Regarding Mike Warnke and fraud claims
petera
making the caims that he is, might be an undercover satanist trying to undermine Mike's
ministry. I do not know as I didnt even know he was being labled a fraud untill this
post, and I am shocked, as his material seems really good. So I just want to ask if it is
a documented fact that he is a fraud, or if the person claiming he is a fraud might be out
to pull him down. I will just be dissappointed if it is all true.
David Bruce Murray
"petera" <yode...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b567424$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
It's a pretty well documented fraud, actually; at least, it was at one time.
Some web searches should pull up sites for independant confirmation of this,
I would guess.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@rfci.net
Articles: www.rfci.net/dbmurray and www.musicforce.com
Transcriptions: www.musicscribe.com
Classical Piano: www.mp3.com/virtualvirtuoso
Southern Sounds Quartet: www.mp3.com/ssq
---Making Hay While The Sun Shines---
Rod Carpenter
I think you should prepare to be disappointed.
A web search for "Mike Warnke Cornerstone" would probably bring up more
info than you'd ever want to know about the controversy. I wish I could
remember the URL of a site I read just recently, which tried to sandwich
Warnke's purported history into a cohesive timeline, and showed that some of
his claims just *didn't* fit.
That being said, remember that God uses imperfect people. How (or even
if) this changes your view of Warnke as a minister, as an entertainer, or in
any other way, is something you'll need to try to work out for yourself.
--
- Rod Carpenter (rodc...@spamblock-remove-to-reply.nbnet.nb.ca)
Miramichi City, NB, Canada
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the
water above it. And it was so.
-Genesis 1:7
JohnJThomp
for yourself. The methodology is flawless and the result of that book (and the
accompanying article in Cornerstone Magazine) led to Mike admitting to at least
some of the accusations and stepping down from his ministry for at least a
while. The book is a disturbing, but amazing, read.
PellaBear
Mike Warnke has spoken at my church at least twice since I have been there (97)
and probably some before that...
Knowing what I have read off of the links posted in here about him, and having
them stuck in the back of my mind while listening to him, I get the impression
that he really is sorry for what he did. Though he doesn't come right out and
say it, he refers many times to "the lowest point in his life" and his climb
back out of it. About how he used to pack stadiums and now is speaking to much
smaller groups.
To me, it seems like he has done his time for what happened, and is trying to
move on, and turn this into a good thing for ministry...namely, fame isn't all
it's cracked up to be.
I dunno...I know if I'm a naive moron, someone will point it out for me. :)
Thanks.
petera
JohnJThomp <johnj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010719121426...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Oh dear, so he has actually admitted to some of the accusations.
Jeremy Vis
> A web search for "Mike Warnke Cornerstone" would probably bring up more
> info than you'd ever want to know about the controversy. I wish I could
> remember the URL of a site I read just recently, which tried to sandwich
> Warnke's purported history into a cohesive timeline, and showed that some of
> his claims just *didn't* fit.
>
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm would
likely have a link to it...
jer
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jeremy M Vis~~~jv...@home.com~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ http://come.to/dmeece/ ~~
~~ "I'm gonna die! Jesus, Allah, Buddha, I love you all!" ~~
~~ -Homer Simpson ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Miles O'Neal
If you'd read all the posts, you'd have
seen mine. Go to the RMC General FAQ at
http://www.rru.com/rmc/FAQ.gen.html#MW
for info on teh whole thing.
Brian Healy
Excuse me? It was the lowest point in his life only because he got caught .The
fact he was a pathological liar for a decade or more didn't seem to bother him at
all. And he still lied when he got caught and started attacking others like a
rabid dog at every turn.
If I understand you correctly he should profit for his own wrongdoings, I had a
scam based on lies now let me tell you
that my new message is I had a scam based on lies and it was bad and brought me
low, and that means because I admit
it's a scam and bad you need to forgive me so you can let me speak at your church
because I got caught in a scam was
laid low and now it's not a scam for me to tell you about it for money.
Sorry certain sins attack one's credibility to a point where they are doing more
harm than good for themselves and the
cause of Christ because the truth become irrelevant and the price Mr. Warnke has
to pay is appearing to simply be
starting a new con based on gullibility and a total misunderstanding of grace and
forgiveness by a large number of
Christians.
I'm sure Mike can fine a place in a ministry outside of repentant defrock
christian celebrity who even at his height was
only funny to people who didn't know where he stole his bit's from.
Grace & Peace,
Brian Healy
Jeremy Vis
Brian Healy wrote:
>
> If I understand you correctly he should profit for his own wrongdoings, I had a
> scam based on lies now let me tell you
> that my new message is I had a scam based on lies and it was bad and brought me
> low, and that means because I admit
> it's a scam and bad you need to forgive me so you can let me speak at your church
> because I got caught in a scam was
> laid low and now it's not a scam for me to tell you about it for money.
>
> Sorry certain sins attack one's credibility to a point where they are doing more
> harm than good for themselves and the
> cause of Christ because the truth become irrelevant and the price Mr. Warnke has
> to pay is appearing to simply be
> starting a new con based on gullibility and a total misunderstanding of grace and
> forgiveness by a large number of
> Christians.
>
I gotta say, that was one damn fine pair of run-on sentences!! :)
Skaught
> even at his height was only funny to people
> who didn't know where he stole his bit's from.
Amen to that. I only heard a coupld of his tapes years ago, but I
remember it being a complete rip off of Bill Cosby's "Himself"
routine. Some jokes nearly verbatim. I also remember hearing a
Gallagher routine. And when he told them, it wasn't very funny.
I've never heard a "Christian" comedian (a comedian who was marketing
him/herself strictly to the Christian culture under the term
"Christian Comedian") who was very funny. I've heard comedians who
were Christians that were very funny, though.
Not that I thought she was really funny, but Victoria Jackson
(formerly of Saturday Night Live) is a Christian. The Door magazine
has an interview with her out there...
Scott
www.nickalexander.com
> him/herself strictly to the Christian culture under the term
> "Christian Comedian") who was very funny.
Not that he billed himself as a comedian, but Steve Taylor is the
sharpest wit you'll find anywhere. And anybody who follows his
influence (All Star United, Rick Altizer) ain't too shabby.
Come to think of it, the late Rich Mullins and Keith Green had
uproarious senses of humor.
2 cents.
Nick
Nick Alexander
The Catholic "Weird Al"
http://www.nickalexander.com
Robert Molloy
division.
Go have a look for yourself and notice the pictures of VERY young
boys! "Sex before eight or else it's too late!" -- as NAMBLA likes to
say.
www.freespirits.org
www.boylinks.net
www.boychat.org
www.legarcon.net
www.jungsforum.net
www.boyfancy.com
www.boyfancy.net
MCI/Worldcom -- pedophile paradise!
Shadow
maybe the person
> making the caims that he is, might be an undercover satanist trying to
undermine Mike's
> ministry.
ROFL!!!! JPUSA a bunch of Satanists! Oh, thanks, man I needed a good
laugh! Read the article and decide for yourself if the no good
four-flushing peice of fetid rotting carion is in fact a bad guy after all:
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm
David Bruce Murray
"www.nickalexander.com" <nickal...@e3mil.com> wrote in message
news:4674aa18.01072...@posting.google.com...
> > I've never heard a "Christian" comedian (a comedian who was marketing
> > him/herself strictly to the Christian culture under the term
> > "Christian Comedian") who was very funny.
>
> Not that he billed himself as a comedian, but Steve Taylor is the
> sharpest wit you'll find anywhere. And anybody who follows his
> influence (All Star United, Rick Altizer) ain't too shabby.
>
> Come to think of it, the late Rich Mullins and Keith Green had
> uproarious senses of humor.
I always thought David Meece should have released a comedy project or two in
his successful years. Lord knows, it always took him long enough to complete
a music release. He could have alternated and kept his name in the public
view for a while longer. He was a truly funny guy in concert.
Breezy
> I always thought David Meece should have released a comedy project or two
in
> his successful years. Lord knows, it always took him long enough to
complete
> a music release. He could have alternated and kept his name in the public
> view for a while longer. He was a truly funny guy in concert.
True, true! I 'bout fell over laughing more than once during his stand up
routines during his concerts.
Brian Healy
>
> >
>
> I gotta say, that was one damn fine pair of run-on sentences!! :)
>
> jer
>
>
>
Ah the outcome of years of writing far too many radio spots 8)
Bob Weigel
the american xtian thing; finding a comfort zone and working it in
the name of Jeezus! Anyone, as I always say, who didn't know Mike
was stretching the truth on many things (with varying degrees of
absurdity so as to continually make some of the crowd wonder "was
that for real??") is quite lost. :-) THE PROCESS which naturally
transpired here:
1) Mike quickly became a popular act for Christians looking to
be entertained and believe that God was working in this confused
generation....rather than being occupied with his work and actually
being PART of that process.
2) As one album led to another, so did one story and they became
intertwined such that in order to preserve his image he actually
had to stand behind some of those stories (like being a full
fledged satanist priest with all the details noted).
It was particularly those kinds of things that led to the
whole episode. A lazy bunch of pseudo Christians who want to
be entertained in a "christian way" (which includes exploiting
the emotions to respond to various conversion stories, including
his own), and the preoccupation with bizarre "sins" accompanied
by a failure to realize that they are all just manifestations of
TRUE sin (which is missing the mark, which is to be in constant
prayer/fellowship with our lord).
I seem to remember cornerstone handling the situation with a
great amount of integrity, and Mike threatening to sue them and
so on, before he finally realized he wasn't getting anywhere and
he put up some kind of repentence appearance, then got the same
staff back together except his wife who left I believe maybe even
before that. Arghh. Lord help us.
Anyway, the beauty of it is that God reached many people through
Mike's wanna be ministry, and I pray that Mike really did learn that
guiseful stuff is only funny until somebody believes it, and then you
are personally guilty of lying and you need to take care that people
do understand. If you are really a minister....I think you can take
time for such details...can't you? -Bob
In article <euA57.4100$xX6.5...@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Bob Weigel
doing the Mark Lawry (sp?) thing of cutting/pasting someone elses
humor technique into Christian music, he just did what seemed good
and it became naturally funny because hey...it's an absurd world/church
out there. :-) Obviously we all borrow from many others but still
there's just this sense of it falling together naturally rather than
being forced.
I've seen worse than Mark, but there are a few between there I think.
A guy named "Paul Aldrich" wasn't half bad actually. We opened for
him in the mid 90's and I was laughing pretty hard at times. He
did a few parody, but again had his own style about it and
it didn't feel forced. ("I know three chords" [to one of Petty's tuens]
and even "logeye" [to a Johnny cash tune] had merit. His fx were great.
Real talented guy with a good stage presence. -Bob
In article <4674aa18.01072...@posting.google.com>,
Bob Weigel
that one of the arbitrary ones is actually under the "freedom.net"
domain with an address of "spi...@freedom.net" as the admin.
In my experience, the note claiming they have a canadian address
may mean nothing. Anyway, I don't know who all owns who here, but
it's a very sad world. There will ALWAYS be PLENTY of idiots to
create havoc....but the only people it creates havoc for are those
who buy into it or chase after it. God will deliver all who cry out
to him so I think that would be a better use of time if anyone is
feeling led to do something. Then maybe we can be ready to minister
to the hurting people who this merry-go-round tosses out finally.
I already boycott MCI so I couldn't care less anyway. :-) All
companies who use spam tacticts including AOL I boycott. -Bob
In article <rl1hltkeqisqne8vg...@4ax.com>,
Miles O'Neal
Dragnet" and "Let's Trade Your Salvation!"
rank right up there with Cosby and others.
Well, almost.
-Miles
David Bruce Murray
news:3B5BC48C...@rru.com...
> Isaac Air Freight was hysterical. "Jerusalem
> Dragnet" and "Let's Trade Your Salvation!"
> rank right up there with Cosby and others.
I only got their last two recordings (I think). I'd love to find other
material by them.
David Bruce Murray
I'm not a big fan. She has some fairly funny material, but on every
recording I've heard, goes off the deep end emotionally before it's over. I
don't mind a somewhat serious closer to a comedy project. Warnke usually did
that, but Pierce almost makes me feel guilty for having enjoyed the comedy
just a few minutes earlier.
Thewebchyk
>As long as we're talking comedians, does anyone here care for Chonda Pierce?
I don't.
Who was the guy with the album entitled SLOW MEN WORKING? Steve or Scott
somebody, I can't think of his last name. I enjoyed his humor. Isaac Air
Freight was good, too.
Peace,
Rose
Michael A. Vickers
>Who was the guy with the album entitled SLOW MEN WORKING? Steve or Scott
>somebody, I can't think of his last name.
Steve Geyer, I think.
Michael
She said "I'll follow you, boy, to the ends of the earth."
'Said "I'm not going that far, for what it's worth..." - VOL
David Bruce Murray
"Thewebchyk" <thewe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010723234950...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>
> Who was the guy with the album entitled SLOW MEN WORKING? Steve or Scott
> somebody, I can't think of his last name. I enjoyed his humor. Isaac Air
> Freight was good, too.
Steve Geyer. He hosted Atlanta Fest one year and then went on tour with 4Him
and Point of Grace. I could not stand him. I think his record company was
trying to push him as the replacement for Warnke, but I didn't think he was
that funny. Every two minutes in his "routine," if it could be called that,
he would break into a "gay accent" and priss around. Nobody laughed, at
least, not where I was sitting. I think his recording had come out several
years earlier, though, so maybe there was some funny stuff on that. I never
heard it, and didn't want to hear it after seeing him on stage.
There were some others that had one shot deals that were decent, though. I
thought Al Fike was pretty good. He's the one who could play tunes by making
fart noises with his hands. He was very accurate in terms of pitch! He did
one recording for Brentwood in their "Just Clean Fun" series. Justin Fennell
also had a release in that series that was OK.
Then there was a fellow called Paul Aldrich that had a release called
_Throwing Stone_ with a cover that parodied _Rolling Stone_. There's a
couple of good routines on there, and some not so good.
Of course, if you want to get pre-Warnke, and countrified, there's Grady
Nutt, Jerry Clower, and Wendy Bagwell. I was huge fans of all three of those
guys, and am saddened that all three are dead now. There are no comedians
that simply tell funny stories now, not the way these guys could do it. It's
all one liners now.
My favorite line by Nutt was when he was talking about being brought up in
fundamental Baptist churches, and every one has been very seriously
listening for the last couple of minutes, thinking Nutt is about to say
something deeply inspiring. He lets it soak in and then says, "I used to go
to church and get hung over hell like a weinie. HAHA. Burn baby, burn."
There's laughter, then the applause starts, and builds and goes on for a
while. He sure knew how to milk a crowd.
Speaking of Isaac Air Freight, there was another team called Hicks and
Cohagen that had a few funny skits. I wonder why there aren't more comedy
teams out there, especially pairs. That's a great format.
Bob Weigel
pretty good production of let's trade your salvation with the youth
group I ran with in Corvallis in the mid 80's. Had a guy riding
the asbestos water skis when the baptistry curtains opened up with
this red strobe going off below him. :-)
Some other friends and I did 777 Pearly gates too, which was quite
good I thought considering the contrast of really...poor art done
hovering around that general topic.
The Jerusalem Dragnet pieces are just works of genius I believe.
That type of comedy just didn't get any better. The interweaving
of powerful spiritual principles with the character interplay and
humorous things...particularly the jail scene where they are threatening
to get Paul for harboring a fugative for having Jesus in his heart...
and then the realization of the Gospel Frank has as he asks Paul
if he believes following Jesus has been worth all that he has been
put through. So many great constructs in those two pieces. -Bob
Bob Weigel
Michael A. Vickers <mavi...@kings-x.com> wrote:
>Thewebchyk [thewe...@aol.com] wrote:
>>"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote:
>
>>Who was the guy with the album entitled SLOW MEN WORKING? Steve or Scott
>>somebody, I can't think of his last name.
>
>Steve Geyer, I think.
Yup...that was probably in the early 80's? I remember one of my
kids enjoying that who I used to drive around with a lot. I
don't think I ever heard the routine except as described by
Derek who wasn't a half bad comedian in his own right so it
seemed funny at the time. -Bob
Michael A. Vickers
>Then there was a fellow called Paul Aldrich that had a release called
>_Throwing Stone_ with a cover that parodied _Rolling Stone_. There's a
>couple of good routines on there, and some not so good.
That goes a way back. I remember in junior high listening to somebody's copy
of _Cafeteria Food_ by him. He had a fairly funny routine about backwards
masking. He'd build up this conspiracy theory about it ala Jack Chick, and
then play "Stairway to Heaven" backwards only to hear a voice in the
background saying "Hey stupid! You're playing the tape the wrong way!"
Michael
Listen to me very closely - there is more heaven than hell. - KX
D_A_V_E_
can say about Jimmy Swaggart HE Wasn't man enough to step down.. And
while were talking about Mike. If he has asked for forgiveness then WE
as Christian should forgive him... Just like I Have forgiven Jimmy
Swaggart. like God has forgiven Him..
AND I really believe when Cornerstone broke that story THEY knew they
make LOTS of money on that story.. They are NO Better then Mike Warnke..
Brian Healy
Smoking crack today are we?
Mike didn't step down he fell down because he got caught and he didn't
stop, just shifted to a lower level with a new story blaming others for
pointing out his wrong doings and he clearly wouldn't have even done that
if the market for him had not dried up because of his lie's and scandal at
the time.
The big difference between Jimmy Swagger and Mike Warnke was Jimmy's
downfall was not based on his actual ministry and it's content being based
on a total lie and the perpetration of that lie, but his own personal
sexual sins.
Mike's lie's and deceptive ministry was the actual sin.
And so what if Mike's forgiven ? It's not relative to his credibility nor
does it remove the earthly consequences of his actions. As I said before
born again pedophiles are forgiven, you care to let them watch your kids at
the pool, he's saved right? Ah heck why not let him dry the kids off with a
towel he's forgiven what could happen.
I also like your attempt to smear the well respected christian people who
pointed out Mike's lie's as if, they by making an honest and accurate value
judgment based on facts, is a worse and greater sin with some profit motive
than the sins,
fabrications and lies of Mr. Warnke that they pointed out.
You truly think it's was a great money making move to expose Warnke in a
magazine the were giving away for free and in the process embarrass the
worlds largest christian music and publishing company as they did Word inc.
and it's former parent companies A.B.C. Capitol Cities Communications and
Thomas Nelson publishers for looking the other way for years?
And doing all this while still trying to operate a music and publishing
companies and several other ministries in the same industry those companies
dominated and at times controlled via GMA and CBA appointments still
knowing they have a controlling influence over the distribution of over 80%
of the all the products in the CBA market place.
Gosh on second thought they should have forgot the whole thing because
people were being saved weren't they?
So what if it was all based on a total deception and deliberate
manipulation of the truth.
I'm starting to believe some people will believe anything with a cross
attached.
Dwayne Conyers
========
"Awful tired now, boss. Dog tired."
http://www.dwacon.com
"Thewebchyk" <thewe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010723234950...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Bob Weigel
Please reconsider these words in light of a basic biblica
...biblical..excuse me... principle. Below you drop an inuendo
bomb about Cornerstone which I must confront publically in order
to negate the seed of gossip. There is no evidence that
Cornerstone had a financial motive in releasing this story. Love
hopes all things, believes all things...and therefore you are
not acting in love when you say these things.
