ideal.
> He has
> ever been able to chastize the hearts that are His. And those that
> are not His, are beyond our reach at least for now. Pray for them,
> minister as we're able; but recognize that even God will honour a
> person's decision to harden their heart. Leave a hardened hear to
> God.
But wouldn't you agree that more can be done if a person chooses to
harded their heart and for example attacks people if that person is part
of a real life congregation?
> He is able! (Seems like another constant theme!)
> Unless things are a lot different in your home church Bradley, I
> would offer the suggestion that this point is actually a very minor
> one. How many times a week does your Pastor have to approach someone
> in this manner? How many times a year? How many times in his entire
> ministry? I would suggest it is very few.
So why does it happen daily on Usenet? :)
> I would further suggest that for you to take this relatively minor
> point and try to parlez it into a reason why God cannot move in the
> Christian NG's, is profound.
It isn't a minor point as such attempts to correct happen here daily
(and the resulting flame wars).
<snip>
>>> Our function is not to cause contention and flame wars. But dare we
>>> say that the flash-point for them is inevitable -- the flash-point
>>> where flesh rejects Spirit.
>>
>> Would flame wars happen in a Church service in real life? (perhaps
>> occasionally in some;))
>
> They happen wherever people get their hearts and minds off of God and
> onto the cult of Self -- both in physical and in electronic
> meeting-places.
But you'd have to agree in real life thre are much more things to
prevent it happening.. and a lot less miscommunication.
> But is this yet another excuse for trying to exclude God from an
> electronic forum Bradley -- that there are flame wars?
Where have I said I exclude God?
I'm saying we and our relationship are limited if they are only via a
wire.
> This is a unique forum: that much is certain. A big difference in
> our approaches however appears to be that while some are willing to
> believe that God can and will work in this forum, others are busy
> looking for little reasons why He cannot.
Why do you think I am involved in Internet/Computer ministry???
<snip>
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley
news:2phjd3F...@uni-berlin.de<snip>
>> ARC for example has a much broader base for discussion.
>
> Fine, and why did you not just stay there and talk broader and leave
> us where we were, talking Christian?
Ummmm I'd hate to tell you the obvious Vera but I am already in ARC and
it is you who adds the other NG and cross-posts your responses......
--
regards,
Bradley
Mark T
> >> I would bring up the example of ACC several years >>>ago.
> >I wouldn't. Given the sensitivies on both "sides" of the >>that "battle"
I think it is very poor to bring it up and >>"stir the pot".
>
> I think that is exactly the point I was wishing to make >Bradley. .. There
WERE and STILL ARE lessons there
Have you learnt them Griz?
> Hence my suggestion to cut them from the crossposting >and to make a clean
break from them.
&
would it be
> unreasonable to request that at least ONE of the christnet groups be left
> for discussions that are more directed into the Christ-centred paradigm?
&
> There are many public NG's out there. Why can there not be even one where
> the more fundamental foundations of the Christ-centred paradigm are
> honoured?
Seems you HAVEN'T learnt the lessons, Griz!
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censoprship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
idealogues, of ayatollahs, of fantics. p.96
To the extent that churches are pietistic, they will reject, or at least be
uncomfortable with, art, science, not to mention real people! Art and
science ask hard questions; real people are not all respectable. Art and
science address complex problems; genuine people behave in unrespectable
ways that often raise perplexing questions. Pietists, like all tribalists,
long for cultic simplicity and easy solutions: lists of dos and don'ts. ...
The original, true, odd, creative person in such a context is a nuisance
regarded with suspicion. Pietism invents far more rules for itself than God
ever mandated. Because freedom is sometimes frightening., the pietists make
their circle of life smaller, not bigger, with every successive generation.
Thus life becomes narrow, ugly, strange, and cultic and ends in rejection of
life just as the manicheans rejected the "flesh". Such narrowness does not
reflect well upon Christianity ... cut off from the real world, even real
people, pietistic churches have little or no influence in the lives of
the people who are creative. pp.130-131
The first freedom is the freedom to be normal. The follower of the Truth
need not be a guilt-ridden weirdo, part of some small, seperated band of
desperate Christian flagellants seeking personal holiness and spirituality
by abandoning life. p133
from Franky Schaeffer "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth & Hyatt;
Brentwood:1990) [Francis Schaeffer's son]
> If "my vision" was of myself, then there is nothing that can be done to
keep
> it from dying.