Love would hope the best; that they were following Christ. From
all appearances, as I say (yes me, the ultimate cynic) Cstone acted
in exact accordance with Matthew 18 by first trying to confront him
privately, then when he refused to listen and even made threats, they
told the Body of Christ using the BEST medium they had available...the
body of Christ who consider themselves affiliated in Christ with Mike
Warnke. Darn effective job they did. Bravo is all I can say. A
great example to a pseudo church that I've seen fall flat on it's
face in this area (and actually try to justify that position) over
and over and over. Thank you lord for a good example now and then.
That's all I can say.
Also, the Swaggart case was quite different. The way he was
confronted did not follow the biblical protocol first off. Secondly,
he was a major teacher, and rather than try to gently restore the
man to the gifting he had, they ACTED like he was some kind of freak
who had been 100% deception based from the beginning. I disagree. I
believe we ALL struggle with things and just because someone does a
photo essay on it doesn't make us any more sinful than the next guy.
Jimmy fell into a rationalization. What he needed was direct
accountability in that area and to REMAIN in the teaching position
if he truly repented IN ORDER to show the world that:
1) God's forgiveness CAN restore...and
2) since our sins are as far as east is from west in God's eyes,
THOSE WHO IMMITATE GOD SHOULD ALSO SEE IT THIS WAY...
Therefore, if Jimmy was doing a good job according to reviews in
his teaching ministry WHILE HE WAS STILL DEALING WITH THIS SIN...
how much more effective should be be after he repents and submits
to accountability measures in this area.
God's way heals. Man's way destroys. The aog clearly follows
man's ways as do most abominations. :-)
MEANWHILE, Mike's ministry was so largely deception based that
I didn't really consider it a ministry, though as is common God
still worked through it as he did Babylon and many other things. :-)
What do we restore Mike to? Deceiving people? Maybe he needs to
just....get a job. I dunno. Learn to serve someone else instead of
deceiving them for a while. And when he's humble enough from that
experience maybe...just maybe he'll find that the apostate church
of today doesn't find him very funny at all any more. Who knows.
Then instead of telling his lies to thousands, he can just minister
in person to the few people the Lord is really going to lay something
on his heart for. Saves resources. I like it. Hiring those body
guards and renting convention centers and eating enough to feed an
army gets expensive after a while ya know.
I'm just joking around here. But I kind of wish Mike would
read this stuff and get real. I believe he has some great gifts
but, like I say, as long as he has this Bob Larsonesque self-
importance complex, he's not going to be used like he could be.
If he just dropped off all the employees who were rah rahing
him when it was a deception based wanna be ministry and start
over, I think that would be a good start. -Bob
PS...and what the heck are you talking about with this "man
enough to step down thing?? In the first place, the bible
doesn't tell anyone to step down when they sin. It tells
them to repent and let their sin be cleansed. Did David
step down as king when he sinned? No. He repented. Your
standard, my friend, is bogus, arbitrary and unbiblical. There
are times to step down and times to step up; knowing that now that
you've repented you can do the job nobody else is doing even MORE
effectively. If that's what Jimmy felt then bless his heart for
trying. I'm not his judge. The AoG is. :-) MEANWHILE...in
what way did Mike "step down"? ONLY after it was evident he'd
lost the battle did he even stop threatening to SUE!!! His
stepping down was quite involuntary, as the bookstores
yanked all his materials right after the scandal came out.
He had a chance to "step down"...as you put it. He did not.
He got knocked down.
In article <29453-3B5...@storefull-248.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Bob Weigel
Hehehe, well now I've seen everything! Healy and I making an almost
paralell logical rebuttal side by side. This IS a historic occasion
folks. BTW, in case I fell out of your killfile at some point, Elisha
said you didn't say hi, so ___ back at ya. :-) -Bob
PS...uhh...Dave, given that the two of us wrote the same thing in
response...save the crack cracks, I'd really give this some serious
thought. We're talking an event right up there with writing on
the wall here. :-)
Thewebchyk
>"Thewebchyk" <thewe...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010723234950...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>>
>> Who was the guy with the album entitled SLOW MEN WORKING? Steve or Scott
>> somebody, I can't think of his last name. I enjoyed his humor. Isaac Air
>> Freight was good, too.
>
>Steve Geyer. He hosted Atlanta Fest one year and then went on tour with 4Him
>and Point of Grace. I could not stand him. I think his record company was
>trying to push him as the replacement for Warnke, but I didn't think he was
>that funny. Every two minutes in his "routine," if it could be called that,
>he would break into a "gay accent" and priss around. Nobody laughed, at
>least, not where I was sitting. I think his recording had come out several
>years earlier, though, so maybe there was some funny stuff on that. I never
>heard it, and didn't want to hear it after seeing him on stage.
I never saw him in concert, at least not that I remember. I kinda remember his
CD being funny. I do know that there was a CD of one minute routines of his
that we used at a radio station where I worked, and I thought it was pretty
good. He told jokes about going to Kroger and things like that. Observational
humor.
>Then there was a fellow called Paul Aldrich that had a release called
>_Throwing Stone_ with a cover that parodied _Rolling Stone_. There's a
>couple of good routines on there, and some not so good.
I have this somewhere. I should dig it out and give it another listen.
>Of course, if you want to get pre-Warnke, and countrified, there's Grady
>Nutt, Jerry Clower, and Wendy Bagwell. I was huge fans of all three of those
>guys, and am saddened that all three are dead now. There are no comedians
>that simply tell funny stories now, not the way these guys could do it. It's
>all one liners now.
I used to love it when Grady Nutt was on HeeHaw. He was funny! I also remember
when Archie Campbell would tell his "Rindercella" story. Good stuff!
>Speaking of Isaac Air Freight, there was another team called Hicks and
>Cohagen that had a few funny skits. I wonder why there aren't more comedy
>teams out there, especially pairs. That's a great format.
Hicks and Cohagen sounds familiar to me but I can't place where I recognize the
names. Did you know if they're the ones who did "I Lobster and Never Flounder?"
Peace,
Rose
David Bruce Murray
> Hicks and Cohagen sounds familiar to me but I can't place where I
recognize the
> names. Did you know if they're the ones who did "I Lobster and Never
Flounder?"
Could be. I only have one of their recordings, but I don't recall anything
like that. They do several "Flock Talk" routines with "Pastor Fendershot,"
where he interviews some outrageous character. My favorite, though, is where
they play two old men trying to one up each other about how much they've
done for the church. One keeps saying "by mySELF." It gets to a point where
one of them has hand paved the entire parking lot and the other built an
entire new wing on the building with no nails because the "church board
wouldn't spring for nails."
Spin One80
>From: b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel)
>Date: 7/24/01 8:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9jlg72$i...@garcia.efn.org>
>
Bob says:
MEANWHILE, Mike's ministry was so largely deception based that
I didn't really consider it a ministry, though as is common God
still worked through it as he did Babylon and many other things. :-)
What do we restore Mike to? Deceiving people? Maybe he needs to
just....get a job. I dunno.>>>
Bob,Bob,Bob......just as I thought you were actually coming back to reality.
lol Just kiddin!!
Seriously, I think Amy Grant has done FAR more damage to the credibility of
the"religious"community than an expose of Warnke could ever do. She is in a
position of FAR more influence than Warnke could ever dream of, and has
deceived in the same manner. How so? Easy, here music for the most part was
based in biblical principles of faith, purity, and commitment......all which
were compromised with her affair and eventual marriage with umm....forget his
name now, sorry.
I can feel the flamers comin on now, lol My real contention is something that
has always bothered me, but I have kept my mouth shut about it til now.I'm not
sure I'm going to be able to articulate exactly what it is that even bothers
me, but I'll give it a shot.
It does seem to me that ever since Cornerstone zine did the expose on Warnke,
they seemed to be on a crusade of investigative journalism on other prominent
figures that had anything to do with satanic themes (ie...Larson and
Michaelsen). In the case of Michaelsen and Warnke, they did indeed find
historical data that did contradict their "testimonies". But it didn't get
close to Larson, as all they engaged in was a personal assult in his
case.....his ministry and integrity is still quite intact...no thanks to
Cornerstone's lame attempt at resting on the laurels of supposed past
"victories" at the expense of Larson's credibility, and the truth of demonic
activity.This is evidenced by the fact that when anyone mentions Cornerstone
zine, you immediately get responses that goes like "Oh yeah....they did that
Warnke article right?".....no one ever mentions the Larson piece, let alone
recognizes who he is!!!!
The parts I have a problem with are spelled out in the above for the most
part.......the seeming unsurmountable smugness that Cornerstone (when I say
"Cornerstone", I can't single out anyone specifically...this includes those who
would defend their actions, oblivious to the underlying motives of pride)
carries proudly in the fact that they "brought Warnke down" single-handedly by
THEIR homework. That's nice....but hardly a Christ-like attitude for folks who
seem to go "by the book" in a sense.
This seemingly targeting ministries that deal with demonic and satanic
realities does make one wonder where they stand on the doctrines of demonic
activity, or even if they believe it is a reality at all? Am I saying that
Warnke or Michaelsen are pure as the wind driven snow? Nope. But to target and
document those who have been found fraudulant in such endeavors WITHOUT
REINFORCING the realities of demonic activity only serves to discredit and cast
doubt and dispersions.Not good journalism for the Body of Christ if you ask me.
I have subscribed to Cornerstone for the past 5 or more years and have yet to
see any doctrinal position on the above...I might have missed it though.
I must admit to being baffled by a magazine that can carry such great artcles
as the series on homosexuality("The Bible And Sexuality") by Linda
Belleville"on one end of the spectrum, then turn around and question our
economic sanctions with Iraq in the name of humanitarianism (Who Are We
Punishing In Iraq), or reprint an article that is only designed to evoke
sympathy for the Palestinians in their unholy war against Israel, not to
mention propagate the tired stereotypes that surround the struggle (sorry
,don't have article in front of me, but is in latest issue I think).Well, this
is getting quite lengthy......that's a load off my chest. Ok, start the
flaming, lol
Jeff
www.nickalexander.com
> Ok, start the flaming, lol
Okay, I'll jump in. In short, you wrote:
1) What Mike Warnke did was okay in comparison to what Amy Grant did.
2) The Cornerstone Staff is hung up on Satanism authority figures (Bob
Larson, et al), and thus discrediting Satanism ministries in general,
to the level of misunderstanding the need for such ministries, for
these are real.
3) The C-staff feels prideful for their hard work on Warnke, and pride
is a sin.
One-by-one.
1) The Amy Grant vs. Mike Warnke. I seriously doubt in today's
cultural climate that anybody is going to look at Amy Grant's divorce
and recoil in horror, the same manner that was done say, even twenty
years ago. It is the minority to have both parents together. This
doesn't make it right, but we also do not know the seeds of the
divorce--perhaps Gary Chapman beat her--we just won't know, nor should
we. That said, being that divorce is very commonplace does not
diminish her credibility in the least--she's a trivia question for
crying out loud!
True, more people know Amy Grant than Mike Warnke--but Warnke was no
slouch. He was brought on 20/20 and many talk shows in his heyday.
And his book is still talked about by people out of the loop.
2) I've subscribed to Cornerstone for fourteen years. I don't expect
Cornerstone to be anything else than they are... combining the
talents of artists, apologists, musicians, activists and social
workers, living in a community where everything is common, in
Chicago's inner-city. The lure of Satanism? How about the lure of
drugs, teenage prostitution, abortions, homelessness,
prison-sentences, and easily accessible guns? While Larson and his
cronies are creating elaborate stories that puff up the follies of
suburban teenage angst, Satan has entire communities in his grip. A
better question is, why doesn't Larson talk about the real, day-to-day
issues that effect communities NOW? The answer is obvious... it's the
ratings, stupid.
There are better ministries that deal with false religions. CRI, for
example. But there's a difference between seeing a need and trying to
resolve it (C-stone), and seeing only those needs that rile the most
feathers, and hitting only those needs time and again (Larson). Oh
yeah, Larson's being an anti-rock crusader kinda helps too (was this
what you were getting at, without getting there?).
3) Pride. Bad thing. Everyone is prone to get it, especially if they
write a piece as detailed as Warnke's, or write a best selling book
extrapolating a neglected verse in Chronicles, or host a radio show
that tears down the supposed Satanic/Wiccan/New Age gurus that are
STEALING OUR KIDS!!
Nobody is happy about Mike Warnke's downfall. Take the bitter pill.
Move on.
Peace,
Bob Weigel
Spin One80 <spin...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Regarding Mike Warnke and fraud claims
>>From: b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel)
>>Date: 7/24/01 8:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <9jlg72$i...@garcia.efn.org>
>>
>lol Just kiddin!!
> Seriously, I think Amy Grant has done FAR more damage to the credibility of
>the"religious"community than an expose of Warnke could ever do. She is in a
Yes I think we agree there also. In fact, the woman I was led to marry
looked at Amy as a huge role model when she was growing up. When Amy
began to do fringe things, it led to a rationalization that "Maybe
Madonna is ok too" and from there a totally warped view developed
concerning relationships, and she married a manipulative guy instead
of her friend. I saw the destructive effects in many other people's
lives as well, but that one hurt....real bad. As Mr. Fisher said,
we don't sin alone.
>position of FAR more influence than Warnke could ever dream of, and has
>deceived in the same manner. How so? Easy, here music for the most part was
>based in biblical principles of faith, purity, and commitment......all which
>were compromised with her affair and eventual marriage with umm....forget his
>name now, sorry.
> I can feel the flamers comin on now, lol My real contention is something that
>has always bothered me, but I have kept my mouth shut about it til now.I'm not
>sure I'm going to be able to articulate exactly what it is that even bothers
>me, but I'll give it a shot.
That would make this a doubly unique weak for this Jesus Freak.... agreeing
with Brian AND getting flamed alongside you instead of BY you. :-)
> It does seem to me that ever since Cornerstone zine did the expose on Warnke,
>they seemed to be on a crusade of investigative journalism on other prominent
>figures that had anything to do with satanic themes (ie...Larson and
>Michaelsen). In the case of Michaelsen and Warnke, they did indeed find
>historical data that did contradict their "testimonies". But it didn't get
>close to Larson, as all they engaged in was a personal assult in his
>case.....his ministry and integrity is still quite intact...no thanks to
>Cornerstone's lame attempt at resting on the laurels of supposed past
>"victories" at the expense of Larson's credibility, and the truth of demonic
>activity.This is evidenced by the fact that when anyone mentions Cornerstone
>zine, you immediately get responses that goes like "Oh yeah....they did that
>Warnke article right?".....no one ever mentions the Larson piece, let alone
>recognizes who he is!!!!
That's informative..I never really followed the news on that stuff. I lost
interest in Larson totally when he started letting those stupid ads that
went "Help bob do what only bob can do" and all that bullshit. When
someone gets that much self-importance...sorry. I stop listening.
If you want an expose on Larson, here it is. He markets himself AND
his wares to a generation of lukewarm xtians that don't want to be
involved....which is the ONLY reason he could get away with making
absurd ads like the one I quoted from above. This is not a ministry.
CHALLENGING those people to do something BESIDES sending their
money to him....now that would have been a ministry. Sorry Bobberu.
Ya missed yer chance 'ol buddy 'ol pal. That's why he became more
and more defensive with callers, etc. This whole self-importance
thing went to his head and he started treating people like crap.
I totally lost interest in the show at that time since, like Warnke's
"ministry" it became a self-perpetuating, unaddressable machine.
> The parts I have a problem with are spelled out in the above for the most
>part.......the seeming unsurmountable smugness that Cornerstone (when I say
>"Cornerstone", I can't single out anyone specifically...this includes those who
>would defend their actions, oblivious to the underlying motives of pride)
>carries proudly in the fact that they "brought Warnke down" single-handedly by
>THEIR homework. That's nice....but hardly a Christ-like attitude for folks who
>seem to go "by the book" in a sense.
I don't know how they handled it. I just know they appeared to follow
a biblical protocol in getting there, which was a paramount achievment
for so called "christian press". :-)
> This seemingly targeting ministries that deal with demonic and satanic
>realities does make one wonder where they stand on the doctrines of demonic
>activity, or even if they believe it is a reality at all? Am I saying that
>Warnke or Michaelsen are pure as the wind driven snow? Nope. But to target and
>document those who have been found fraudulant in such endeavors WITHOUT
>REINFORCING the realities of demonic activity only serves to discredit and cast
>doubt and dispersions.Not good journalism for the Body of Christ if you ask me.
Sounds like you probably have a point there that they would do well to
take heed re:. -Bob
Bob Weigel
www.nickalexander.com <nickal...@e3mil.com> wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>> Ok, start the flaming, lol
>
>Okay, I'll jump in. In short, you wrote:
>1) What Mike Warnke did was okay in comparison to what Amy Grant did.
That isn't what he said at all. Just because Amy did way more to
discredit Christianity doesn't mean the word "OK" comes into play
whatsoever. Both did bad things. Real bad things.
>2) The Cornerstone Staff is hung up on Satanism authority figures (Bob
>Larson, et al), and thus discrediting Satanism ministries in general,
>to the level of misunderstanding the need for such ministries, for
>these are real.
>3) The C-staff feels prideful for their hard work on Warnke, and pride
>is a sin.
>
>One-by-one.
>1) The Amy Grant vs. Mike Warnke. I seriously doubt in today's
>cultural climate that anybody is going to look at Amy Grant's divorce
>and recoil in horror, the same manner that was done say, even twenty
However, as we look at the impact on people's lives who looked at
her as a role model, we will see a lot of similar fruits. Perhaps
she played a HUGE part in eliminating the horror recoil. :-) Maybe
she made stomping on your vows a lot more glamorous to the whole
"christian community".
>years ago. It is the minority to have both parents together. This
>doesn't make it right, but we also do not know the seeds of the
>divorce--perhaps Gary Chapman beat her--we just won't know, nor should
Perhaps it's sin to offer idle speculation about the possible sins
of others?....ahem... Gary had a drug problem. This we know. In
any case, there was a LOT of bandwidth that could have been exercised
by Amy before divorcing him. She could have taken a stand before the
WHOLE CHURCH given her media profile....and said "Look, my marriage
is in trouble here. I need people to pray. I need to see my husband
receive the help he needs to overcome these addictions. I need someone
to hold me accountable so I don't get involved in any more sleazy
videos, or get involved in hanky panky with vincy wincy". Mr. Gill
will surely show up on my doorstep to avenge the reputation of
his bride. Hehehehe....and the spanking ceremony shall commence.
When you do what he did, you have no authority. How sad it would
be to be married to someone that you can't even stand up for the
reputation of.
Anyway, the point made, hopefully. Amy might have tried to get
something going with some of the "close personal friends" but I dont'
know. All I know is, she had access to a lot more friends and she
didn't seek help from them in any way. As a result, her life has
moved another level of confusion.
That's what people need to understand. God is very distant
because we push him there. We make our own command decisions and
give him token recognition. When he is so far from our lives that
we are able to take the most important committment of our life and
behind closed doors sever it and immediately marry someone else,
how does God get close again?? I would say you'd have to say
something like "I repent of standing there in a wedding dress and
smiling as if I was some kind of spotless bride before a people
who I left believing that I'd just left the husband I'd previously
made a forever commitment to!! No kids, don't try this at home!!
I screwed up! It meant nothing!! I should have been wearing pig
outfit!" :-) or something like that.
The bible says "avoid the appearance of evil". How can Amy
follow that command when she has intentionally left the appearance
of evil for every man woman boy and girl except maybe the few who
were behind those closed doors who fail to see that this is what
she's done?? Hmmm. No, I'd say there is no rationalizing the
whole thing. She needs to use the media resources she has to
lead people to understanding IF she truly has repented at some
point for the mess. I pray she does. But how am I to know when
those she influenced continue to believe that it's ok to make
commitments and sever them and appear there once again in the
white gown... yak. -Bob
Breezy
> Seriously, I think Amy Grant has done FAR more damage to the
credibility of
> the"religious"community than an expose of Warnke could ever do.
The christian community's reaction to Amy has done far worse to damage than
Amy and Warnke's actions put together.
Amy's done what she's done... and the non-christian community has moved on -
a long time ago. Christians don't forget though, and like to twist the
dagger deeper and deeper.
Breezy
> Seriously, I think Amy Grant has done FAR more damage to the
credibility of
> the"religious"community than an expose of Warnke could ever do.
The christian community's reaction to Amy has done far worse damage to the
credibility of the christian community than Amy and Warnke's past actions
put together.
Amy's done what she's done... and the non-christian community has moved on -
a long time ago. Christians don't forget though, and like to twist the
dagger deeper and deeper. This is what the general public views when it
sees "christianity."
Breezy
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Spin One80" wrote:
>> Seriously, I think Amy Grant has done FAR more damage to the
>credibility of
>> the"religious"community than an expose of Warnke could ever do.
>
>The christian community's reaction to Amy has done far worse damage to the
>credibility of the christian community than Amy and Warnke's past actions
>put together.
That's definitely an unsubstantiated opinion. I gave specific observations
in people's lives I was quite involved with as their youth pastor (I drove
these kids everywhere and talked to them about everything. I was more
like a missionary implant rather than being the kind of youth pastor who
sets up the corral where the "sheep" can come and visit to have fun and
games once a week. ) Believe me, Amy's actions affected a lot of people.
So far, I'm yet to meet ANYONE who has rejected the gospel on the
basis of the "Christian communities reaction to Amy's actions"...in FACT,
I doubt more than a scant few are even AWARE of the xtian communities
reaction. ;-) I think you are dealing with a pet issue here. Do you
have anything you'd like to list you base these observations on? LITERALLY
MILLIONS OF KIDS LOOKED AT AMY AS A POWERFUL ROLE MODEL. I doubt more than
a few hundred thousand are even aware of actions of the xitian community
(biblical OR unbiblical...I might add) in response to Amy and most of
those were probably already completely hardened to the gospel and
fishing for an excuse....but in any case it doesn't even come CLOSE to
the impact Amy has had by disregarding her commitments.
>
>Amy's done what she's done... and the non-christian community has moved on -
>a long time ago. Christians don't forget though, and like to twist the
Or never camped there in the first place...
>dagger deeper and deeper. This is what the general public views when it
>sees "christianity."
True Christians forget when people repent because that is in keeping
with God's character (Ephesians 5:1 calls us to immitate it). But
God also is unable to forget perpetual sin that isn't turned away
from. I listed the logical conditions. Amy can do what's right any
time she feels like it. She's made no effort whatsoever to clarify
the lousy example she set. Sorry...that just comes across as a person
who doesn't care about the people who put stock in her alleged attempt
to make a positive difference in people's lives.
I CARE ENOUGH TO TELL PEOPLE....don't follow Amy's example. See
the seeds of it in your own heart and turn away from it. I want like
anything to see Amy truly repent of this whole mess. I care about
Amy. Do you? Is shutting up and just acting like it's all ok the
best solution? Because that's what Amy has done. In doing so, she's
set an example that she believes her actions are justified, and in
leu of what she has an opportunity to say, we are left to believe she
advocates such actions. Perhaps some day Amy will learn to care for
their hearts....again. As well as her own. -Bob
icebones
be dissapointed when they fall. I fall, we all fall, and i'm sure none of
us would like have it all in the public eye. We should focus on Jesus as
our role model and accept the fact that Christian, even leaders can and do
fall, after all"All have sined an fallen short of the glory of God". The
Bible also says"turn your eye's upon Jesus" not Amy, or Mike, or Jimmy, etc.
When we lift up Christ and not other Chistian, we won't have to worry about
one falling and ruining it for us.
"Bob Weigel" <b...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:9jt1r6$o...@garcia.efn.org...
Miles O'Neal
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. The issues are (a)
trust and (b) ministry. Forgiving someone doesn't mean you
automatically trust them again (they have to earn the trust)
and it also doesn't mean they should be back in the alleged
ministry they were in (even if it was legit). Maybe they
should, but maybe they shouldn't. For their sakes as well
as other folks.
-Miles
Miles O'Neal
> I'm starting to believe some people will believe anything with a cross
> attached.
You're just now statring to believe that???
Have you been smoking crack or what?
8^P
Miles O'Neal
>
> hmm. maybe we should get focused on different people as role models we won't
> be dissapointed when they fall. I fall, we all fall, and i'm sure none of
> us would like have it all in the public eye. We should focus on Jesus as
> our role model and accept the fact that Christian, even leaders can and do
> fall, after all"All have sined an fallen short of the glory of God". The
> Bible also says"turn your eye's upon Jesus" not Amy, or Mike, or Jimmy, etc.
> When we lift up Christ and not other Chistian, we won't have to worry about
> one falling and ruining it for us.
True, but... a bit simplistic.
1) "Follow me as I follow Christ" - you know who said that?
The apostle Paul.
2) Not everyone can see Jesus real clearly. Hence it helps
to have role models, heroes of teh faith, etc. One of
the probblems is that we go too far and set folks on pedastels.
I have to constantly remind people (esp. teenagers) to look
to these people as role models *only* in as much as they
follow Jesus. That's not easy for a lot of folks.
-Miles
Brian Healy
effect on any ones faith?
Unless of course it's not faith we're talking about but a false view of
Christians in general.
BTW There is no valid comparison between Amy Grant and Mike Warnke as Mike's whole
claim to ministry was based on a decade of sin and lies of his own life that he
based his credibility and fundraising on and called himself a ministry. Amy Grant
wasn't a ministry but an entertainer who sings, writes and performs songs that
could minister and to most people who are her fans still does.
Amy got divorce from Gary, not Christianity and to my knowledge she has never
based her career on anything but
her ability to perform and record music.
Don't confuse personal problems in private lives with deliberate and premeditated
sins against "the church" itself.
Jay
I fall, you fall, WE fall. Maybe we can get together and be a falling team.
Jay
In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertantly allowed myself to
assume the form of a large centipede.
Brian Healy
I'm just trying to be more optimistic in my old age.
You know is the chuch half empty or half full...8)
Breezy
> 1) "Follow me as I follow Christ" - you know who said that?
> The apostle Paul.
Not the apostle Amy.
> 2) Not everyone can see Jesus real clearly. Hence it helps
> to have role models, heroes of teh faith, etc. One of
> the probblems is that we go too far and set folks on pedastels.
> I have to constantly remind people (esp. teenagers) to look
> to these people as role models *only* in as much as they
> follow Jesus. That's not easy for a lot of folks.
Since folks like dirt more than they like anything else.
Breezy
> >The christian community's reaction to Amy has done far worse damage to
the
> >credibility of the christian community than Amy and Warnke's past actions
> >put together.
> That's definitely an unsubstantiated opinion. I gave specific
observations
> in people's lives I was quite involved with as their youth pastor (I drove
> these kids everywhere and talked to them about everything. I was more
> like a missionary implant rather than being the kind of youth pastor who
> sets up the corral where the "sheep" can come and visit to have fun and
> games once a week. ) Believe me, Amy's actions affected a lot of people.
That is very true. But it's far from my point. When I talk about the
credibility of the christian community, I'm not talking about a certain
*number* of people being affected by Amy or Mike compared with a certain
number of people being affected by the christian community's reaction to any
of it. (But if you want to go that route, I'm sure we'll all agree that to
do the christian thing is to *completely forget* the number of lives that
have been affected *positively* in the years of their careers. Not only are
we to lawfully inspect each and every evil fruit of others, but we're to
deny and forget and never discuss any good fruit that actually came from
these rotten sinners. You know the gospel, the good news: Christ died for
the ungodly, but if they're *actually* ungodly in any way then unfortunately
they're condemned to a life of condemnation by "good" christians).
What I'm actually talking about is the degree of credibility that any
*individual* non-christian may see in the christian community when he or she
sees us eating our own. Like you, Bob, I don't sit and wait for the masses
to come to my church like "sheep." I have tons of non-christian friends.
What incentive would I be giving them to come to Christ if I talked about
Amy Grant the way she's been talked about publicly here? In essence, I'd be
saying to them that I've received great mercy from the Lord, but it doesn't
stretch to a modern-day entertainer. In fact, I had a non-christian friend
who was using my computer several months ago, and came upon my
"subscription" to R.M.C. in Outlook Express. He read through the
discussions on Amy that were going on at the time (he's somewhat of a fan),
and commented about how you never hear this kind of talk in the media. I
mentioned something about christians liking to eat their own and how I'm not
a big fan of the christian subculture here in the states, and how they treat
each other. I've given him enough 'christian eductation' for him to make a
very striking comment: "If they say they've received so much mercy from
God, then why don't they show it to others."
Note, I'm not commenting on the ministry aspects of Amy nor Mike. My
comments have to do with the judgment, condemnation, anger and lack of mercy
that I've seen coming from the christian community towards them and other
high profile people. From what I've heard, it seems that people close to
Amy have treated her as Jesus would, and the christian community at large
has treated her in the manner of stone-throwers.
James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Mercy is needed, not judgment.
Bob Weigel
>hmm. maybe we should get focused on different people as role models we won't
Obviously we shouldn't focus on people at all. God's goal for us is
that we pray without ceasing and focus entirely on him all the time,
however few attain something close to this and the scriptures are full
of words spoken as warnings against false shepherds, etc. So to
knock this into perspective for you, that's what's happening here.
I pray that through the bad examples people will learn that these
things are true, but I also pray the bad examples will repent so
that they can come into fellowship with the body. If I FALL AND
AM A BAD EXAMPLE, I pray I'll be restored, at which time I'll let
everyone know what happened and why and there WILL be resolution
instead of everyone just wondering "what was that all about"?
Anyway, all the below mentioned people allowed themselves to
be promoted as role models in various ways, so that's what's up.
Some will argue that Amy didn't want to be a role model. I'll argue
that the evidence of that seemed to go hand in hand with her
dissatisfaction with marriage one. Just the lyrics of the songs she
was presenting tell a tale that documents this fact. So I address
her for the sake of those who had adopted her as a role model. This
seems normal like I say in a biblical perspective.
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I wrote:
>> >The christian community's reaction to Amy has done far worse damage to
>the
>
>That is very true. But it's far from my point. When I talk about the
>credibility of the christian community, I'm not talking about a certain
>*number* of people being affected by Amy or Mike compared with a certain
>number of people being affected by the christian community's reaction to any
>of it. (But if you want to go that route, I'm sure we'll all agree that to
>do the christian thing is to *completely forget* the number of lives that
>have been affected *positively* in the years of their careers. Not only are
>we to lawfully inspect each and every evil fruit of others, but we're to
>deny and forget and never discuss any good fruit that actually came from
>these rotten sinners. You know the gospel, the good news: Christ died for
>the ungodly, but if they're *actually* ungodly in any way then unfortunately
>they're condemned to a life of condemnation by "good" christians).
>
>What I'm actually talking about is the degree of credibility that any
>*individual* non-christian may see in the christian community when he or she
>sees us eating our own. Like you, Bob, I don't sit and wait for the masses
But that's my whole point. "eating our own" isn't what's going on here
to any extent. That's totally warped. In the first place, Amy was
handed a position in her immaturity because she was a pretty young gal
with a decent voice and the right kind of presentation to hook a bunch
of people into being very interested in her. The PART of the community
that might have pulled her material or whatever is the part of the community
that handed her that position in the first place, so that's all irrelevant.
Vaporware. The rest of the community that still sees they can make
money off her doesn't pull her material like they did Mike because
nobody has done an expose that would make them look absurd if they
didn't. We are talking a wishy washy element here. These people have
no standards and aren't acting consistent at all, so we can assume
they will do whatever benefits financially and aren't representative
of Christ.
Now, people like me don't really go "sitting" in the first place
waiting for the masses or anyone else to do anything. WHAT KIND OF
SILLY ASESSMENT IS THIS? Where was I last night? Visiting a guy
who is about to come to Christ who has been into satanic spiritual
stuff all his life (was a psychic locating pi for the orange co. pd
in the 70's for instance). I don't know where YOU get your information
to prejudge people by but it's a cracked source. :-) I spend the WAY
larger part of my free time reaching out to lost people. You are
sooooo lost here. :-)
>to come to my church like "sheep." I have tons of non-christian friends.
Yeah, me too... your point? What on EARTH got you onto this rant?
>What incentive would I be giving them to come to Christ if I talked about
>Amy Grant the way she's been talked about publicly here? In essence, I'd be
If they didn't know Amy Grant, why would I talk about her at all?? I
don't get your hypothetical point. I think you are stretching for
something that isn't there. Why don't you start over with whatever
point you are trying to make and omit the ignorant presumption you
began it with. I gotta go play a birthday party. Hooray. -Bob
Breezy
> But that's my whole point. "eating our own" isn't what's going on here
> to any extent. That's totally warped. In the first place, Amy was
> handed a position in her immaturity because she was a pretty young gal
> with a decent voice and the right kind of presentation to hook a bunch
> of people into being very interested in her. The PART of the community
> that might have pulled her material or whatever is the part of the
community
> that handed her that position in the first place, so that's all
irrelevant.
> Vaporware. The rest of the community that still sees they can make
> money off her doesn't pull her material like they did Mike because
> nobody has done an expose that would make them look absurd if they
> didn't. We are talking a wishy washy element here. These people have
> no standards and aren't acting consistent at all, so we can assume
> they will do whatever benefits financially and aren't representative
> of Christ.
Who said *anything* about those who benefit financially from Amy Grant. I'm
talking about people like those who post judgmental, scornful messages about
her in r.m.c.... those who don't even know her. It's as if people have this
imaginary or fantasized view of themselves as having "run up a very
favourable credit-balance in (God's) ledger" (C.S. Lewis in the Screwtape
Letters, Letter II), which makes them think that Amy's sin is so utterly
sinful and unatoneable, and that they themselves are more than OK. A year
or two ago I posted a message in r.m.c. with a hundred-or-so blank lines for
people to fill in their own sins. I figured that since Amy was a public
figure and they felt the right to parade her sins around, then if they
wanted their own views to be public (making them public figures themselves),
they could list their own sins for people to talk about and condemn. Didn't
get a bite on that one. Bob, you've said in the past that you feel led to
shed God's light here. If you really want the credibility and the access to
public ministry such as that, then I guess it's only right that we do an
expose on your life and ask that you publicly confess your sins (one by one,
by name) and publicly repent of each one.
But how do we get you to confess your hidden, secret sins? We can't. Too
bad for Amy, I guess, that her sin was just more obvious than yours. I
mean, Amy *could have* kept up the public image of being married to Gary
Chapman. They could do photo shoots and act like they were still married.
Only those on the inside would know the real story. But... that would be
too deceptive (and hard to do). Hiding their sins and all. But yet all I
see you talking about in r.m.c., Bob, is the *good* things you do. You
mention them specifically, and often. Yet I've never heard you publicly
confess or repent of any sin. I guess the credibility of christianity is
safe, though, as long as people don't know the things you do in the dark.
> Now, people like me don't really go "sitting" in the first place
> waiting for the masses or anyone else to do anything. WHAT KIND OF
> SILLY ASESSMENT IS THIS?
<snip several sentences that accuse me of accusing you of things I never
accused you of>
If you'll kindly re-read what I wrote, I said, "Like you, Bob, I don't sit
and wait for the masses to come to my church like "sheep."" But I know it's
not like you to actually take time and read what people actually write. ;)
> If they didn't know Amy Grant, why would I talk about her at all?? I
> don't get your hypothetical point. I think you are stretching for
> something that isn't there. Why don't you start over with whatever
> point you are trying to make and omit the ignorant presumption you
> began it with.
I'm not making an ignorant presumption. In the post you replied to I gave
an actual account of an actual conversation and I didn't stretch an ounce of
it. I also mentioned the fact that I've seen a lot of people sticking in
the dagger and twisting it around and piling all kinds of condemnation and
judgment on Amy. The record is there in r.m.c. for all to see.
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob Weigel" wrote:
>
>
>Who said *anything* about those who benefit financially from Amy Grant. I'm
Just trying to cover all the bases since you haven't been real
specific...and
>talking about people like those who post judgmental, scornful messages about
>her in r.m.c.... those who don't even know her. It's as if people have this
I still don't see this as very specific. I could venture a guess that
you are talking about people who post in response to inquiries or
comments that logically call for an enlightening response. The bible
says that if someone is living in sin they should be confronted and if
they don't respond have it established by witnesses and then tell the
church. That's all anyone is doing here. Amy isn't available for
comment. Sorry. She made PLENTY of comments to people that she
now has no mechanism to receive comments from via the media sources
she is able to tap whenever she pleases. As I discussed, she has
fulfilled the terms of that scripture quite nicely. She left her
husband without using those sources to "avoid the appearance of evil"
and hence is in direct conflict with scriptural instructions. The
witnesses are all of us. I just clarify it whenever anyone has
question because that's what Matthew 18 specifically commands me to
do. I believe it's the best vehicle to bring Amy to repentence
in spite of what you might think. I think God's word is higher
than your opinion on the matter.
>imaginary or fantasized view of themselves as having "run up a very
>favourable credit-balance in (God's) ledger" (C.S. Lewis in the Screwtape
I don't know what you are talking about. Who said anything about
that?
>Letters, Letter II), which makes them think that Amy's sin is so utterly
>sinful and unatoneable, and that they themselves are more than OK. A year
It's perfectly atoneable. But to my knowlege she's living as though she
isn't sorry for her sin. Is there some article I should read? Enlighten
me.
>or two ago I posted a message in r.m.c. with a hundred-or-so blank lines for
>people to fill in their own sins. I figured that since Amy was a public
If I become aware of a sin, I need to repent of it. If I don't, I
remain in sin and my relationship with God is bogus. Isaiah 1 says
"wash your hands/THEN I will hear your prayer". Why should God listen
to us when we aren't even praying to HIM but an idol that we've
fashioned in our own image? In other words your 100 lines were
wasted. I would never ask anyone to list their sins. I'd rather
call them to repent of any sin I was MADE AWARE OF....as I'm
instructed in God's word. I've never been instructed to go around
telling people to list their sins. RATHER love "belives all things,
hopes all things"...and until someone starts spouting apostate
doctrine or swinging I assume the best; that they have no sin that
needs adressing. I look at them as Christ sees them...or that's what
I try to do. Otherwise I'm shootin' at the 'ol pile and I'm gonna
hit it...right?
>figure and they felt the right to parade her sins around, then if they
She paraded her sins around...I think even "Parade" paraded her sins
around including a bunch of other mags she allowed to do publicity
on it. :-)
>wanted their own views to be public (making them public figures themselves),
>they could list their own sins for people to talk about and condemn. Didn't
>get a bite on that one. Bob, you've said in the past that you feel led to
Maybe that's because it was silly for reasons listed above.