It is well and truly dead. It was never from God in the first place. It
was your delusion as Fuehrer of ACC backed up by the false prophecy of the
Porn Prophet Fervent.
> Yours in Christ,
The ol' super-spiritual sneeze of religious phlegm!
Mark T
> ALT.* groups are not Christian in the sense you are >talking about
either. They are public discussion forums >whose topic is Christianity.
&
> Like all Usenet newsgroups it is a public forum
Exactly! This is why the fleshly "vision" of Griz can never be of God and
is doomed to failure
> regards,
>
> Bradley
Notice that Bradley doesn't require the Grizian sneeze of religious phlegm
("Yours in Christ") to prove that he is a Christian.
::: vera :::
::: vera :::
Feather Forestwalker <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
Calling a heretic what he is, namely a "heretic", is not name calling.
It is the same with several other expressions, if you like them or not.
Mark Tindall is a heretic and a blasphemer, and Rowland Croucher is as well
AND the people who support all this and call them "brothers in Jesus".
Period.
Bradley
Ah I see, you sentence could have been taken either way.
Where I post is none of your concern Vera. ARC is still my primary NG
and I still visit ACC as well...
--
regards,
Bradley
Feather Forestwalker
For what it's worth, I was referring to names like idiot. . . to cite only
one minor example. . .
For the record,
I will not be responding to you much longer.
>
Bob
"Feather Forestwalker" <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ondZc.4301$w%6.1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Idiot, N, "a silly or foolish person."
If the shoe fits.....
Feather Forestwalker
You know the story about the elusive Foo Bird, right? *wink*
God bless,
Feather
::: vera :::
Yes, better respond to your bosom friend Mark Tindall, your dear brother.
Sorry, wrong family.
This way you do not have to answer to my questions concerning your contacts
to the Australians. But no answer is an answer as well. I did not call
anybody "idiot" - by the way. Maybe you have read that when your brother
Mark Tindall wrote his love letters to me? Why do you lie about me? But as
you are not my sister but Mark Tindall's brother: Why should I care?
Feather Forestwalker
Vera: wake up already.
I am not in cahoots with the Australians. You imagine a conspiracy where
none exists. I would almost go so far as to say this is paranoid, but I am
not qualified to make that connection.
> But no answer is an answer as well.
I DID answer. Read the post called "Love covers (Vera and anyone else I've
offended)" and my response to Diana for the answer.
> I did not call
> anybody "idiot" - by the way.
No? http://tinyurl.com/5jtsj (And by saying "he certainly acts like one so
it's just a description" after calling him an idiot, well, it doesn't wash -
you're covering your own fanny there. . .
. . .however, I wasn't even referring to you when I said "calling someone an
idiot," and it doesn't matter.
WE ARE ALL IDIOTS. *sigh*
> Maybe you have read that when your brother
> Mark Tindall wrote his love letters to me? Why do you lie about me?
You're the one that called him an idiot. Google doesn't lie. . .
> But as
> you are not my sister but Mark Tindall's brother: Why should I care?
he he. . .your venom doesn't sting but it sure does stink.
Feather
Amazing Grace
"Feather Forestwalker" <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
LOL Please explain to me how you can be Marks brother.
Grace
Bob
news:t5pZc.471$Wv5...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Feather Forestwalker" <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:uMoZc.276$N4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "::: vera :::" <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in message
> >> you are not my sister but Mark Tindall's brother: Why should I care?
> >
> > he he. . .your venom doesn't sting but it sure does stink.
> >
> > Feather
>
> LOL Please explain to me how you can be Marks brother.
> Grace
>
Is your German as good as Vera's English, French, Spanish and Latin?
Ultra posse nemo onligatur!