>shed God's light here. If you really want the credibility and the access to
>public ministry such as that, then I guess it's only right that we do an
>expose on your life and ask that you publicly confess your sins (one by one,
Absolutely. If you are aware of a specific sin, PLEASE follow Matthew 18
and let me know about it. Amy's sin was already in every publication I
can think of before I ever knew to confront it, like I said. So we have
quite a different scenario here. I GLADLY share things I struggle with
so people can pray for me that I'll be strong in those areas:
* getting focused on work and other things and leaving the communion
with Christ for periods of time until I find myself frustrated and
realizing that I'm basically getting aggrivated with inantimate
objects and stuff.
* feeling like the whole world is leaving me in the dust in the
whole marriage family area, until I talk to them and realize that
there's a whole range of rich experiences the Lord's brought
me through that I would have missed had I just compromised (which
is what it would have taken to get married...a compromise of the
standards the Lord set for me). Yet just believing that he is
sufficient and not getting lured into thinking about the possibility
of establishing some kind of relationship with one of the lovely
ladies around here is always an ongoing challenge.
The difference Breezy is I don't try to JUSTIFY things I
struggle with. Because of that I'm being sanctified the scripture
tells me. And...what do you know! I don't go around falling into
extreme sins that affect other people. I'm a really smart guy,
and a really strong guy. If it weren't for the holy spirit's
work in my life I'd probably be some idiot that goes around
raping women or something since I have absolutely nothing to
fulfill that area of my life. However by FIRST just realizing that
even my lustful thoughts are sin and I need to repent and seek
the Lord when I'm tempted, I remain a 41 year old who hasn't had
any kind of intimate contact with anyone.
I don't understand people who claim to be Christians but seem
to have no conviction whatsoever to curb them from doing absurd
things like the ones discussed about the public record of these people.
I can only believe as the bible says; treat them as heathen.
>by name) and publicly repent of each one.
>
>But how do we get you to confess your hidden, secret sins? We can't. Too
>bad for Amy, I guess, that her sin was just more obvious than yours. I
Or too good. Maybe as a result of people following what the bible says
to do in THOSE cases she'll actually repent. I'm tired and this
is going nowhere if we don't even agree on the basic spiritual
principles involved. You seem hung up on this politically correct
bs that says "if you say anything about someone else you are a hypocrit"
or something. The bible says specifically to in certain cases. This
is one of them. I have to believe it over you. Good night. -Bob
Breezy
<snip>
He he he
You talk about *me* and a hundred wasted lines!
You're on a different wavelength than me, dude. But it's not new news.
But I've never hoped for you to come to see my views anyway. As I write
articles and make progress towards writing a book, you give me lots of good
material to refute. A whole mindset to write against. Thanks!
Breezy
Thewebchyk
re: Hicks and Cohagen:
>Could be. I only have one of their recordings, but I don't recall anything
>like that. They do several "Flock Talk" routines with "Pastor Fendershot,"
>where he interviews some outrageous character. My favorite, though, is where
>they play two old men trying to one up each other about how much they've
>done for the church. One keeps saying "by mySELF." It gets to a point where
>one of them has hand paved the entire parking lot and the other built an
>entire new wing on the building with no nails because the "church board
>wouldn't spring for nails."
Is the name of the album FLOCK TALK? I think I'd like to hear some of this. =)
Peace,
Rose
David Bruce Murray
No. It's _Help Wanted_. I'm not sure why they called it that.
Spin One80
>Date: 7/27/01 6:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b621...@newsa.ev1.net>
>
>hmm. maybe we should get focused on different people as role models we won't
>be dissapointed when they fall. I fall, we all fall, and i'm sure none of
>us would like have it all in the public eye. We should focus on Jesus as
>our role model and accept the fact that Christian, even leaders can and do
>fall, after all"All have sined an fallen short of the glory of God".
Yeah, easy to say on a newsgroup. My only point with bringing Amy up was to
point out the fascination John Trott and Cornerstone zine seems to have on
those involved in ministries that deal with demonization, and ignore the bigger
responsibilities and influences out there. Do I believe Cornerstone zine HAS a
responsibility in exploiting the sins of Amy? No, I was only using her as an
indicator of the nature of C-Stone's depth of investigation.
However, I do agree wholeheartedly with Bob in his assesment of the scope of
Amy's influence on youth and otherwise, and see the idea that the REACTION to
her sin was MORE influencial as pure hogwash and another lame attempt to lay
the blame at the doorstep of those who dare to hold others in teaching
capacities responsible for their actions. Gee, I didn't see Breezy make the
same remark of "Christians don't forget though, and like to twist the
dagger deeper and deeper" when this conversation about Warnke was being bandied
about? Wonder why?I can tell you why......because it's easy to relate with
those who sin and aren't held accountable. Kinda explains how Clinton got
elected for 8 years in this country.
Breezy
> However, I do agree wholeheartedly with Bob in his assesment of the scope
of
> Amy's influence on youth and otherwise, and see the idea that the REACTION
to
> her sin was MORE influencial as pure hogwash and another lame attempt to
lay
> the blame at the doorstep of those who dare to hold others in teaching
> capacities responsible for their actions.
I never said anyone had to agree with me. :) My *opinion,* as I said, has
come from conversations I've had with my non-christian friends. The
*credibility* of the christian community, who *talks the talk* about love
and grace and mercy, but doesn't seem to want to *walk the walk,* at least
in regards to Amy, has been damaged in the eyes of my non-christian friends.
Fortunately they seem open to *Christ,* which is the important thing, but
don't want any part of the christian community that seems to thrive on
throwing stones at their own people. This is what they have told me.
But to make myself clear: I didn't say that Amy hasn't negatively
influenced anyone, but what I find hard to swallow is that christians - who
are in a Covenant of righteousness-apart-from-works and have received such a
great deal of Mercy from our Lord and the *gift* of righteousness (freely) -
focus *far more* on Amy's sins and hardly (if at all) on the good she's done
over the years (and still continues to do). Also, from reading what people
write here (currently and in the past), it seems that people presume to have
intimite knowledge of her day to day relationship with God, and that since
she hasn't made a *public* show of repentance or remorse, then she hasn't
dealt with it in a biblical way. And even if, after dealing with her local
church body, she hasn't dealt with it all in a "biblical" way, I'd like to
see in the Bible where it says to keep trashing a sinner until they repent
publicly. The stories I've read have Jesus granting grace and mercy
*before* any signs of repentance, and have the *kindness* of God leading to
repentance.
> Gee, I didn't see Breezy make the
> same remark of "Christians don't forget though, and like to twist the
> dagger deeper and deeper" when this conversation about Warnke was being
bandied
> about?
It's not that I didn't *think* about it. ;) But the conversation hadn't
progressed yet to the point where I actually felt like saying it. :)~
> Wonder why?I can tell you why......because it's easy to relate with
> those who sin and aren't held accountable.
It's also easier to trash other sinners and not mention your own. For those
who have such a hard time with Amy's (or Mike's) influence and sin, I
really, really (*really*) would like all those who presume that they have a
right to publicly minister in R.M.C. (for example: share their biblical
views and be an influence to others), to share a list of their sins, confess
them, and publicly repent and demonstrate exactly how they're being held
accountable. If you want it from Amy or Mike, and if you want it in
proportion to their individual realm of influence, then you could at least
do the same. :-D
Breezy.
Spin One80
>Date: 7/27/01 9:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B624566...@aol.com>
>
>What planet do you folks live on where any of these peoples issues can have
>any
>effect on any ones faith?
I think Bob showed quite clear how it effects one's faith, since he has had
experience dealing with some who looked up to Amy as a role model. I'm sure
there are HUNDREDS of Bob's out there that could relate similar. Do we just
out-of-hand dismiss Bob's observations? That's nice.
> Unless of course it's not faith we're talking about but a false view of
>Christians in general.
>
"false view of Christians"?????You mean to walk the talk is considered
unrealistic expectations now?!?!?!
>BTW There is no valid comparison between Amy Grant and Mike Warnke as Mike's
>whole
>claim to ministry was based on a decade of sin and lies of his own life that
>he
>based his credibility and fundraising on and called himself a ministry. Amy
>Grant
>wasn't a ministry but an entertainer who sings, writes and performs songs
>that
>could minister and to most people who are her fans still does.
>
Please Brian!!! That's just plain stupidity on your part to proclaim such
mindless dribble!!! Amy is in FAR more a responsible role to infuence than
Warnke could EVER be held to due to the number of people each reaches.
Again....I have stated earlier that Amy's whole career is based on music that
carries a MESSAGE.....one of faith, hope, purity, and commitment. That message
was completely compromised with her affair, divorce and eventual re-marriage.
She could have taken the route of reconciliation, but I guess that is a sign of
weakness in our day and age huh Brian?
>Amy got divorce from Gary, not Christianity and to my knowledge she has never
>based her career on anything but
>her ability to perform and record music.
>
Again, more mindless nonesense Brian...
Do me a favor ok? Pick up any Grant cd.....let's try Lead Me On as an example
shall we? Just the title track loses all credibility with me in light of this.
Also, can she sing songs as "Saved By Love", or "Faithless Heart" with a
straight face? Maybe you would be willing to bet that "Wait For The Healing" is
still on her set list? Get real Brian!! It would be the height of hypocricy for
her to sing of these themes anymore, and deception factors in there as well.
Her WHOLE CAREER is based on this message, why sit in a position to defend one
over the other?Maybe you consider yourself one of those who "listens to the
music and not the words" ? LOL
>Don't confuse personal problems in private lives with deliberate and
>premeditated
>sins against "the church" itself.
>
Sorry Brian, but anyone who takes a role in a leadership or teaching position
(which in my mind includes the opportunity to influence people for better or
worse) has given up the right to such privacy. Their lives ARE an integral part
of the legitimacy or credibility of what message they convey, or leadership
they instill. Unless your last name is Clinton of course. I see the defense of
Amy's actions in the same light that those who defend oral sex in the White
House.......seems that it's easier to defend the immorality of those who you
can relate to in your own life. Brain, the bottom line with me is....let's not
start down the road of compartmentalizing one's faith in defense of what God
abhors. The world does a good enough job at that.
Blessings, Jeff
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I never said anyone had to agree with me. :) My *opinion,* as I said, has
>come from conversations I've had with my non-christian friends. The
>*credibility* of the christian community, who *talks the talk* about love
>and grace and mercy, but doesn't seem to want to *walk the walk,* at least
>in regards to Amy, has been damaged in the eyes of my non-christian friends.
Well, fortunately nobody's salvation hinges on the actions of ice
cold christian fakes. :-) However Breezy, I would consider that
in prejudging me as a person who sits back in his pew and waits
for the world to come in the door.... you are doing something far
more damaging (potentially...were it all the sudden...ahem...to get
worldwide distribution :-) ) than ANYONE has done to Amy. At least
Amy actually did something that left people with no way to conclude
anything other than "Sin definitely ocurred here" and ask "Well...is she
sorry about this or not??". I, on the other hand, have lived a life
that testifies exactly the opposite of what you claim (Call an assortment
of former pastors if you'd like testimonies about whether your dillusional
accusation has grounds or not I guess. Ask me for numbers if you care.
YET YOU, without this information, just flat out accuse me in public.
Now, what am I to conclude re: you? I'm talking to a person
who out of ONE side of their keyboard, writes that we shouldn't
talk about Amy's sin, but should rather list our own....then out
of the other side you start listing sins for me that don't even exist.
Hmmm. A strange critter that one bee...arrrrrr. :-)
>Fortunately they seem open to *Christ,* which is the important thing, but
>don't want any part of the christian community that seems to thrive on
>throwing stones at their own people. This is what they have told me.
PERHAPS there is a reason for this. The answer my friend is blowin'
in the wind ya know. In the first place I find that most people
trivialize what it means to "throw stones". MANY people who have an
agenda to live in a particular kind of sin accuse those who point
it out to them of being "stone throwers". LITTLE do they know, these
people are trying to call them to salvation. If they continue on their
present course, and choose to REMAIN in their sin they will wind up
in hell for eternity. Sometimes it seems that certain people want
to be accepted by people more than they want to tell them the truth...
or perhaps they just believe that we're all going to get in to heaven
anyway and it really doesn't matter. I don't know. I just know they
are confused by the fruits I see in this area. There is a battle going
on for people's souls. Eddie Davidson who plays lead for a group
called "Milepost 7" told me the other night before I dropped in on
their practise onthe way through Eugene area, that he had witnessed to
a lady in a bar where they played. He tried to share his beliefs as
she asked him questions; hoping to find EASY solutions for the problems
her sin had introduced into her life. She accused him of being a bible
thumper. In my experience with Ed, he's anything but a bible thumper.
The lady hung herself a couple nights later.
It's a very sad world. I find that more people would rather just
live in their dillusional reality until it drives them right to the edge
and they do something stupid like this. A friend of Hannah's my pastor's
daughter killed himself last week. It's getting more and more common.
It STRANGELY seems to get more and more common, as fewer and fewer
people are willing to stand up for the truth and agressively do
spiritual battle in people's lives for FEAR that they might offend
them or something. Hey. They're going to get offended. They're going
to kill themselves and find themselves very offended for eternity a
good chunk of the time. To stand a chance of making a difference, we
have to tell people the truth about their sin, and have such compassion
that we weep for them as Christ weeped. We need to let them know that
if they don't respond to the hand of love God extended through Christ
that they are rejecting the only hope they have to enjoy life here OR
in eternity. IF THEY SHOW US SIGNS THAT THIS IS WHERE THEY ARE HEADED,
it isn't our calling to treat them like dirt. It IS our calling however
to be aware that they have a need and to address that need SOBERLY.
So, all that to ask you Breezy. Do these non-christian friends
of yours say they reject the church because they want to be comfortable
in their sin? Is that a possibility? Because if it is, they simply
love those sins more than they love god in the first place. If you
have told them what God did for them and they still choose to remain
in their sin, then John 10 clearly tells us they simply aren't his sheep
yet. Pray for them, but there's nothing you can do. They will continually
make up lame exuses. There will always be lots of christian fakes they
can cast the blam for their OWN decision to reject God's hand of love upon.
But...you aren't going to leave them believing that lie....right? Just
tell them there is a confused entity calling itself "church" and it
has no bearing on their personal decision to accept/reject Christ. Ask
them "why are you letting these people, who have no joy, be instrumental
in robbing the joy YOU could have? Ask them that would you?
In reality, the people who do these actions that contradict the
love of christ while claiming to be in him will not deter a true seeker.
On the other hand, their deeds will expose them and we are commanded
to simply speak the truth about where they stand since God is a God
of order rather than confusion. That's why I freely let people know
who inquire experiences I've had with various people they might consider
a religious leader or whatever. If those people EVER EVER EVER show a
HINT that they want to repent, I'll be over there so fast to hug them
and rejoice that they've turned away from that wickedness so that they
can enter the joy of true fellowship that I'll probably get a ticket. :-)
Heheheh. But woe to me if I don't tell someone the truth as I'm
commanded in Matthew 18 by Jesus himself.
>
>But to make myself clear: I didn't say that Amy hasn't negatively
>influenced anyone, but what I find hard to swallow is that christians - who
>are in a Covenant of righteousness-apart-from-works and have received such a
>great deal of Mercy from our Lord and the *gift* of righteousness (freely) -
>focus *far more* on Amy's sins and hardly (if at all) on the good she's done
>over the years (and still continues to do). Also, from reading what people
The body of Christ isn't a contest to see who can do the most things
*percieved* as "good". The body of Christ is a bunch of people who
know that unless they follow Christ they can't do any good, first
of all. Amy departed from following the ways of those who are
following Christ. If she ever wants to establish what happened,
like I say, she's free to. In the meantime, I'm free (and commanded)
to tell people the truth so that they don't begin to look to her as
any kind of sister in Christ and get deceived by her fornicating little
heart.
>write here (currently and in the past), it seems that people presume to have
>intimite knowledge of her day to day relationship with God, and that since
Drop it Breezy. I've covered this over and over. There's nothing else
to be said. Amy has the options to OBEY SCRIPTURE/AVOID THE APPEARANCE
OF EVIL AND TELL PEOPLE WHAT THE HECK WENT ON HERE!! Rather, she
disobeys the bible and CONTINUES to disobey the bible by NOT using
the media sources to tell people. Obviously, that's because she'd
have to tell them that she chose to spit on God's institution of
marriage and reform it into an institution of her own convenience.
And that she's happy she did it. I, for one will NOT bypass an
opportunity to tell people that God has a better way and that we
are not to follow her example. Beyond that, I don't care to try
to find other things to incriminate Amy. On the contrary, I pray that
she will simply repent of this and make a statement to inform those
in the body of christ what went down so they need not be confused.
She allowed herself to become this famous. With that comes a
responsibility to USE the media exposure you have to communicate
with those people. Those hurting people whose hearts you once
cared for. (I'll keep milking that one for all it's worth until
the day she finally does repent.)
>she hasn't made a *public* show of repentance or remorse, then she hasn't
>dealt with it in a biblical way. And even if, after dealing with her local
>church body, she hasn't dealt with it all in a "biblical" way, I'd like to
>see in the Bible where it says to keep trashing a sinner until they repent
>publicly. The stories I've read have Jesus granting grace and mercy
Matthew 18 simply says that ....like I said we've hashed this. You
know exactly what it says. You are boring me with a failure to
simply deal with the fact that Amy is in perpetual sin because
she has not followed the command to avoid the appearance of evil.
Rather, she has heartily allowed the appearnce of evil. You have
this bizarre belief that maybe she finally came to an alter somewhere
and just had this overwhelming peace in her (fornicating little) heart
and everything is ok and now she can just live on and if people want
to judge her to hell with them.
Sorry. That doesn't cut it. Jesus also said "If you are bringing
your gift to the alter and remember a fault between you and a brother,
then DROP IT and go make things right"!!!!!
Good GRIEF woman! Why don't you get it?? I mean looK
1) Amy established an avenue of communication with a huge audience.
2) She began to do things that set a poor example and (as it's worded
in the various places) caused many "little ones to stumble".
3) Had she TRULY repent she would IMMEDIATELY DROP whatever "gifts"
she was bringing to the alter (these "good" things you talk about
her doing) and go make things right with those she's offended. (IE
she would tell them that what she did was wrong, and that her example
was not a good one. Every stinking part of it that she knows people
have been told by the media coverage she allowed on the matter.)
So your view is quite wrong. There is an absolute biblical
standard at stake here. If Amy wants to come forth and work through
these things LET HER. In the meantime I'm told to treat her as a
heathen. If I ever work with her on a project I will be praying for
her and will hope somehow the Lord pricks her conscience and drives
her towards repentence because, whatever she thinks she's enjoying
now, it isn't a relationship with God. She's remaining in direct
disobedience to the REAL God's commands and as long as she does
that I feel sad for her because she is missing that relationship.
And as long as she does that I will tell others not to follow
her example. I will not witch hunt for other things she does. I
don't care what else she does. She's living in perpetual sin and
so nothing would surprise me. I'd as soon read about what Madonna
does. Bible says treat them all like heathen. I'm no longer to
judge anything in her life. But I *am* to discern the body of Christ
and baby...she ain't it. -Bob
Bob Weigel
someone is actually listening, digesting, and responding. Thanks
Jeff.
If I considered it a waste I wouldn't write it. I try to say
things in different ways for the sake of people who might be
unable to understand it in another way or whatever. Sometimes
that takes a few words. However, once someone has proven
me wrong, I don't just banter the same thing over and over
as though repetition will build a stronger case or something. I
just say "oops looks like I was wrong there" like the last 15 times
I was wrong about something. You were wrong so just admit it and
move on. You were wrong about a whole philosophy that concerns
itself with appeasing people who are living in sin. I've tried
to detail that so that anyone who wants to can see. I view it
as one of the most important issues in todays church. (Certainly
a foundational issue which has led to a complete stripping of
any power the church had. Without purity, there is no power.
Without identifying sin, confronting it, and even identifying
people who choose to remain in it and drawing a line which fulfills
the command to "discern the body", there is no purity). -Bob
-Bob
In article <eMS87.193390$Q9.47...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>,
Eric Opperman
>
> Now, what am I to conclude re: you? I'm talking to a person
> who out of ONE side of their keyboard, writes that we shouldn't
> talk about Amy's sin, but should rather list our own....then out
> of the other side you start listing sins for me that don't even exist.
> Hmmm. A strange critter that one bee...arrrrrr. :-)
I think her point is that if people in any level of ministry are going
to bash Amy Grant, demand public repentance/confession for their sins,
etc. then they themselves should have enough intestinal fortitude to
subject that pressure on themselves publicly.
> PERHAPS there is a reason for this. The answer my friend is blowin'
> in the wind ya know. In the first place I find that most people
> trivialize what it means to "throw stones". MANY people who have an
> agenda to live in a particular kind of sin accuse those who point
> it out to them of being "stone throwers".
When has Breezy said anything about adultery/divorce being ok? It's no
different in Jesus's eyes than any other sin, though, and that's what
matters. (That scares me too...not that I've committed those
sins...which would be hard for an unmarried person to commit...but
because I know that my "small sins" aren't any smaller than the ones
that get the limelight.
> Eddie Davidson who plays lead for a group
> called "Milepost 7" told me the other night before I dropped in on
> their practise onthe way through Eugene area, that he had witnessed to
> a lady in a bar where they played. He tried to share his beliefs as
> she asked him questions; hoping to find EASY solutions for the problems
> her sin had introduced into her life. She accused him of being a bible
> thumper. In my experience with Ed, he's anything but a bible thumper.
> The lady hung herself a couple nights later.
Ed did what he was supposed to do. Your point? This has nothing to do
with someone pointing out that the Christian community is scaring people
off by how zealously they denounce some of their own who have failed in
the limelight. A divorce doesn't mean any more about a person's
salvation than gossip about it.
> It's a very sad world. I find that more people would rather just
> live in their dillusional reality until it drives them right to the edge
> and they do something stupid like this. A friend of Hannah's my pastor's
> daughter killed himself last week. It's getting more and more common.
> It STRANGELY seems to get more and more common, as fewer and fewer
> people are willing to stand up for the truth and agressively do
> spiritual battle in people's lives for FEAR that they might offend
> them or something.
Could it be that your pastor's daughter's friend didn't want any part of
the church because of the backstabbing, gossip, etc. she saw in it?
> So, all that to ask you Breezy. Do these non-christian friends
> of yours say they reject the church because they want to be comfortable
> in their sin? Is that a possibility?
I don't pretend to know her friends or anything, but a lot of them don't
want any part of the hypocrisy they see in the modern church. They
can't see past some prominent examples like Jim Bakker, etc. or,
probably more importantly, people who go to church on Sundays and act
spiritual but don't show any signs at all of having Christ in their
lives the other 6 days of the week.
> In reality, the people who do these actions that contradict the
> love of christ while claiming to be in him will not deter a true seeker.
You know...this is true about the gossipers in the church
too...contradicting the love of Christ by spreading dirt about people.
> Drop it Breezy. I've covered this over and over. There's nothing else
> to be said. Amy has the options to OBEY SCRIPTURE/AVOID THE APPEARANCE
> OF EVIL AND TELL PEOPLE WHAT THE HECK WENT ON HERE!!
Why does the public have to know what's going on in her heart right now?
> Rather, she
> disobeys the bible and CONTINUES to disobey the bible by NOT using
> the media sources to tell people. Obviously, that's because she'd
> have to tell them that she chose to spit on God's institution of
> marriage and reform it into an institution of her own convenience.
> And that she's happy she did it.
Well, we don't know what went on behind closed doors...if there's
adultery involved, then the Bible does allow divorce, and I recall their
pastor saying it was a Biblical divorce when it happened. Maybe he and
I have two different interpretations of that, but only he, Amy, Gary,
probably their current spouses, and God know. To be honest, that's
about all the people that need to know.
> I, for one will NOT bypass an
> opportunity to tell people that God has a better way and that we
> are not to follow her example. Beyond that, I don't care to try
> to find other things to incriminate Amy. On the contrary, I pray that
> she will simply repent of this and make a statement to inform those
> in the body of christ what went down so they need not be confused.
This from someone who, at the beginning of the post, was denouncing
Breezy for asking the same thing from him.
> 1) Amy established an avenue of communication with a huge audience.
>
> 2) She began to do things that set a poor example and (as it's worded
> in the various places) caused many "little ones to stumble".
How do we know Amy did anything wrong? What if Gary cheated on her?
That gives her the Biblical grounds to request a divorce, in which case
she has nothing to apologize for. If this is true, maybe she doesn't
want to denigrate Gary's reputation...a concern not shared by all.
--
Thanks for your time,
Eric Opperman
"I'd say it's not easy managing in the big leagues, and sometimes
grownups get upset, too. Oh — and don't try this at home. These are
professionals." — Terry Mulholland on what to tell kids after Lloyd
McClendon literally stole first base after being ejected from a game.
Bob Weigel
Eric Opperman <eri...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>> Now, what am I to conclude re: you? I'm talking to a person
>> who out of ONE side of their keyboard, writes that we shouldn't
>> talk about Amy's sin, but should rather list our own....then out
>> of the other side you start listing sins for me that don't even exist.
>> Hmmm. A strange critter that one bee...arrrrrr. :-)
>
>I think her point is that if people in any level of ministry are going
>to bash Amy Grant, demand public repentance/confession for their sins,
I personally don't see where any point was made except that her actions
don't match what she trys to compel others to do re: what I wrote
above and was responding to. :-) Secondly, I wish we could ablish
the use of the word "bash". It is quite vague and easily misused
it seems. As I detailed, talking about someone's sin for the purpose
of instructing those wondering "is this person a brother/sister in
christ" is not "bashing" in any sense of the word though. Like I
hinted, if there were stones being thrown at Amy I'd gladly step in
front of the barrage. However, there are no stones coming from me
or anyone who is talking here. Only the relaying of facts that
pertain to the discussion at hand.
As to "demand" I dont' demand anything. I simply point out what
the scriptures say and how her current mode of action is in complete
conflict. She might feel betrayed by the bulk of those calling
themselves Christian in some way, and hence not feel it's even worth
it to make a statement. However, that's a lie. There is a real
body of Christ. There are real people who seek to walk more and
more like Jesus and recognize their sins and cry out to God to
deliver them from this world of darkness into his light. If Amy
has faith in that, she would certainly address these things for
their sake (and for her own, since it's quite obviously what the
bible commands her to do in avoiding the appearance of evil...what
is unclear about that verse??)
>etc. then they themselves should have enough intestinal fortitude to
>subject that pressure on themselves publicly.
>
>> PERHAPS there is a reason for this. The answer my friend is blowin'
>> in the wind ya know. In the first place I find that most people
>> trivialize what it means to "throw stones". MANY people who have an
>> agenda to live in a particular kind of sin accuse those who point
>> it out to them of being "stone throwers".
>
>When has Breezy said anything about adultery/divorce being ok? It's no
Never that I know of. Your point? Where did I ever say she said
that?? She's been (in case you missed the discussion) speaking
against me and others who bring up the sins of amy. She says that
instead we should list our own sins. This makes absolutely no sense
from a scriptural viewpoint. If you can LIST SINS...it means you are
currently in SIN and you should instead of following her weak advice
and listing them REPENT and turn away from them. You simply can't be
in fellowship with God's spirit while holding onto sins. When you
recognize they are sin, you either deal with it by turning from them
or as Hebrews puts it you are crucifying Christ again and all that.
Anyway, like I said this is not good theology. I personally am
not aware of any direction at this moment God has for me that I am
not following. I am not aware of any struggle that I've chosen to
take out from under his covering so that I am affected adversely
and drawn into sinful activity by...this moment. As with any of
us that might change in a moment...however when we realize what we've
done we will return and turn away from that and have victory in Christ.
HOPEFULLY as we mature in Christ, the time span between when we fall
into something and when we repent of it will decrease. I recall as
a child realizing I'd gone a whole day or more without even thinking
of anything having to do with God! I'd feel shame and I would fall
to my knees and tell him I'm sorry and that I want to be closer to
him. Anymore, I can't go but a few minutes without coming to a
realization that I need to do that. HOW IS IT THAT AMY goes for YEARS
like this??? Hmmm. That's not my question to answer. I just know
for the logical reasons posted that she is in sin.
>different in Jesus's eyes than any other sin, though, and that's what
>matters. (That scares me too...not that I've committed those
And you too have missed the heart of the issue. We all agree
I think that all the sins are sin. However, it often takes a
greater degree of confusion/rationalization/persistent pushing
God out of our life to PARTICIPATE in certain sins...or like
some pastors I've seen, for example, there's just a socialized
religion at the core and one day they just snap and run off with
the secretary or whatever.
...let's see what was that piece of a song I never recorded...
"You had to get yourself a king, but you know boys must be boys,
so interview and get another; see what this one destroys"
or something like that...
>sins...which would be hard for an unmarried person to commit...but
>because I know that my "small sins" aren't any smaller than the ones
>that get the limelight.
Yeah yeah...old news. The HEART of this issue IS that some
people have a davidic heart, and when confronted fall to their
knees and pray and leave the sin they were engaged in. Others
have an Amyic heart and ignore those who are calling them to
reason, create an environment where they can enjoy their sin
for a season and forget that God is not going to walk with them
as long as they persist in rebelling against him. WHETHER MY
SIN IS STEALING RESTRAUNT TOOTHPICKS, or murder....if I persist
in it I will not enjoy the relationship God wants to build with
me. Does everyone get this?? Please stop changing the issue.
Thank you.
>
>> Eddie Davidson who plays lead for a group
>> called "Milepost 7" told me the other night before I dropped in on
>> their practise onthe way through Eugene area, that he had witnessed to
>> a lady in a bar where they played. He tried to share his beliefs as
>> she asked him questions; hoping to find EASY solutions for the problems
>> her sin had introduced into her life. She accused him of being a bible
>> thumper. In my experience with Ed, he's anything but a bible thumper.
>> The lady hung herself a couple nights later.
>
>Ed did what he was supposed to do. Your point? This has nothing to do
I clearly stated my point. This was an example of someone who
accused a person of being a bible thumper, being accusitory, etc.
when in reality they just wanted to help. People who want to
remain in rebellion to God will always see it this way. That
was my point. WHY should we tailor OUR activities around totally
hard hearted people like this? We can't. We can only obey God
's word as I've tried to do here.
>with someone pointing out that the Christian community is scaring people
>off by how zealously they denounce some of their own who have failed in
THE ONLY REASON (perfect...thank you for phrasing it so clear) that
ANYONE would be scared off...as you put it... by someone being
denounced for REMAINING in their sins, is that THEY ALSO want
to REMAIN in their sins. And, of course, the baptism of John was
one of repentance which "prepares the way for the Lord". The Lord
cannot come into your heart when you have this attitude ANYWAY!!
So is that clear enough?? Once again...why should we even waste
time discussing the likes/dislikes of people who have a totally
hard heart against God? If they didn't, they would see the judgement
of someone's sin as a healthy thing and be convicted of their OWN
sin and realize they NEED A SAVIOUR....right??!
Had Breezy spoken more specifically about people (unlike
myself) who simply enjoy gossiping in order to put others down
then I'd have whole heartedly agreed that these people will face
a judgement if they don't turn away from that sin. However,
I had nothing but good hopes for Amy and enjoyed the productions
she was part of until it started to go towards entertainment
for dollars time. I still have nothing but good hopes for
Amy. For that reason I pray that she is able to become broken
instead of rebellious. I hope Vince realizes the part he's played
in this destructive scene and repents also, but that's all I
can do is pray.
>the limelight. A divorce doesn't mean any more about a person's
>salvation than gossip about it.
Please... read the above. Once again, this isn't even the issue.
>
>> It's a very sad world. I find that more people would rather just
>> live in their dillusional reality until it drives them right to the edge
>> and they do something stupid like this. A friend of Hannah's my pastor's
>> daughter killed himself last week. It's getting more and more common.
>> It STRANGELY seems to get more and more common, as fewer and fewer
>> people are willing to stand up for the truth and agressively do
>> spiritual battle in people's lives for FEAR that they might offend
>> them or something.
>
>Could it be that your pastor's daughter's friend didn't want any part of
>the church because of the backstabbing, gossip, etc. she saw in it?
No. God is willing that none would perish. Therefore, unless someone
totally hardens their heart, God won't even let them perish. (Like
my suicide attempt champion friend Larry Hendrickson I've mentioned
many times...btw it was cool. I told Larry I wouldn't have time to
get through his neighborhood in E. Oregon on my recent trip, and I
"randomly" ran into him in a computer store in Eugene! :-) ) God
is always reaching out to us. God is in control and therefore only
allows things like backstabbing and gossip in HOPES of showing us
how WE will end up if we don't repent and turn to him. He works
all things for the good of those who love him. However...this
guy obviously chose not to love him and destroyed himself.
>
>> So, all that to ask you Breezy. Do these non-christian friends
>> of yours say they reject the church because they want to be comfortable
>> in their sin? Is that a possibility?
>
>I don't pretend to know her friends or anything, but a lot of them don't
>want any part of the hypocrisy they see in the modern church. They
AND...conveniently...they want to smoke pot, be lazy, and have pretend
friends whose level of committment revolves heavily around those
activities. :-) Talk about hypocrisy. This society is so full of
weeny's who bellyache about all the hypocrisy...while they themselves
do NOTHING to lift a finger and help this world's sad state...of course
without a relationship with the source of ALL LOVE...that's kind of
hard so I can understand that...hypocrits. :-) Like Steve said "Come
on in; there's room for one more". Hehehe.
Sorry, I have a hard time pitying those kinds of people. I've
attempted to minister to hundreds of them as an individual, not
to mention mass gathering things. I've had them in my house, been
ripped off by them..you know the stories. I've told them enough
times.
>can't see past some prominent examples like Jim Bakker, etc. or,
>probably more importantly, people who go to church on Sundays and act
>spiritual but don't show any signs at all of having Christ in their
>lives the other 6 days of the week.
That's what the american pseudo church is designed to cater to. So?
I grew up in that environment but due to having a relationship with
Christ that was a result of my response to his attempts to start
that, I rejected the standards of that group which would have rendered
me useless as a minister in God's kingdom. I can list them in detail.
But anyway, there is a real church and each person has the right to
be a pothead or whatever, or to say "hmm, this is not going anywhere...
God...are you there? Help me!!". But very few people will do that. They
rather choose to be content with their own self-righteous framework
and reject the work christ did for them.
Anyway, I pray this is understood because we didn't seem to be
on the same page here at all. Loose the silly terminology of this
society for starters. Start speaking in simple, specific terms about
exactly what is going on with these issues and you will see that
the scriptures referred to above make perfect sense.
>
>> In reality, the people who do these actions that contradict the
>> love of christ while claiming to be in him will not deter a true seeker.
>
>You know...this is true about the gossipers in the church
>too...contradicting the love of Christ by spreading dirt about people.
>
Right. So, are you speaking about someone in particular here?
>> Drop it Breezy. I've covered this over and over. There's nothing else
>> to be said. Amy has the options to OBEY SCRIPTURE/AVOID THE APPEARANCE
>> OF EVIL AND TELL PEOPLE WHAT THE HECK WENT ON HERE!!
>
>Why does the public have to know what's going on in her heart right now?
...You've got to be kidding?? Well, I'm not sure you want to be
on the same page. I just clearly said that. I dont' know a clearer
way to say it. So, I'm done I guess. -Bob
Brian Healy
>
> >
>
> "false view of Christians"?????You mean to walk the talk is considered
> unrealistic expectations now?!?!?!
No, the false view that somehow Amy Grant or Mike Warnke can say or do anything
that invalidates true Christian faith.
How can she possibly undo the death and resurrection of Christ or its effects on a
persons life?
That is what the Christian faith is about. Not what you, I, she, or anyone else in
the world say's or does or claims.
Your confusing Christianity with some saved by works and deeds mindset based on
outward behavior.
If someone thinks, you’re a religious idiot how does the reflect on the truth of
christianity be they right or wrong?
Christianaity is true or it's not. Period.
Christian faith is not based on other Christians or their actions, but Christ,
anything else is not an issue of Christian
faith but being socially let down at best.
>
>
>
> >
>
> Please Brian!!! That's just plain stupidity on your part to proclaim such
> mindless dribble!!! Amy is in FAR more a responsible role to infuence than
> Warnke could EVER be held to due to the number of people each reaches.
> Again....I have stated earlier that Amy's whole career is based on music that
> carries a MESSAGE.....one of faith, hope, purity, and commitment.
No It's based on her talent, lot of people sing about those things but,those
things aren't really christianity either.
> That message
> was completely compromised with her affair, divorce and eventual re-marriage.
> She could have taken the route of reconciliation, but I guess that is a sign of
> weakness in our day and age huh Brian?
My that's a great deal of slander with absolutely no first hand knowledge, I would
really like to see your "proof" Amy
had an affair beyond your sins of public speculation and accusation. Beside she
took the reconciliation route for
years while her hubby was kicking his coke habit that he has spoken often about up
until recently. At least learn a few
facts before you comment.
But, back to the point. Amy Grant is nothing more or less a recording artist who
is a Christian, not a ministry, nor has
she claim to be anything beyond that. If you expected more from her or any other
human that's your problem, not hers, No one is obligated to live up to your
standard of the "Christian" life.
And please don't claim your personal interpretation of the Bible as the one
speaking for God as your bullet proof
debate vest.
Her songs can and do minister to some. Willie Nelson's and The Oak Ridge Boy's
versions of gospel songs minister
to some folks, are they too a ministry? How about Joan Baez and her well-known
version of amazing grace?
Mike Warnke however defrauded the church not, because he was a comedian, but
because he claimed HE
personally was a ministry and raised funds and was ordained from the church
directly based on a total and complete
fiction in his testimony and his books.
Amy is a public person who is a Christian and entertainer not a minister.
Mike was a minister with the title and what he called a ministry (that he raised
funds for) who stepped in the land of
Ananias and Sapphira by a premeditated deliberate fraud against the church based
on his fictional idenity.
>
>
> >Amy got divorce from Gary, not Christianity and to my knowledge she has never
> >based her career on anything but
> >her ability to perform and record music.
> >
>
> Again, more mindless nonesense Brian...
I keep forgetting you think actions are greater than the forgiveness and grace of
Christ.
>
> Do me a favor ok? Pick up any Grant cd.....let's try Lead Me On as an example
> shall we? Just the title track loses all credibility with me in light of this.
> Also, can she sing songs as "Saved By Love", or "Faithless Heart" with a
> straight face? Maybe you would be willing to bet that "Wait For The Healing" is
> still on her set list?