Bobert<><
Amazing Grace
"Bob" <b...@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:JGqZc.552$Wv5...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
No it is not. However I am sure she knows the difference between a
brother and a sister, arent you.
Grace
Diana
Bob uses that for excuses when Vera boo boo's. Yes she
does know the difference between a brother or sister or
her posts to Bob would end in "God Bless you my Sister"
Diana
::: vera :::
It was Bradley who wrote that himself, that you, Rowland and he had a
converstaion with Mark Tindall a year ago. And you call me "paranoid"? Thank
you. You right about it like that, but it will not help you, because God
know what you really meant by it and what you suggest.
> > But no answer is an answer as well.
>
> I DID answer. Read the post called "Love covers (Vera and anyone else
> I've offended)" and my response to Diana for the answer.
I asked you somewhere else - I do not read your posts ususally, and I don't
read Diana, either.
>> I did not call
>> anybody "idiot" - by the way.
>
> No? http://tinyurl.com/5jtsj (And by saying "he certainly acts like
> one so it's just a description" after calling him an idiot, well, it
> doesn't wash - you're covering your own fanny there. . .
Oh - this one - yes, Mark Tindall is an idiot. In this case I was right. He
is the biggest idiot I have ever seen. Or, no...... there are even more,
those who who call him "brother in Jesus".
> . . .however, I wasn't even referring to you when I said "calling
> someone an idiot," and it doesn't matter.
So why did you write it to me then? ? ?
> WE ARE ALL IDIOTS. *sigh*
>
>> Maybe you have read that when your brother
>> Mark Tindall wrote his love letters to me? Why do you lie about me?
>
> You're the one that called him an idiot. Google doesn't lie. . .
But he is. Mark Tindall is an evil idiot. Poor one. I feel much pity for
him. He will need much prayer to get out of his idiocy. I hope that the
others might recover from it soon, too.
>> But as
>> you are not my sister but Mark Tindall's brother: Why should I care?
>
> he he. . .your venom doesn't sting but it sure does stink.
Oh thank you for all your kindness, and that you cared so much for Mark
Tindall all the time. He is such a hearty blasphemer, really nice bully,
yes, good brother for you. He is what you earn. I hope you have a good time
chatting with him and listneing to all his heresies and slander about Jesus.
news:2pc8bbF...@uni-berlin.de
news:2pbb7pF...@uni-berlin.de
That is your friend Mark Tindall who you call your brother:
Mark Tindall...
- has prayed for my death publicly 169 times !
- has called me a Nazi in ACC 430 times !
- called me Vera 666 in 1,700 posts by you under the name "Mark and Bev
Tindall", plus 1,620 times in posts by "Mark Tindall". Together 3,320
times!!!!
- threatened me in 78 posts with subject lines or texts including "Dresden"
like this:
"Vera 666 lives in Germany ...her Dresden will come this year!"
That was o-quote of one of the subject lines by Mark Tindall on December
31st 2003 - 1st January 2004 in Australia - his New Year's wishes for me,
though I had never exchanged one word with him. He attacked me just for my
faith, without any reason! BTW, the beginning of this post was:
>EXCLUSION FROM OTHER CHRISTIANS; CENSORSHIP, BANNING,
>PLONKING OTHER CHRISTIANS ARE NOT FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT!!!!!!!
- accused me of that then, but today he plonks people himself, and Rowland
Croucher does so, too.
- He called me "Vera 666" 99 times on the three days of 24th - 26th December
2003 - over Christmas.
- accused me falsely of leading a cult in 832 posts!
Mark Tindall had NO reason to attack me personally! THIS IS THE PRESENT!!!
I do not speak of the others who were attacked like me as well(I love them
all!) - because I do not want to hurt them with that stuff again. So I will
reduce it to my person only - as who I have a right to speak of.
This was the first thread in which Mark Tindall mentioned my name:
=====================================================
From: "Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au>
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.christianlife
Subject: Re: THE MYSTERY OF VERA SIXTY SIX
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:19 +1100
Organization: Global Crossing Internet
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3fca6568$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
References: <x8oyb.33484$W7.2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net
X-Trace: node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net 1070228844 54044 64.214.31.40 (30 Nov
2003 21:47:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@gblx.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.219.161.10
X-Original-Trace: 1 Dec 2003 08:47:20 +1100, 203.219.161.10
Cache-Post-Path: nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net!203.12.160.33
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
"David Matthieu P.P."
> Can any honest readers take seriously Vera Sixty Six?
Vera Six Sixty Six has hit the plonk and needs the ministry of AA.
I decided to come back to this lite NG .... alt.christless.christianlite
... to see how the crazies are doing.
Mark
==================================================
And this was the first post that he addressed to me - I did not know him at
all at that time:
==================================================
From: "Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au>
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.christianlife
Subject: Re: 30th Nov. 2003 - ACC Web Site News: Advent Calendar
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:11:48 +1100
Organization: Global Crossing Internet
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3fca6b26$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
References: <bqd78b$bvg$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net
X-Trace: node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net 1070230314 49212 64.214.31.40 (30 Nov
2003 22:11:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@gblx.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.219.161.10
X-Original-Trace: 1 Dec 2003 09:11:50 +1100, 203.219.161.10
Cache-Post-Path: nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net!203.12.160.33
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
"Vera Six Sixty Six" wrote:
> Hi Fiends ....
> on our ACC Web Site.
"We are looking for the best signature linking to this site... "
I suggest "Too much Kristyun Lite and not enough Christian substance!"
Mark
==================================================
The first thing he did was call me Vera 666, and he mocked the website.
He became worse and worse in December, please have a look only at the
subject lines of one page in December 2003 in ACC:
http://groups.google.de/groups?dq=&num=25&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.chris
tnet.christianlife&as_drrb=b&as_mind=15&as_minm=12&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=19&a
s_maxm=12&as_maxy=2003&start=400
It was aftermany weeks of such abuse of him that I answered him - friendly.
After a short time he started his attacks again.
============================================================
Whoever calls him his brother must be in a different family than I am.
::: vera :::
::: vera :::
Bradley . .
> In news:ondZc.4301$w%6.1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Feather Forestwalker <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I was referring to names like idiot. . . to cite
>> only one minor example. . .
<snip>
> I did not call anybody "idiot" - by the way.
What about 'ugly" Vera? What about 'Nazi'? There's others....
<snip>
--
regards,
Bradley
Bradley . .
> In news:uMoZc.276$N4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Feather Forestwalker <fea...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I am not in cahoots with the Australians. You imagine a conspiracy
>> where none exists. I would almost go so far as to say this is
>> paranoid, but I am not qualified to make that connection.
> It was Bradley who wrote that himself, that you, Rowland and he had a
> converstaion with Mark Tindall a year ago. And you call me
> "paranoid"? Thank you.
We did, each separately and at different times (athough all around a
year ago).
One can understand the paranoid label. You jumped to the conclusion
(somehow) that Feather spoke to Rowland and me about Mark (not US
speaking TO Mark) BEFORE the fiasco (it must have been after since it
was regarding his actions in ACC) and she therefore must have come to
ARC... and then illogically you said she must have brought Mark to ACC
from there.
There no logic or reason to those conclusions.
> You right about it like that, but it will not
> help you, because God know what you really meant by it and what you
> suggest.
<snip>
>>> I did not call
>>> anybody "idiot" - by the way.
>> No? http://tinyurl.com/5jtsj (And by saying "he certainly acts like
>> one so it's just a description" after calling him an idiot, well, it
>> doesn't wash - you're covering your own fanny there. . .
> Oh - this one - yes, Mark Tindall is an idiot. In this case I was
> right. He is the biggest idiot I have ever seen. Or, no...... there
> are even more, those who who call him "brother in Jesus".
And Vera completes a her back flip. The judges post their scores... yes!
a perfect 10! :)
Vera thinks it is ok to call people names (although she says shes
doesn't call people names) if the name she is calling is true (of course
that truth is according to her - self regulation can be dangerous:).
Therefore if she judges that Mark is an idiot then in her mind calling
him such as ok.
But Vera, is calling people things cush as 'ugly' ok, whether true or
not?