Can't tell what her set list is, I just know she did perform many Christian songs
live a lot longer than she had too in mainstream venues where the majority of
people only knew her as the girl who sang "Baby Baby" not the little gospel chia
pet you seem to see her as....
> Get real Brian!! It would be the height of hypocricy for
> her to sing of these themes anymore, and deception factors in there as well.
I see no one can talk about their faith in Christ because it will be the height of
hypocrisy. After all, they sinned and fell short of the glory of God so how can
they talk about those themes or comment on the morals of our culture. Wow, you
just proved the invalidity of evangelism too, better tell Billy to pack it in.
>
> Her WHOLE CAREER is based on this message, why sit in a position to defend one
> over the other?Maybe you consider yourself one of those who "listens to the
> music and not the words" ? LOL
No, her career is built on her talent as an entertainer, songwriter and singer.
For you the problems now is, It's not Amy or Mike but your self rightious
perception of christianity that, frankley
from your last post reads as though you view the Christian faith more like the
Dr.Suess story of The Sneeches with stars than orthodox christianity of the
historical church.
>
>
> >Don't confuse personal problems in private lives with deliberate and
> >premeditated
> >sins against "the church" itself.
> >
>
> Sorry Brian, but anyone who takes a role in a leadership or teaching position
> (which in my mind includes the opportunity to influence people for better or
> worse) has given up the right to such privacy. Their lives ARE an integral part
> of the legitimacy or credibility of what message they convey, or leadership
> they instill. Unless your last name is Clinton of course. I see the defense of
> Amy's actions in the same light that those who defend oral sex in the White
> House.......seems that it's easier to defend the immorality of those who you
> can relate to in your own life. Brain, the bottom line with me is....let's not
> start down the road of compartmentalizing one's faith in defense of what God
> abhors. The world does a good enough job at that.
I'm sorry the concept that God has allowed people freewill and has forgiven them
with his grace, despite the fact it's
below your personal standards, bothers you so much.
I don't have the time to responed point by point but in closing you really should
quit confusing your sociological views and issues with Christianity.
Spin One80
>But, back to the point. Amy Grant is nothing more or less a recording art=
>ist who
>is a Christian, not a ministry, nor has
>y other
>human that's your problem, not hers, No one is obligated to live up to yo=
>ur
>standard of the "Christian" life.
>
>ne
>speaking for God as your bullet proof
>debate vest.
>
>Boy's
>versions of gospel songs minister
>known
>version of amazing grace?
>
>but
>because he claimed HE
>ch
>directly based on a total and complete
>fiction in his testimony and his books.
>
>
Hmmmm.....this from the same guy who posted a few days earlier in a similar
thread:
"I'd like to think the standard for someone being in "ministry" is not based on
talent, but character and conviction and I don't mean by the IRS. Contrary to
popular belief Christianity isn't a product like a used car or something to be
pushed in the old ends justifies the means game.
While grace is a gift from God credibility must be earned.
:"
So I guess Warnke has to "earn" his credibility while we give Amy the benefit
of the doubt? Some double-standard you hold there Brian.Are they both not
"ministers" in some way?
Blessings, Jeff
Brian Healy
> >
>
> Hmmmm.....this from the same guy who posted a few days earlier in a similar
> thread:
>
> "I'd like to think the standard for someone being in "ministry" is not based on
> talent, but character and conviction and I don't mean by the IRS. Contrary to
> popular belief Christianity isn't a product like a used car or something to be
> pushed in the old ends justifies the means game.
>
> While grace is a gift from God credibility must be earned.
> :"
>
> So I guess Warnke has to "earn" his credibility while we give Amy the benefit
> of the doubt? Some double-standard you hold there Brian.Are they both not
> "ministers" in some way?
> Blessings, Jeff
Absolutely none at all, They have two totally different function in the body of
christ. Mr.Warnke is a fraudulent ordained minister who preached as a minister and
who's claim to fame and ministry was totally based on his personal credibility
,based on his false story. He ran what was supposed to be a non-profit 501C 3
corporation and collected funds for a ministry that didn't exist beyond cashing
checks of donors.
His actions were completely and totally premeditated.
Amy Grant a singer songwriter who is a christian, who got divorced.
She wasn't an ordained a minister.
No bogus life story or book claiming she was a satanist or any other fabrications.
No phony non-profit corporation.
No collecting money for a ministry that didn't exist.
No premeditation.
Do you think she planned her divorce as a 12 year old girl and just felt it was
time to drop the bomb now that you were suckered in?
Mr.Warnke planed everything but, being caught. It was his intent to sucker people
in the day he started his fabrications. And his motive for his deception is
irrelevant.
Their situations aren't even comparable. Their is no contradiction at all in my
statements or position.
You really need to learn the difference between someone as a Christian who
performs and can minister, and the higher level and standards of calling oneself a
ministry.
I can take my dog to a seniors home or convalescence hospital and his company can
bring a small amount of joy and minister to the human spirit and relieve some of
the loneliness of some of the residences. That doesn't make my dog or me a
minister or a ministry.
You still haven't retracted you baseless charge that Amy Grant had an affair BTW.
Bob Weigel
>Spin One80 wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>>
>> "false view of Christians"?????You mean to walk the talk is considered
>> unrealistic expectations now?!?!?!
>
>ything
>that invalidates true Christian faith.
I'm not real clear at what's being said here...but like I said I'm not
real clear that Brian hears anything I say so I'm probably foolish to
even ask. But for those watching, how does this apply? We don't
see anyone elses heart. I think Brian has the right idea, but it's
masked by a confused presumption here maybe? I don't know if either
of them have "true christian faith", or that anyone does besides me.
I see things in other people that inspire a belief that they do, but
I can't see their hearts. I know that IF I were to reject part of
the established character of Christ (as shown by going off on some
direction that I know he doesn't approve of) that proves that either
I don't have TRUE FAITH....or I'm just flat out believing the truth
but doing what I want anyway...and Jesus said nobody hates their own
body so that really doesn't make scriptural sense. No, scripturally
it's always the sin of disbelief as outlined in Hebrews 4 and thereabouts.
God is trying to draw us all to "True christian faith" and we are called
to continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling in this
process.
So, biblically, what Amy or Mike say CAN be ID'd as sin and their
refusal to deal with it CAN result in a biblical instruction to
consider them as heathen. WOULD THE BIBLE TELL US TO BELIEVE A
LIE, Bri?? I don't believe so. I believe Amy is a heathen at
this point in her life. Mike supposedly repented as we said,
but I pray he isn't led down a bad path again given that the
pieces all seemed to fall back into place that way, and his
initial response wasn't to repent at all but to sue. I won't
call him a heathen though since the last verified thing I heard
was that he'd repented.
>
>How can she possibly undo the death and resurrection of Christ or its eff=
>ects on a
>persons life?
And that has nothing to do with our discussion. We can all reject
or accept the work Christ has done and it can result in our eternity
in hell or heaven; two very different places.
>That is what the Christian faith is about. Not what you, I, she, or anyon=
>e else in
>the world say's or does or claims.
>Your confusing Christianity with some saved by works and deeds mindset ba=
>sed on
>outward behavior.
>
You seem to be ignoring a good portion of what the scripture says
as designed by God to keep us from being deceived and winding up
in hell.
>If someone thinks, you=92re a religious idiot how does the reflect on the=
> truth of
>christianity be they right or wrong?
>Christianaity is true or it's not. Period.
>
Christ is the truth period. And we may accept or reject that.
>Christian faith is not based on other Christians or their actions, but Ch=
>rist,
>anything else is not an issue of Christian
>faith but being socially let down at best.
>
? Really trying to see how this relates... but Jeff is quite
correct. If you look through Amy's materials you will see various
statements which set her up as a person carrying a message of faith
hope and purity and most certainly commitment. This of course has
diminished in recent years. But beyond the presentation materials,
let's get REAL! I mean just because you add a melody to it, does
that mean you can stand up there and say things you don't really
believe to thousands of people????? Yeeechhht! What a world, what
a world... (No, not in the voice of the wicked witch of the west) -Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> Please Brian!!! That's just plain stupidity on your part to proclaim su=
>ch
>> mindless dribble!!! Amy is in FAR more a responsible role to infuence t=
>han
>> Warnke could EVER be held to due to the number of people each reaches.
>> Again....I have stated earlier that Amy's whole career is based on musi=
>c that
>> carries a MESSAGE.....one of faith, hope, purity, and commitment.
>
>No It's based on her talent, lot of people sing about those things but,th=
>ose
>things aren't really christianity either.
>
>> That message
>> was completely compromised with her affair, divorce and eventual re-mar=
>riage.
>> She could have taken the route of reconciliation, but I guess that is a=
> sign of
>> weakness in our day and age huh Brian?
>
>My that's a great deal of slander with absolutely no first hand knowledge=
>, I would
>really like to see your "proof" Amy
>had an affair beyond your sins of public speculation and accusation. Besi=
>de she
>took the reconciliation route for
>years while her hubby was kicking his coke habit that he has spoken often=
> about up
>until recently. At least learn a few
>facts before you comment.
>
>But, back to the point. Amy Grant is nothing more or less a recording art=
>ist who
>is a Christian, not a ministry, nor has
>she claim to be anything beyond that. If you expected more from her or an=
>y other
>human that's your problem, not hers, No one is obligated to live up to yo=
>ur
>standard of the "Christian" life.
>
>And please don't claim your personal interpretation of the Bible as the o=
>ne
>speaking for God as your bullet proof
>debate vest.
>
>Her songs can and do minister to some. Willie Nelson's and The Oak Ridge =
>Boy's
>versions of gospel songs minister
>to some folks, are they too a ministry? How about Joan Baez and her well-=
>known
>version of amazing grace?
>
>Mike Warnke however defrauded the church not, because he was a comedian, =
>but
>because he claimed HE
>personally was a ministry and raised funds and was ordained from the chur=
>ch
>directly based on a total and complete
>fiction in his testimony and his books.
>
>Amy is a public person who is a Christian and entertainer not a minister.=
>
>
>Mike was a minister with the title and what he called a ministry (that he=
> raised
>funds for) who stepped in the land of
>Ananias and Sapphira by a premeditated deliberate fraud against the churc=
>h based
>on his fictional idenity.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Amy got divorce from Gary, not Christianity and to my knowledge she ha=
>s never
>> >based her career on anything but
>> >her ability to perform and record music.
>> >
>>
>> Again, more mindless nonesense Brian...
>
>I keep forgetting you think actions are greater than the forgiveness and =
>grace of
>Christ.
>
>>
>> Do me a favor ok? Pick up any Grant cd.....let's try Lead Me On as an e=
>xample
>> shall we? Just the title track loses all credibility with me in light o=
>f this.
>> Also, can she sing songs as "Saved By Love", or "Faithless Heart" with =
>a
>> straight face? Maybe you would be willing to bet that "Wait For The Hea=
>ling" is
>> still on her set list?
>
>Can't tell what her set list is, I just know she did perform many Christi=
>an songs
>live a lot longer than she had too in mainstream venues where the majorit=
>y of
>people only knew her as the girl who sang "Baby Baby" not the little gosp=
>el chia
>pet you seem to see her as....
>
>> Get real Brian!! It would be the height of hypocricy for
>> her to sing of these themes anymore, and deception factors in there as =
>well.
>
>I see no one can talk about their faith in Christ because it will be the =
>height of
>hypocrisy. After all, they sinned and fell short of the glory of God so h=
>ow can
>they talk about those themes or comment on the morals of our culture. Wow=
>, you
>just proved the invalidity of evangelism too, better tell Billy to pack i=
>t in.
>
>>
>> Her WHOLE CAREER is based on this message, why sit in a position to def=
>end one
>> over the other?Maybe you consider yourself one of those who "listens to=
> the
>> music and not the words" ? LOL
>
>No, her career is built on her talent as an entertainer, songwriter and s=
>inger.
>For you the problems now is, It's not Amy or Mike but your self rightious=
>
>perception of christianity that, frankley
>from your last post reads as though you view the Christian faith more lik=
>e the
>Dr.Suess story of The Sneeches with stars than orthodox christianity of t=
>he
>historical church.
>
>>
>>
>> >Don't confuse personal problems in private lives with deliberate and
>> >premeditated
>> >sins against "the church" itself.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry Brian, but anyone who takes a role in a leadership or teaching po=
>sition
>> (which in my mind includes the opportunity to influence people for bett=
>er or
>> worse) has given up the right to such privacy. Their lives ARE an integ=
>ral part
>> of the legitimacy or credibility of what message they convey, or leader=
>ship
>> they instill. Unless your last name is Clinton of course. I see the def=
>ense of
>> Amy's actions in the same light that those who defend oral sex in the W=
>hite
>> House.......seems that it's easier to defend the immorality of those wh=
>o you
>> can relate to in your own life. Brain, the bottom line with me is....le=
>t's not
>> start down the road of compartmentalizing one's faith in defense of wha=
>t God
>> abhors. The world does a good enough job at that.
>
>I'm sorry the concept that God has allowed people freewill and has forgiv=
>en them
>with his grace, despite the fact it's
>below your personal standards, bothers you so much.
>I don't have the time to responed point by point but in closing you reall=
Breezy
> However Breezy, I would consider that
> in prejudging me as a person who sits back in his pew and waits
> for the world to come in the door.... you are doing something far
> more damaging (potentially...were it all the sudden...ahem...to get
> worldwide distribution :-) ) than ANYONE has done to Amy.
<snip>
> I, on the other hand, have lived a life
> that testifies exactly the opposite of what you claim (Call an assortment
> of former pastors if you'd like testimonies about whether your dillusional
> accusation has grounds or not I guess. Ask me for numbers if you care.
> YET YOU, without this information, just flat out accuse me in public.
Ok, can anyone help Bob out with this?
1. I didn't accuse you of that.
2. You said I accused you of that in a reply to the post in which you
thought I accused you of that.
3. In a follow-up post I quoted myself directly to show you how I had
actually said the opposite of what you claimed I said (although the record
is there for you to see for yourself).
4. Now, you're again saying that I accused you of the same thing, having
disregarded both my original statement, and my follow-up to it.
At first, it's rather amusing. As I said (and you probably missed), it's
not like it's the first time you've misread or ignored something someone's
written. :) But if you want the truth (I know you *love* the truth), what
this really does is give credence to how obvious it is that you really like
hearing yourself in here and you skim or ignore what others *actually* say.
Time and time again you've proven it, and time and time again (every few
months or so), I fall for getting into a conversation with you in which what
I say goes in one of your ears and out the other, and your replies have
nothing to do with what I said. :)
Bob, you're one of a kind. I'll leave it at that. ;)
Breezy.
Breezy
> If I considered it a waste I wouldn't write it.
I didn't say *you* don't consider your lengthy discourses a waste of time.
You only consider other people's writings a waste of time, especially when
they don't agree with you. ;)
> I try to say
> things in different ways for the sake of people who might be
> unable to understand it in another way or whatever. Sometimes
> that takes a few words. However, once someone has proven
> me wrong, I don't just banter the same thing over and over
> as though repetition will build a stronger case or something. I
> just say "oops looks like I was wrong there" like the last 15 times
> I was wrong about something.
I've never seen you say, "I was wrong." It's one of those things I just
never expect, so it'll really surprise me when it happens! However, I've
seen you say the following about *other* people plenty of times:
> You were wrong so just admit it and
> move on. You were wrong about a whole philosophy that concerns
> itself with appeasing people who are living in sin.
Actually, I simply disagree with your view of it. You just can't stand it
when someone disagrees with your three hour discourses. :) I read what you
write. I check it with my biblical view. It's my *opinion* that your view
of scripture is often out of context. So? My opinions aren't binding upon
your life. Thank God, eh. In the same way, what you have to say is taken
into consideration, but I often disagree. Maybe someday I can have an adult
conversation with you, with a simple exchange of ideas, minus all your
condescending remarks. I dunno, maybe I'll try again in another few months.
Breezy
Breezy
"Brian Healy" wrote:
>No, the ***false*** view that somehow Amy Grant or Mike Warnke can say or
do anything
>that invalidates true Christian faith.
(Emphasis on the word ***false*** my own) :)
>How can she possibly undo the death and resurrection of Christ or its
effects on a
>persons life?
Brian hits the nail on the head!
>That is what the Christian faith is about. Not what you, I, she, or anyone
else in
>the world say's or does or claims.
Right in the center!
>Your confusing Christianity with some saved by works and deeds mindset
based on
>outward behavior.
Yowza!
>If someone thinks, you're a religious idiot how does the reflect on the
truth of
>christianity be they right or wrong?
>Christianaity is true or it's not. Period.
Yippee!
>Christian faith is not based on other Christians or their actions, but
Christ,
>anything else is not an issue of Christian
>faith but being socially let down at best.
And the "social let down" of Amy and Mike (and any other person who's ever
missed the mark in any way) only *validates* the christian viewpoint of the
need for Christ. This doesn't discredit the christian community, but rather
demonstrates why it exists in the first place!
Breezy
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob Weigel" wrote:
>
>> However Breezy, I would consider that
>> in prejudging me as a person who sits back in his pew and waits
>> for the world to come in the door.... you are doing something far
>> more damaging (potentially...were it all the sudden...ahem...to get
>> worldwide distribution :-) ) than ANYONE has done to Amy.
><snip>
>> I, on the other hand, have lived a life
>> that testifies exactly the opposite of what you claim (Call an assortment
>> of former pastors if you'd like testimonies about whether your dillusional
>> accusation has grounds or not I guess. Ask me for numbers if you care.
>> YET YOU, without this information, just flat out accuse me in public.
>
>Ok, can anyone help Bob out with this?
>1. I didn't accuse you of that.
You said something like "people like you who sit in their pew and
wait for the world to come into the church" or like that did you not??
-Bob
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob Weigel" wrote:
>> If I considered it a waste I wouldn't write it.
>
>I didn't say *you* don't consider your lengthy discourses a waste of time.
>You only consider other people's writings a waste of time, especially when
>they don't agree with you. ;)
There you go again making a trivialized accusation. At least this one
has a happy face which I'll assume means it's a joke.
>
>> I try to say
>> things in different ways for the sake of people who might be
>> unable to understand it in another way or whatever. Sometimes
>> that takes a few words. However, once someone has proven
>> me wrong, I don't just banter the same thing over and over
>> as though repetition will build a stronger case or something. I
>> just say "oops looks like I was wrong there" like the last 15 times
>> I was wrong about something.
>
>I've never seen you say, "I was wrong." It's one of those things I just
>never expect, so it'll really surprise me when it happens! However, I've
Oh plllease. Can someone help her out here? You have been here when I
thought I was replying to one person and got another or something at
least I know. I MAKE A RULE for myself though. I never criticize
anyone for anything unless it's a cut and dried violation of a well
established biblical principle; as in our current case where I can just
repeat "avoid the appearance of evil" as long as people claim that I'm
speculating that Amy is in sin. This keeps me from having to say I'm
wrong very often. Try it. You'll like it. :-)
>seen you say the following about *other* people plenty of times:
>
>> You were wrong so just admit it and
>> move on. You were wrong about a whole philosophy that concerns
>> itself with appeasing people who are living in sin.