<snip rant>
"Love keeps no record of wrongs".
--
regards,
Bradley
Bob
Feather,
Where do you see that the people she is plonking are Christians? Vera is
pretty much right on the money from where I'm sitting....
And yes, if the people in fact are calling themselves Christians but are
not in actual fact Christians, then, yes, we are commanded to have nothing
whatsoever to do with them.
What Mark has done to Vera is inexcusable by any decent person's
standards. If someone thinks Mark is AOK, they need a shrink ASAP.
Bob<><
Mark T
> Oh - this one - yes, Mark Tindall is an idiot. In this case >I was right.
He is the biggest idiot I have ever seen. Or, >no...... there are even more,
those who who call him >"brother in Jesus".
...
> Mark Tindall is an evil idiot. ...He will need much >prayer to get out of
his idiocy. I hope that the
> others might recover from it soon, too.
I forgive you, Vera.
Mark T
>Vera is pretty much right on the money from where I'm >sitting....
Change your seating poisition.
Abby
"Diana" <(H)(U)(G)(S)@here.com> wrote in message
news:JqrZc.59945$cT6....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Gee Brenda must have showed Diane how to read minds via witchcraft.
They are pretty chummy these days.
Abby
Diana
"Mark T" <ma...@home.in.oz> wrote in message
news:41366ac1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
:-D
Love ya Mark
Di
Mark T
... whatever ...
"I deem not this mob worthy that I should defend myself before them." -
Polycarp, Martyrium Polycarpi.
Mark T
Feather Forestwalker
"Amazing Grace" <lad...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:t5pZc.471$Wv5...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
Oh, I totally missed that one! *LOL*
Hmmmmm.....well, that would be anatomically impossible. . . .now, wouldn't
it?
Let's see.. . .I gave birth to three children, yup, so I couldn't possibly
be Mark's brother. . . *LOL*
Thanks for the smile,
God bless,
Feather
>
Feather Forestwalker
"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tuj6j0t55nj8n5m96...@4ax.com...
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:48:58 GMT, "Feather Forestwalker"
> <fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
>
>
> >> >LOVE KEEPS NO RECORDS OF WRONGS.
> >> >
> >> >Let it go, let God do the healing, and MOVE FORWARD and stop looking
back
> >> >once you have your hand on that ploughshare!
> >>
> >> Agreed. However, let us realize, that as long as we
> >> make people who call sin righteousness feel as if we
> >> are being accepting of them, we cannot move on and are
> >> not moving on.
> >
> >I was referring to the name-calling and the spreading of lies, more than
> >anything else, Pastor Dave. Forgiveness is imperative if we are not to be
> >eaten up inside with the anger and the unforgiving heart. Trust me, I
KNOW
> >what unforgiveness can do to a heart. . .it can slowly kill your spirit
and
> >your love for God and His people. . .and the lost.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> >> People may not think they're doing
> >> that, but if they continue to communicate with them,
> >> after these people have been presented with the truth,
> >> then they are making them feel accepted. Moving on in
> >> that case, would mean ceasing all communication. In
> >> fact, kill filing them would be the proper action.
> >
> >Hmmmm, this is applicable in a newsgroup? Would you mind showing me,
again,
> >how? (I think we've been down this road before, haven't we?)
>
> It is applicable in a news group, because the Bible
> does not limit it to a church building. It is a
> general statement made in Titus 3:10-11, regardless of
> where one is. Does the Bible say to reject a heretic
> in church, but accept them outside of church?
>
>
> >> And just so you know my position, forgiveness is not
> >> our job here (unless personally attacked).
> >
> >Forgiveness is not our job? UNLESS personally attacked? Well, since that
is
> >what this post was addressing, and that's what I was addressing -
personal
> >attacks - I don't see how forgiveness cannot be our job? Of course the
> >forgiveness of sins (ALL sin) isn't our job - but this post was
addressing
> >the what-if's of our own behavior in a newsgroup environment; ostensibly,
> >HOW do we put into practice, our belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and
Savior,
> >in order to be an effective witness to those who may not believe yet?
>
> My statement is regarding heretics. The unbelievers,
> if asking sincere questions, are of course, to be
> responded to with love and truth. My point is also
> that people here equate telling a heretic how it is,
> with a hateful attitude. It doesn't equate to that.
>
>
> >> And
> >> forgiveness does not mean accepting them. For example,
> >> if a homosexual here insults me, I'll forgive them, but
> >> I will not accept them and I will say the same thing to
> >> them again, that caused the insult from them, because
> >> it's the truth. Nor do I find any reason to be
> >> friendly with someone, who continually rejects the
> >> Gospel, in favor of their sin, saying it's okay with
> >> God.
> >
> >And at the same time, can you say you are without sin?
>
> Irrelevant. Your statement claims that because I
> commit a sin, I must be silent. Yet Paul claimed to be
> a sinner and what did he do? He wrote letters to the
> churches, calling them on their sin. Imagine if every
> Christian stopped telling people that what they're
> doing is sin before God and that they need to repent.
> That's what the liberals do and try to get the true
> believers to do.
>
> You seem to miss the difference. I do not call my sin
> righteousness. Heretics do. With all due respect, you
> need to study and grasp this Scriptural truth and
> adjust your attitude accordingly. I'm sorry if that
> sounds rude, but your response is something a heretic
> would say, in order to try to get the flashlight off
> their sin (I'm not implying that you are a heretic).
>
> Let me give you an example. Jesus showed mercy on the
> adulteress. Obviously, He sensed repentance. Yet He
> blasted the Pharisees. Both were sinners, were they
> not? So what was the difference? Simple. The
> adulteress knew that her sin was sin and the Pharisees
> claimed that their sin was righteousness and were
> therefore, heretics.
>
> "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that
> put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
> put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
> - Isaiah 5:20
>
>
> >To God, sin is sin, and in a message received yesterday at our church,
God
> >deals with the individual right where they are. He doesn't say, "Change
> >first and then come to Me," He says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and
> >overburdened, and I will give you rest. . ." (paraphrase mine). So what
if
> >someone is struggling with a certain sin and might *think* there's
nothing
> >wrong with it? When confronted by the power of the Holy Spirit, His
> >CONVICTION is much more powerful than our chiding a person, though of
course
> >we are to GENTLY admonish a brother or sister in sin - and yes, as you
say
> >below, this is in order to purify the church - and after the third
> >admonition we are to reject, according to PAUL's words, eh?
>
> Again, you are confusing actual Christians who stray
> and commit a sin, or those who have never been saved
> and don't claim to be, with heretics. They are not in
> the same class of people, according to Scripture, nor
> did I prescribe treating them the same as heretics.
> Heretics are not "brothers and sisters". Do you see
> what I'm saying here?
>
> As for genuine brothers and sisters, we are to forgive
> them, of course. However, if they refuse to repent of
> their sin, then even they are to be put out of the
> church (1 Corinthians 5).
>
>
> >What does Jesus say about someone who is abusive to you and who treats
you
> >as if you were an enemy? (Which is the point I am addressing here).
>
> I have two responses, depending on how you are applying
> your statement. Pick which one fits.
>
> 1) Once again, understand the difference. What you're
> saying here, is that when the Pharisees treated Jesus
> as an enemy, He sinned by blasting them in Matthew 23
> and John 8. The fact is, they were heretics. They
> called their sin righteousness before God. That makes
> a difference in how we are to respond (after two
> attempts, that is).
Actually, I wasn't saying that Jesus sinned at all. . .I was saying that WE
who blast others are sinning.
Jesus said to be angry, but DO NOT SIN. Paul admonished us to NOT LET THE
SUN GO DOWN on our anger - be reconciled to your brother while the sun
shines. . .
If someone here claims Jesus Christ as their Savior, who am I to say He
isn't?
Just because they might be working out that salvation with questions,
musings, statements, etc., and just because they don't accept correction,
doesn't mean that they aren't working on it, does it?