>
>Actually, I simply disagree with your view of it. You just can't stand it
And as usual you won't tell me why. From this I conclude that you side
with these people who whine about all the judgemental people in the church
because you are a person who wants to maintain a fallacy ridden viewpoint
in order to maintain some sin which you PROMOTE other people writing down
on a list and checking it twice. That's not nice. That's just an admission
that you are in rebellion to God and a recommendation that others find
contentment in staying in that same place and just shutting up so you don't
feel bad about it. In the end hell is still the place one winds up. I
recommend you burn your stupid list, repent of whatever was on it and
start asking God to help you overcome those familiar sins. In the
meantime, don't recommend that others join you in the fiasco and in the
end there will not be a heavy millstone with your name on it. Ok?
I say these things because I want to see you in heaven. But if
you won't reason about the philosophy you've adopted, then I'm afraid
it has become your idol. I can't do a thing for you if you won't reason.
-Bob
>when someone disagrees with your three hour discourses. :) I read what you
>write. I check it with my biblical view. It's my *opinion* that your view
>of scripture is often out of context. So? My opinions aren't binding upon
>your life. Thank God, eh. In the same way, what you have to say is taken
>into consideration, but I often disagree. Maybe someday I can have an adult
>conversation with you, with a simple exchange of ideas, minus all your
>condescending remarks. I dunno, maybe I'll try again in another few months.
PS
Oh...that's REAL funny deary. You are the one who began firing the
condescending remarks. You refer to my defense of my position as
a condescending remeark? Never mind.....
>
>Breezy
>
>
Bob Weigel
Brian, if you can hear...you need to learn that God never says anything
in the bible about "ordained ministers". There are only THREE functional
categories in the Christian "heirarchy":
1) High priest. Jesus is the only one according to Hebrews.
2) Priests. All who are in Jesus' family, as Peter describes it,
are a "royal priesthood..." etc. They minister day and night in
this spiritual house/temple of which Christ is the cornerstone...
to augment the first analogy of priesthood.
3) Heathen. People who have pushed away God's attempt to incorporate
them into his family. Since they do this so they can do their own
thing, we have nothing in common with them if we are in Christ. (in
terms of spiritual direction that is..I mean we all have noses, etc.)
So, since the bible has no words like "clergy" or "Leity", your
viewpoints are entirely contribed from other sources Brian. Let's
not complicate the issue more than it is by adding our own little
extra-biblical rules to it.
So, in conclusion, Amy (if she was a Christian at all) was
just as much a minister as anyone else. A priest of equal standing.
However she has proven to care nothing about avoiding the appearance
of evil in this matter which now tells us to all treat her as a heathen.
This is so simple. What part of this is confusing to anyone? There
is no seam in the logic. Amy has ALL POWER to make a statement we'd
hear if she wanted to make it. Rather she has left us to see CLEARLY
a public sin, and wonder "does she even care???". This is not avoiding
the appearance of evil; hence Amy is in perpetual sin. End of discussion.
-Bob
Spin One80
>Date: 7/30/01 6:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <UXc97.195677$Q9.49...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
>
>
>"Brian Healy" wrote:
>>No, the ***false*** view that somehow Amy Grant or Mike Warnke can say or
>do anything
>>that invalidates true Christian faith.
>
>(Emphasis on the word ***false*** my own) :)
>
>>How can she possibly undo the death and resurrection of Christ or its
>effects on a
>>persons life?
>
>Brian hits the nail on the head!
>
Who is claiming her actions invalidate the truth of the Gospel? Quite a stretch
there Brian and cheerleader. Again, I guess you and Breezy cannot comprehend
the concept of influence huh?You know, the "no man is an island" deal? So much
for all of Paul's wasted breath when speaking to the Corinthians about "the
weaker brother" huh? You sure do dismiss a clear biblical principle in the name
of rationalization don't you two?
>>That is what the Christian faith is about. Not what you, I, she, or anyone
>else in
>>the world say's or does or claims.
>
>Right in the center!
>
Sorry, the "Christian faith" also embraces the concept of responsibility for
the influences you have on others due to your own actions....a principle
CLEARLY spelled out all over the Bible, especially with:
"It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your
brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak".(Romans 14:21)
Notice the words ".....stumble,offended, weak"....clear words of INFLUENCE to
which God will hold the Christian accountable in the area of loss of reward in
heaven.
>>Your confusing Christianity with some saved by works and deeds mindset
>based on
>>outward behavior.
>
>Yowza!
>
Again, it's obvious that you like to gloss over other CLEAR principles of the
Bible. Like....."Therefore, bretheren, be even more dilligent to make your
calling and election sure, for if you DO THESE THINGS (those spelled out in
verses 5-7) you will never stumble..." (2Peter 1:10) Brian, we all know that
works are not a prerequisite to salvation, but they DO confirm the regeneration
that God has worked in the individual. Why do you act as though you belong to
some cult in my having to explain this?::::shaking head::::
>>If someone thinks, you're a religious idiot how does the reflect on the
>truth of
>>christianity be they right or wrong?
>>Christianaity is true or it's not. Period.
>
>Yippee!
>
Again, the concept of influence seems to have escaped your mental capacities.
>>Christian faith is not based on other Christians or their actions, but
>Christ,
>>anything else is not an issue of Christian
>>faith but being socially let down at best.
>
That "social let down" as you term it is something that God takes a lil more
seriously than you apparently do Brian.
"My bretheren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall
receive a STRICTER JUDGMENT." (James 3:1)
I consider both Warnke and Grant "teachers" in the sense that they REPRESENT
the One who requires they act in accordance with what they proclaim, as we ALL
do. The point that is made here though is the SPHERE OF INFLUENCE as
a"teacher". I am not held to the same standard of judgment for one simple
reason....I'm not in the POSITION to reach the numbers as these 2 are. Too bad
both Breezy and yourself haven't yet fathomed this principle as yet.But I have
confidence a light might go off (c:
>And the "social let down" of Amy and Mike (and any other person who's ever
>missed the mark in any way) only *validates* the christian viewpoint of the
>need for Christ. This doesn't discredit the christian community, but rather
>demonstrates why it exists in the first place!
>
>Breezy
One final point to Breezy's comment above.
Did Amy only "miss the mark"? Or is she continuing in this bad marksmanship?I
say the latter. Bob hits the nail on the head in his assesment of Amy's
disregard of "the appearance of evil" in her divorce and sudden re-marriage
with Vince. I agree with that assesment.But it's too bad that the heart of my
contention has been missed in this ongoing dismissal of Amy's sin. I have
pointed out that it seems to me that Cornerstone zine along with Trott have
pursued those involved in ministries that deal with demonic themes in their own
self-applauding efforts, all the while discrediting the reality of this
spiritual dimension by their silence on this doctrinal position of
demonization.Again I ask, do Trott or C-Stone even believe in demonization or
the reality of such activity? One can only wonder.
Blessings, Jeff
icebones
"Jay" <rog...@aol.comKingsX> wrote in message
news:20010728012602...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> > I fall, we all fall,
>
team.
>
> Jay
>
> In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertantly allowed myself
to
> assume the form of a large centipede.
>
>
> www.underheaven.com
Breezy
> And as usual you won't tell me why.
I've already given my position. You've given yours. It's obvious that we
don't agree! I not gonna go back and forth with you when we both have
already stated our positions. I have no need/desire to make you see my
point of view. I already stated it, and that's good enough for me. And I
don't agree with your viewpoints, either. Oh well... you'll make it
through.
> From this I conclude that you side
> with these people who whine about all the judgemental people in the church
> because you are a person who wants to maintain a fallacy ridden viewpoint
> in order to maintain some sin which you PROMOTE other people writing down
> on a list and checking it twice.
He he he. Again you missed the point. I said that *if* people want
something from Amy (public confession of sin and public repentance, etc),
then they should be willing to do the same.
> That's not nice. That's just an admission
> that you are in rebellion to God and a recommendation that others find
> contentment in staying in that same place and just shutting up so you
don't
> feel bad about it. In the end hell is still the place one winds up. I
> recommend you burn your stupid list, repent of whatever was on it and
> start asking God to help you overcome those familiar sins. In the
> meantime, don't recommend that others join you in the fiasco and in the
> end there will not be a heavy millstone with your name on it. Ok?
Ha ha ha hehehe. You get funnier by the minute. 'Though I'm thankful for
your concern. ;) But I'm sure that when I get to heaven you'll be right
there on the left side of God pointing out any of the things that I may
still be doing wrong. :-D
> I say these things because I want to see you in heaven. But if
> you won't reason about the philosophy you've adopted, then I'm afraid
> it has become your idol. I can't do a thing for you if you won't reason.
Ohhhhhhh nooooooo! Bob can't help me so I'm dooooooooooomed... I'm
dooooooooomed!!!
(Hey, Shadow, if you're here in RMC, I see what you're saying to me in
alt.music.christian.rock) :-D
Breezy.
Breezy
> You said something like "people like you who sit in their pew and
> wait for the world to come into the church" or like that did you not??
> -Bob
On 7-28-01 at 10:38am in the "Re: Regarding Mike Warnke and fraud claims"
thread in RMC I wrote:
Like you, Bob, I don't sit and wait for the masses to come to my church
like "sheep."
On 7-28-01 at 2:21pm, after you had severely and wrongfully accused me of
writing something else, I replied in the same thread:
If you'll kindly re-read what I wrote, I said, "Like you, Bob, I don't
sit and wait for the masses to come to my church like "sheep."" But I know
it's not like you to actually take time and read what people actually write.
;)
At no time, did you actually read what I actually wrote.
Breezy.
Bob Weigel
Spin One80 <spin...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Regarding Mike Warnke and fraud claims
>>From: "Breezy" bree...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 7/30/01 6:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <UXc97.195677$Q9.49...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
>>
>>
>>"Brian Healy" wrote:
>>>No, the ***false*** view that somehow Amy Grant or Mike Warnke can say or
>>do anything
>>>that invalidates true Christian faith.
>>
>>(Emphasis on the word ***false*** my own) :)
>>
>>>How can she possibly undo the death and resurrection of Christ or its
>>effects on a
>>>persons life?
>>
>>Brian hits the nail on the head!
>>
>
>Who is claiming her actions invalidate the truth of the Gospel? Quite a stretch
>there Brian and cheerleader. Again, I guess you and Breezy cannot comprehend
>the concept of influence huh?You know, the "no man is an island" deal? So much
It is kind of funny isn't it? I mean they just disregard the whole realm
of scripture which pertains to people causing little ones to stumble,
not allowing our freedom to cause another to stumble, and the REAMS of
OT examples of people and whole nations who were allowed to become
bad examples in various ways, and the Lord finally brought them down
because they PERSISTED. Once again he is willing that none would perish.
I sure hope we all wind up in heaven. But I am confronted with the reality
that not all will be there and the reason isn't that we all have fallen
short of the glory of God, because his sacrifice has provided for that.
But when someone sees that and then they go their merry way as though
it means nothing to them....well...it doesn't. It doesn't mean anything
to them. It's all null and void to them. Read any NT book through and tell
me that there are no warnings in that book against the types of things we're
discussing. If it was important for the apostles Brian...breezy...can you
give a LITTLE slack here and think that just possibly it might be reasonable
for people today to issue warnings to those involved in perpetual sin and
those who might follow after them once they establish that they just don't
care. If you examine your own words you will find that you specifically
downplay a LOT of the content of the bible in paralell applications.
-Bob
>for all of Paul's wasted breath when speaking to the Corinthians about "the
>weaker brother" huh? You sure do dismiss a clear biblical principle in the name
>of rationalization don't you two?
...couldn't have said it better!
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob Weigel" wrote:
>> And as usual you won't tell me why.
>
>I've already given my position. You've given yours. It's obvious that we
You never explained your position. Just gave it. It's like saying
"we should all drive on the left side of the road" but then you never explain
why you said that. It's like...we're all supposed to just know that you got
this revelation from outer space that alien vehicles are going to begin
destroying all vehicles that travel on the right side of the road! We
don't agree becasue YOU DO NOT REASON. If you would enter into reasoning,
you would have to say "I dont' believe the scriptures" or "I agree". There
is nothing negotiable about the scriptures I mentioned on this. As
usual if there's no sign you want to reason, I'm done reading. -Bob
Breezy
> You never explained your position. Just gave it. It's like saying
> "we should all drive on the left side of the road" but then you never
explain
> why you said that.
Actually, if you look back, I've explained it several times in several
ways... Unfortunately, you seem to have a hard time actually reading what I
write, as I've demonstrated three times now.
Bob Weigel
I saw no reply to my first inquiry about this.... resulting in a
bunch of unnecessary text. The context made it somehow read that
you were saying "people like you who sit in the pew" to me.
Occasionally we all misread things. If it's apparent I've misread something,
simply say "no I actually said exactly the opposite, or meant to" or something
and we wont' have the ongoing confusion. Unfortunately, to re read
something would take half an hour of my day once I've hit "send", so
I try to make a minimal number of such mistakes and rely on people to
tell me when I do make them. Sorry for misunderstanding. All resulting
words retracted obviously. Once again, I was wrong, as you claim I never
say but wind up saying about something in nearly every thread that runs
on for a bit..... -Bob
In article <Len97.197091$Q9.49...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>,
Breezy
> Did Amy only "miss the mark"? Or is she continuing in this bad
marksmanship?I
> say the latter.
Lots of things come to mind in reading your post, but I'll focus on one in
particular.
I would really like to point out (though not for the first time) that the
"good" people of the christian community (at least here in RMC), seem
intently focused on Amy's sin, and the consequences of it, and how it has
negatively influenced others. I see how it can have a bad effect on "weak"
members of the christian faith (ie: those who don't have a solid foundation
in the finished work of Christ, and are easily swayed by the flesh). If
such is the case, then I wonder why the "good" people of the christian
community don't also point out the tons of good that Amy has done in the
christian and non-christian communities. It's not that good deeds balance
out the bad ones... don't think that I'm saying that. But I hear so much
about the biblical exhortations to live uprightly and to do the good deeds
that we were created in Christ Jesus to do... and yet I hear *nothing* from
these people acknowledging *Amy's* good deeds and righteousness!
Let's see. Her work with Habitat for Humanity, Hundreds of thousands of
dollars given to charity, Countless time spent on raising money for other
charities, etc etc. The list of "good fruit" in her life goes on and on,
but the few sins she's famous for seems to over-shadow all of this! It's as
if the *bad* deeds actually outbalance the *good* ones!
She's indeed in a position where the "bad" things she does has the potential
to affect a lot of people (weak people, mind you), there's no doubt about
it. But she's also in a position where the good things she does
*positively* affects a lot of people as well. Not only does it affect the
actual people who directly benefit from her work and giving, but it's also
an *excellent* example for christians to follow. In attempts to discredit
Amy, people quote verses (biblical exhortations to righteousness and good
deeds) that actually pertain to the good deeds she does, and yet fail to
acknowledge her for them! Again, it's as if all the good she does counts
for nil, all because of the "bad" she's done!
It's not like she turned from Christ and decided to go live a prodigal life,
void of any goodness or spiritual fruit. But christians seem to want to
focus *only* on the dirt in other people's lives. There's no excuse for sin
(and there's no way to atone for it except by grace). But there's also no
excuse to keep hammering away at someone's few sins, completely ignoring
their righteousness.
Jus' my thoughts... feel free to disagree. :-D
Breezy
Brian Healy
> >
>
> Who is claiming her actions invalidate the truth of the Gospel? Quite a stretch
> there Brian and cheerleader. Again, I guess you and Breezy cannot comprehend
> the concept of influence huh?You know, the "no man is an island" deal?
I understand that you don't understand the difference between christian faith ,a
sociological issue in an americanize christian subculture, John Done, Salvation by
grace and the Bible.
> So much
> for all of Paul's wasted breath when speaking to the Corinthians about "the
> weaker brother" huh? You sure do dismiss a clear biblical principle in the name
> of rationalization don't you two?
You have no knowledge of hermeneutics do you?
Again the only clear implication is of your narrow minded view of grace and the
christian subcultures failure to live up to the standards of your personal
interpretation of the bible.
I'll try again it's grace only.
Not, Oh I know that, but...
No but 's involved at all.
People are saved by grace so no man should boast like you seem to be doing with
your self-righteous indignation.
The Pharisee based their system on who does what to attain righteousness and a
system of outward actions, Jesus didn't. I'll stick with his plan thank you.
BTW I can list fifty things you like or do right now that will stumble entire
denominations so quit trying to enslave the church to your manipulative
interpretation and view of the weaker brother.
If you truly believe this enslavement concept for starters get off line as the
amish feel electricity and technology are tools of satan to destroy the christian
community and family when they are used in the home.
We won't even get into your styles and taste in music, clothes, hair, jewelry etc.
All of which stumble some "weaker brother".
>
>
> >>That is what the Christian faith is about. Not what you, I, she, or anyone
> >else in
> >>the world say's or does or claims.
> >
> >Right in the center!
> >
>
> Sorry, the "Christian faith" also embraces the concept of responsibility for
> the influences you have on others due to your own actions....a principle
> CLEARLY spelled out all over the Bible, especially with:
>
> >
No the "christian faith" is nothing more or less than "while we were sinners
Christ died for us" it is solely about the death and resurrection of Christ and
our salvation by God's grace. Nothing else period.
Please learn the difference between Christianity and this silly americanize
"christian living" concept you seem to believe is in itself Christianity.
>
> Again, it's obvious that you like to gloss over other CLEAR principles of the
> Bible. Like....."Therefore, bretheren, be even more dilligent to make your
> calling and election sure, for if you DO THESE THINGS (those spelled out in
> verses 5-7) you will never stumble..." (2Peter 1:10) Brian, we all know that
> works are not a prerequisite to salvation, but they DO confirm the regeneration
> that God has worked in the individual. Why do you act as though you belong to
> some cult in my having to explain this?::::shaking head::::
Do you not realize you just pick a section of scripture that though out all of
church history has been used to support what I have been repeatedly trying to tell
you?
Start back a few verses please...
Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus
our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness
through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through
these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them
you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world
caused by evil desires.
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to
goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control,
perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly
kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in
increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in
your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is
nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past
sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and
election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble,
You have taken a section of scripture that is about how as a believer by living by
those virtues listed will never fall or stumble, depending on translation.
In other words if you stumble it's your own damn fault you didn't do what you were
suppose to be doing.
It doesn't matter who did what that offends you. Amy makes you stumble it's your
bad not hers, your the one ignoring what Peter wrote. Again if you are stumble
it's you that is the problem you have the free will as does everyone else and you
decided to not trust God and his grace but to be stumbled instead.
Clearly you don't trust God enough to take him at his word to save you and the
church by grace. Because you look at what others are doing, the sin of it all, how
dare they. Go buy a mirror and behold the real problem you don't worry enough
about yourself.
>
>
> >>If someone thinks, you're a religious idiot how does the reflect on the
> >truth of
> >>christianity be they right or wrong?
> >>Christianaity is true or it's not. Period.
> >
> >Yippee!
> >
>
> Again, the concept of influence seems to have escaped your mental capacities.
>
> >>Christian faith is not based on other Christians or their actions, but
> >Christ,
> >>anything else is not an issue of Christian
> >>faith but being socially let down at best.
> >
>
> That "social let down" as you term it is something that God takes a lil more
> seriously than you apparently do Brian.
>
>
Oh we think we are speaking for God again do we? How strange he always agrees with
your interpretations, cultural biases and priorities in regards to the reading of
the scriptures and matters of faith.
>
>
> I consider both Warnke and Grant "teachers" in the sense that they REPRESENT
> the One who requires they act in accordance with what they proclaim, as we ALL
> do. The point that is made here though is the SPHERE OF INFLUENCE as
> a"teacher".