Some people are just more stubborn than others. GOD will work that out in
them, as He did with Balaam and his donkey, eh? *wink*
>
> 2) If you are making the statement in regard to enemies
> who are unsaved and don't claim to be, then I would
> simply ignore them, if it did not cease, after bringing
> them the Gospel in truth. If they need something,
> fine. But I won't waste my time trying to communicate
> with them, if they reject the Gospel.
>
> "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
> words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake
> off the dust of your feet." - Matthew 10:14
Jesus spoke that to His disciples, and if we are His followers and desire to
bring the gospel to a town - am thinking of those wonderful tent revival
meetings among other things; if not everyone in that town supports it, do we
still leave?
There are several anti-Christian sects in this town I live in. Am I supposed
to leave because they came here after the Christian churches were
established? Am I supposed to leave because before the Christian churches
were established there was the rather pagan religion belonging to the
natives that were here first?
>
> As for your statement about personal sin, we all have
> some kind of sin. The thing is, we want to acknowledge
> that it is sin, instead of being a heretic and claiming
> that God approves of gay marriage, for example and then
> being accepted by others who say they are believers
> (and may very well be), instead of rejected for that
> heresy.
Of course God does not approve of gay marriage. If He did, He wouldn't have
said, in Jesus' OWN words: "For this reason a MAN shall leave his mother and
father and cling unto his WIFE." Since marriage is DEFINED by God, why would
He approve of same-sex marriages? That's rather confusing, and "God is not
the author of confusion."
God bless,
Feather
>
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> "Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
> They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
> to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
> At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
> says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
>
> "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
> the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
>
> /
> o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
> \
>
>
> Evolution has never been proven and there
> is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
> showing that man came from anything else.
> - Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Pastor Dave
<fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
>> >What does Jesus say about someone who is abusive to you and who treats
>> >you
>> >as if you were an enemy? (Which is the point I am addressing here).
>>
>> I have two responses, depending on how you are applying
>> your statement. Pick which one fits.
>>
>> 1) Once again, understand the difference. What you're
>> saying here, is that when the Pharisees treated Jesus
>> as an enemy, He sinned by blasting them in Matthew 23
>> and John 8. The fact is, they were heretics. They
>> called their sin righteousness before God. That makes
>> a difference in how we are to respond (after two
>> attempts, that is).
>
>Actually, I wasn't saying that Jesus sinned at all. . .I was saying that WE
>who blast others are sinning.
>
>Jesus said to be angry, but DO NOT SIN.
It is not sin to blast a heretic, if the situation
calls for it. You assume a raised voice is sin. It is
not. Otherwise, you are saying that Jesus sinned. We
are supposed to be like Him, but it is sin to blast a
heretic, as He did? You are simply picking and
choosing what feels good to you.
>Paul admonished us to NOT LET THE
>SUN GO DOWN on our anger - be reconciled to your brother while the sun
>shines. . .
TO YOUR BROTHER. A heretic is NOT a brother.
>If someone here claims Jesus Christ as their Savior, who am I to say He
>isn't?
You are a believer, who is told to do exactly that, in
God's word. I have pointed this out to you before.
>> 2) If you are making the statement in regard to enemies
>> who are unsaved and don't claim to be, then I would
>> simply ignore them, if it did not cease, after bringing
>> them the Gospel in truth. If they need something,
>> fine. But I won't waste my time trying to communicate
>> with them, if they reject the Gospel.
>>
>> "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
>> words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake
>> off the dust of your feet." - Matthew 10:14
>
>Jesus spoke that to His disciples, and if we are His followers and desire to
>bring the gospel to a town - am thinking of those wonderful tent revival
>meetings among other things; if not everyone in that town supports it, do we
>still leave?
>
>There are several anti-Christian sects in this town I live in. Am I supposed
>to leave because they came here after the Christian churches were
>established? Am I supposed to leave because before the Christian churches
>were established there was the rather pagan religion belonging to the
>natives that were here first?
It says, out of that house, or city. If the whole city
isn't against you, then don't leave the city.
>> As for your statement about personal sin, we all have
>> some kind of sin. The thing is, we want to acknowledge
>> that it is sin, instead of being a heretic and claiming
>> that God approves of gay marriage, for example and then
>> being accepted by others who say they are believers
>> (and may very well be), instead of rejected for that
>> heresy.
>
>Of course God does not approve of gay marriage. If He did, He wouldn't have
>said, in Jesus' OWN words: "For this reason a MAN shall leave his mother and
>father and cling unto his WIFE." Since marriage is DEFINED by God, why would
>He approve of same-sex marriages? That's rather confusing, and "God is not
>the author of confusion."
Then you must follow Titus 3:10-11 in the case of both
Ninure and Brenda, who is also a heretic.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Cause when you're with me, I'm free, I'm careless,
I believe. Above any others, we'll fly. This brings
tears, to my eyes." - Creed: My Sacrifice
Bob
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:56:16 GMT, "Feather Forestwalker"
> <fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
WE
> >who blast others are sinning.
> >
> >Jesus said to be angry, but DO NOT SIN.
>
> It is not sin to blast a heretic, if the situation
> calls for it. You assume a raised voice is sin. It is
> not. Otherwise, you are saying that Jesus sinned. We
> are supposed to be like Him, but it is sin to blast a
> heretic, as He did? You are simply picking and
> choosing what feels good to you.
I hereby declare that a spade is indeed a spade and that the truth is
never an insult, a statement of fact is not wrong.
>
> >Paul admonished us to NOT LET THE
> >SUN GO DOWN on our anger - be reconciled to your brother while the sun
> >shines. . .
>
> TO YOUR BROTHER. A heretic is NOT a brother.
>
BINGO!!! "Heretic" is not an insult or an ugly name to throw at someone,
it is an adjective with a precise meaning, and this ng is overrun with them.
>
> >If someone here claims Jesus Christ as their Savior, who am I to say He
> >isn't?
>
> You are a believer, who is told to do exactly that, in
> God's word. I have pointed this out to you before.
You shall know them by their fruits.
I am a FRUIT INSPECTOR.
Bob<><
Feather Forestwalker
<snipped correction to say this>: You're right, of course. . .thanks again
for your straight-forward way of approaching me without attacking me.
>Of course God does not approve of gay marriage. If He did, He wouldn't have
> >said, in Jesus' OWN words: "For this reason a MAN shall leave his mother
and
> >father and cling unto his WIFE." Since marriage is DEFINED by God, why
would
> >He approve of same-sex marriages? That's rather confusing, and "God is
not
> >the author of confusion."
>
> Then you must follow Titus 3:10-11 in the case of both
> Ninure and Brenda, who is also a heretic.
OK, when have I not done this? As soon as you reproved me the first time, I
stopped. . .did I not?
:)
God bless,
Feather
Feather Forestwalker
"Bob" <b...@bob.bob> wrote in message
OK, would you mind coming to San Francisco and sorting the fruits from the
nuts and the flakes? *LOL*
Seriously, though, yes, Pastor Dave is correct: we are to "know them by
their fruits. . "
A work in progress, always learning, as God uses His own to teach me. . .
God bless,
Feather
>
>
Pastor Dave
<fea...@NOSPAM.com> screamed out:
>
I am not reproving you for the old things. I am merely
attempting to educate you, so that you do not continue
to buy into what these people are saying about how we
are to treat heretics, etc.. Love does not equate to
always being nice to everyone. Nor are we called to
have anything to do with heretics, after the first and
second correction and if only more Christians would
stand up to it, as Jesus did and as Paul did and as
Paul called on the churches to do, we would not be
overrun with them in our churches. Point being, tell
it like it is. Do so in love, but do not tolerate
heresy and frankly, heresy should make us angry, once
we know that the heretic will not listen to the truth
(they could have just been mistaken). If it doesn't,
then where is our love for God and His ways? To reject
someone, as Scripture calls us to do with heretics, is
to reject also their attempts at communication in
conversation, unless it is to repent of their heresy.
The church is overrun with these folks, because of
Christians allowing and thinking they are supposed to
keep welcoming them.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Species that were once thought to have turned into
others have been found to overlap in time with these
alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does
not convincingly document a single transition from one
species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New
Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin
of Species, 1981, p. 95)