And you would be 100% wrong.
You sure like to hand out label's, First any dork that sings and is christian is a
minister, now if someone shares there life experience through music they earn the
title of teacher, Why are all these other silly fools studying and going to
seminary when all they have to do is meet you to get credentials.
Your standards are way to base for me I think credibility has to be earn in these
areas of expertise.
If I give you direction to the 7-11 that doesn't make me a teacher.
> I am not held to the same standard of judgment for one simple
> reason....I'm not in the POSITION to reach the numbers as these 2 are.
Cool, I get more sin because of low record sales, but ,wait you get more sin than
me, gosh that's not very fair
Please tell me your joking that is just out and out silly.
> Too bad
> both Breezy and yourself haven't yet fathomed this principle as yet.But I have
> confidence a light might go off (c:
That would be your saved by grace but, more popular people than you are saved by
works?
>
>
> >And the "social let down" of Amy and Mike (and any other person who's ever
> >missed the mark in any way) only *validates* the christian viewpoint of the
> >need for Christ. This doesn't discredit the christian community, but rather
> >demonstrates why it exists in the first place!
> >
> >Breezy
>
> Again I ask, do Trott or C-Stone even believe in demonization or
> the reality of such activity? One can only wonder.
> Blessings, Jeff
I don't know what Trott belives Screwtape but, the way you keep raising the bar
for your fellow christian believers your convincing me that demons are still
pretty active and paving the road to hell with their good intenions.
Spin One80
>living by
>those virtues listed will never fall or stumble, depending on translation.
>In other words if you stumble it's your own damn fault you didn't do what you
>were
>suppose to be doing.
>
>It doesn't matter who did what that offends you. Amy makes you stumble it's
>your
>bad not hers, your the one ignoring what Peter wrote. Again if you are
>stumble
>it's you that is the problem you have the free will as does everyone else and
>you
>decided to not trust God and his grace but to be stumbled instead.
>
spoke about when he warned...."But whoever CAUSES one of these little ones who
believe in me TO SIN (what were you saying about your own damn fault?), it
would be better for him if a millstone (hmmmm....I seem to remember Bob
speaking of this also) were hung around his neck....". In fact, the
consequences of such actions is so severe that the Holy Spirit made sure this
warning was included in ALL of the synoptic gospel accounts. So much for my
failure in "hermeneutics" huh? I would suggest you get a better understanding
of the scope of influence you have, otherwise you can throw out half the
teachings of the NT that call us to "Let your light so shine before men, that
they might see your good works (gasp!!!! WORKS!?!?!) and glorify your Father in
heaven." Again Brian, your biblical ignorance is way out of line
here....especially the way it is so boldly proclaimed without any foundation.
Blessings, Jeff
Brian Healy
>
At the risk of this having become pointless here goes,
My foundation is historic Christianity's understanding of God's grace, not my own
opinion and that his grace is bigger than all this petty moralizing you seem
obsessed with.
Jesus talking about misleading little children in regard to who God is, has
nothing to do with me, nor with the fact of Amy Grant being a divorcee. You are
redefining a verse about little children being mislead on the nature of God, and
God's value of children to a culture that place little value on them and claiming
it applies to christian adults old enough to understand complicated issues.
Again the Jehovah's Witnesses would suit you better, they really enjoy your type
of scripture hop-scotch as an approach to the bible. You are trying to kill a
major theme of scripture: Grace, with a very minor and totally subjective one:
stumbling, That as I pointed out God has already provided a remedy for in II Peter
you just don't like personal responsibility for your failure to show love to
others.
Hence my comment on hermeneutics still stands.
In truth, you, yourself don't even truly believe your own bogus view point because
if you did you would see you are still in sin and causing others to stumble under
your silly interpretation by your repeated false and unproved accusation that Amy
Grant ever had an affair or if her divorce was even itself a sin.
You don't know the situation or the time line outside of the media , And have had
no personal relationship with her to be able to make your accusations because you
don't know any of the primary factors involved.
At best all you can do is your ignorant and uninformed public lynching based on
complete and total speculation because your bubble of a "christian living" safety
zone has burst.
You want to carp about Amy Grant's divorce and the concept of stumbling, fine ,
Every time you judge Amy's on her divorce you are stumbling others who have found
themselves divorced with your complete lack of love for her and them, as well as
your totally self righteous attitude. If you really cared about stumbling more
than you desire to enslave everyone in your idiotic works righteousness program
that only a handful of select sin sniffers are qualified to judge beyond yourself
you wouldn't have said anything at all,
for you would have the full knowledge your comments would have a stumbling effect
on others and would cause further harm and divisions in the Body of Christ because
of your views on the divorced regardless of there personal situations.
Come to Christ, enjoy the enslavement to the petty whims of millions, be judge by
self-righteous idiots for life and never be allowed to break even the most
psychotic snake handling Pentecostals views less he be stumbled and you risk the
millstone of burden and the fires of hell in death.
Oh that will really draw 'em in. I really want to be part of that!
I'll stick with the total freedom of grace with the full knowledge humans will
still let each other down but ,God still loves each and every one of us, and I'll
serve him because of that love, not, because I'll piss him off if I error.
Please spend as much time studying God's forgiveness, love and grace and mercy as
you have this stupid cultural world view of yours. I promise it will be worth it
for the freedom of God's love in your life. Maybe if you could only feel the
liberation of unrelenting compassion for all people you will see the poverty of
your current thought patterns.
Frankly my God is bigger than yours, because nothing anyone does will stop his
holy spirit from working where he chooses. Not even Christians
Bob Weigel
All of the points I disagreed on I posted reasoning, most was never
addressed. I addressed every single major thrust of what you said re:
whether it is ever simply RIGHT biblically to renounce public sin in
a public way. You did NOT address the point I made regarding "avoiding
the appearance of evil" and the fact that Amy has EASY access to the media
to do just that. That's the bottom line of this whole thing. You are
in a dillusional world where you do everything right. I did one thing
wrong and I confronted it...where did you get three?? Or were you counting
that in all our correspondance over the years I've made three errors? :-)
I think it was probably more than that wasn't it? -Bob
PS and you didn't really address any of the similar points that
Jeff made, so for once you can't dismiss me as the only person on
the planet who thinks this way....since like many people you seem to
respond to what's popular to believe more than what's...reasonable. -
In article <WFq97.198262$Q9.49...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>,
Breezy
"Bob Weigel" <b...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:9k7lfl$b...@garcia.efn.org...
>
> All of the points I disagreed on I posted reasoning, most was never
> addressed. I addressed every single major thrust of what you said re:
> whether it is ever simply RIGHT biblically to renounce public sin in
> a public way. You did NOT address the point I made regarding "avoiding
> the appearance of evil" and the fact that Amy has EASY access to the media
> to do just that. That's the bottom line of this whole thing.
For *you* that's the bottom line. I've already made all the points I want
to make about what you call the "bottom line." I know, I know, you don't
have time to go back and read all of what I wrote. It would just have been
easier if you'd read what I'd written in the first place. Oh well. I'm not
wasting my time repeating what I've already said, just for you.
> I did one thing
> wrong and I confronted it...where did you get three?? Or were you
counting
> that in all our correspondance over the years I've made three errors? :-)
> I think it was probably more than that wasn't it?
It took me *three times* before you acknowledged it the "one thing." But
understand this: it's not that I felt the need to point it out three times,
but in fact you kept replying and denying the truth of what I actually said
(without paying any attention whatsoever to what I actually said the *first*
time), so each time I made a very *simple* statement regarding your reply.
Then when I finally made it clear as a bell (the third time), with accurate
time-and-date references to what I actually said, you had the gall to rebuke
me and told me I shouldn't have done all that, but I should have only simply
said "no I actually said exactly the opposite..." which I had *already*
done TWICE!
I decided a couple of days ago to not take a whole lot more time in these
discussions with you, because, as this *small* episode has proven, and has
been proven time and time again in the past, I can't do or say *anything*
that you actually pay attention to! However, when I don't respond to
something you say in the way you think I should, you pay *considerable*
attention to that!
But as I've said time and time again, my goal is *not* to make you see
things my way! I don't go round and round with you regarding points I've
already made because I'm quite comfortable with points I've already made.
It's not my problem if you don't actually read what I write or if my
original comments aren't good enough for you. ;)
Breezy
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Spin One80" wrote:
>> Did Amy only "miss the mark"? Or is she continuing in this bad
>marksmanship?I
>> say the latter.
>
>Lots of things come to mind in reading your post, but I'll focus on one in
>particular.
>
GOOD JOB... Got 'em on just in time didn't ya! Why...why can't you just
deal with the logic straight on? It wouldn make things so much more
concise here. That is the crux issue. You have dealt us REAMS of text
now which displays an inability to deal with this...other plane of thinking.
Both Jeff and I obviously fully understand that ONE SIN IS EQUAL TO ANOTHER
(except for the fact that maybe one does have to rationalize God away quite
a bit more to enter into certain sin.) Yet you keep preaching to the choir
and PROBABLY in your dillusion you think we...just don't get it. That we can't
think high enough to cross that incredible barrier you, in all your wisdom
were able to hurdle!! Well, it's making us both quite sick because we both
obviously fully comprehended all you have said since we were young in
Christ. Sorry. On the other hand, you have fully displayed that you are
clueless regarding the spiritual impolications surrounding the above statements.
You refuse to acknowlege that the bible clearly teaches that we are actually
commanded to confront sin that is perpetual, and let the whole body of Christ
know to treat such a person as a heathen. John spoke of such people when
he said "They went out from us because they were not part of us". GO
CRITICIZE JOHN. That's where you really need to start. Criticize Paul
who specifically confronted dozens of groups and individuals in the
public forum in his ministry. Criticize Jesus who blasted the pharisees
calling them "Blind guides" "white washed tombs" a "Brood of vipers",
"Hypocrites", "Children of the devil"....you are a very very confused lady
and I will not let you spread that confusion here. You have no stand
biblically for the things you have been saying in this area. The
Pharisees did LOTS OF GOOOOD THINGS!!! LOTS AND LOTS OF GOOOOD GOOD
THINGS! WHY DIDN'T Jesus...mention ANY of them???* Hmmmm really makes ya
think...errr..no it doesn't. Nothing makes you think on this. You are so
hard hearted against the truth, and steeped in worship of your OWN
IDEAS that...I'll bet you'll sit there and rationalize some way around
these facts in your mind. God for it. It's all yours. I'm going
out of town for a few days soon and can't spend any more time on this
discussion but I pray somehow something sinks in. One thing for
sure. Nobody with a bible and an opening in their heart for the truth is
going to read this and now know what's going on.
>I would really like to point out (though not for the first time) that the
>"good" people of the christian community (at least here in RMC), seem
>intently focused on Amy's sin, and the consequences of it, and how it has
First, nobody but God is good Jesus said. Second I dont' "focus on Amy's
sin". The only time I mention anything is when some misled person pipes
up on the topic or I sense I'm supposed to inform someone that still looks
at her as a sister in Christ in obedience to Matthew 18.
>negatively influenced others. I see how it can have a bad effect on "weak"
>members of the christian faith (ie: those who don't have a solid foundation
>in the finished work of Christ, and are easily swayed by the flesh). If
>such is the case, then I wonder why the "good" people of the christian
>community don't also point out the tons of good that Amy has done in the
>christian and non-christian communities. It's not that good deeds balance
We've been over this. See above ref. to the pharisees. Who the heck
cares? I don't think you understand what the true "Christian Community"
IS there hun. :-) The christian community isn't a MERIT BADGE CLUB.
Recall Annanias and Saphira who flaunted their good works then lied
to the H.S. and died. Why didn't Peter mention any of their good works
as they were keeling over? GET REAL! Amy obviously also didn't have
pure motives in some areas there and I fear that if someone doesn't help
her understand that she hasn't EARNED HER WAY TO HEAVEN BY HER WORKS,
so that now she can just find a cumfy pad and cruise....she may find a
similar end. Don't you get it? I'm just obeying the bible. Why
don't you cease with your rationalizations and hypothetical situation
ethics and just trust God's word?? Please don't go that way. Please...
don't go that way.
>out the bad ones... don't think that I'm saying that. But I hear so much
Of course not. However you are saying that we should mention...deeds...
which have to do with...what? :-) Why are you judging people and publically
dissing them because they dont' mention good deeds? WHO CARES. For the
reasons above it has no bearing on anything. Of COURSE you are saying
they balance. That's the only reason to bring them up in this context!
>about the biblical exhortations to live uprightly and to do the good deeds
>that we were created in Christ Jesus to do... and yet I hear *nothing* from
>these people acknowledging *Amy's* good deeds and righteousness!
Good deeds done outside the holy spirit Paul referred to as "filthy rags".
Again in the current context, the concern is not that we liven up the
party by saying all the seemingly good things Amy did. HEY, God used
Babylon for some pretty good things! How come he only mentioned those *
much in the same way as he mentioned the deeds of the pharisees?? God
used them as his tool but because of their hard hearts they never got to enjoy
it so all he wound up talking about was the evil they did...That's as spoon
fed as I can deliver it. Welcome to the broad context of the bible. CASE
after CASE like these in the scriptures. God acted EXACTLY like Jesus
because they are indeed the same character. If I don't humble myself and
give ALL glory to him...I am so danged lost. I'm a ruin without him.
An utter ruin. Because I realized this 15 years ago I was able to walk
with him as he led me I believe in being the original internet evangelist,
and before that to begin ministering to broken street people and teaching
the truth about many things that were leading people astray including the one
we're discussing here...but amidst that I'm struggling with porno thoughts
and junk...ABSURD! How can God use ANYONE LIKE THAT??? Well, because
when we simply realize that we need him and begin to cry out to him, he
will begin to deliver us and at the same time use us to free others.
There are various kinds of sins. The ultimate definition is "missing
the mark" of course and the ultimate mark is Christ. So, how do we miss
the mark? When we cease having prayer/communion with him and start on our own
jaunt....or when we flat refuse to enter into that in the first place. In
this world nobody can judge when someone else has. So we all should be very
concerned for each other when we see signs that maybe this isn't the case. This
is why Jesus in love issued the instructions of Matthew 18:15-.. He knew
sin would surface in all our lives. For some, the end result will be
they individually deal with it. Others will be confronted and deal with it.
The first two could well be truly saved. However, one who does NOT deal
with it the bible says to treat like a heathen. They may at some later time
deal with this. Or they may not. If not then it is because they have pushed
away God's spirit all the days of their lives.
>
>Let's see. Her work with Habitat for Humanity, Hundreds of thousands of
>dollars given to charity, Countless time spent on raising money for other
>charities, etc etc. The list of "good fruit" in her life goes on and on,
>but the few sins she's famous for seems to over-shadow all of this! It's as
>if the *bad* deeds actually outbalance the *good* ones!
Yup, one bad deed indeed can...but like you said you weren't looking fo
a balance right??
>
>She's indeed in a position where the "bad" things she does has the potential
>to affect a lot of people (weak people, mind you), there's no doubt about
Yes, the weak ones we are supposed to mostly concern ourselves with so they
don't wind up in hell...yes...them.
>it. But she's also in a position where the good things she does
>*positively* affects a lot of people as well. Not only does it affect the
So far, the overall picture is "Do lots of good appearing things and God
will let YOU fornicate with Vince!". The actual picture Jesus was trying to
portray is "Do things that people might give you NO attention for...but do
them because you are following me...and for crying out loud...when you
get off track please turn back to me and don't let your sin consume you"
Amy, by your own admission, has done the OPPOSITE. She has rather done
high profile things that actually made the news and it got to YOU...(Or
did she actually blow her own horn on these things...I dunno :-) ) and
has sinned and made no effort to clear things up...of course because she'd
realize she'd have to humble herself and admit she screwed up marrying vince
and I dunno where vince is with Christ having married a person who just
divorced...so I'd guess he'd probably divorce her for the public humiliation
that would result from her coming clean. Seriously. You wanna see doo doo
hit the fan? Compromise, worm your way in with people who are exalted by the
masses...then turn into a butterfly on them. :-) Hehehe. I pray it happens.
You just watch and see if it does.
>actual people who directly benefit from her work and giving, but it's also
>an *excellent* example for christians to follow. In attempts to discredit
Wrong. It's given a terrible one. So far. That could all change in a flash.
But the screen is pretty gloomy right now.
>Amy, people quote verses (biblical exhortations to righteousness and good
>deeds) that actually pertain to the good deeds she does, and yet fail to
>acknowledge her for them! Again, it's as if all the good she does counts
>for nil, all because of the "bad" she's done!
Yes, there's no balance. You were right for a millisecond back there
somewhere. Please read the text presented carefully. I'm saving this
for possible web page addition. The concepts presented herein are
powerful. This is a crux issue. I believe more dilluded people will
wind up in hell over this whole thing than over any other single issue.
And the people in the bible seemed to focus quite a bit on it too. The
whole desert experience. Cain and Able. The tower of Babel. Every
story has a thread of this "socialized goodness" being confronted and
revealed for what it is. For example, Cain struggled to understand why,
after his attempt to do what seemed good, got his sacrifice rejected.
Obviously God didn't see good deeds the WAY YOU SEE THEM.... Back
then, there you'd have been on the bandwagon saying "look at the
nice sacrifice Cain brought! Wasn't that thoughtful??". To God it
just stank. Because he saw the heart.
Now we all see what was in Amy's heart. Gross immaturity, the
desire to scmooze her way to the top, the desire to skip husbands
instead of seeking the whole body of Christ for help if that's what
it took (having, at one time, the attention of a good portion of them).
Do good deeds fit in along the way with this agenda?? Well, of course!
She's like...a corporation. Even worldly corporations give to charity.
Good grief.
>
>It's not like she turned from Christ and decided to go live a prodigal life,
>void of any goodness or spiritual fruit. But christians seem to want to
It isn't "like" it. That's exactly what she did. Proof enclosed. She
refuses even in her obvious outrageous sustained sin, to obey the scripture
which commands her to avoid the appearance of evil.
>focus *only* on the dirt in other people's lives. There's no excuse for sin
>(and there's no way to atone for it except by grace). But there's also no
>excuse to keep hammering away at someone's few sins, completely ignoring
Biblically, you are wrong for reasons listed above. Try addressing one of
them some time.
>their righteousness.
Deeds!=righteousness Belief==righteousness
>
>Jus' my thoughts... feel free to disagree. :-D
>
I feel free to disagree and post why to everyone in the world. Now you
have the right to agree or state specifically why, (addressing each
point in a way other than saying "that's silly" or something..like
actually show where I missed the greater context of a scripture or
like that...except that I've listed probably 40 well known references
in a way which lends mutual support in this discussion so far...good
luck...OR be known as what you have shown yourself to be; a hard hearted
person who worships their own viewpoint and ignores solid reasoning
presented by others. -Bob
Spin One80
Every time you judge Amy's on her divorce you are stumbling others who have
found
themselves divorced with your complete lack of love for her and them, as well
as
your totally self righteous attitude.
You sure do miss the boat here.....I AM NOT in a position of singing music that
contains themes of purity,commitment, and waiting on God's power and grace,
neither are many others who have had a divorce in their lives .Big difference
Brian....one that apparently is under the range of your spiritual parascope. I
guess it's ok to have Amy sing such acolades that directly conflict with her
recent maritual problems, but Warnke can't be seen as one having credibility
after being found out to be deceptive in his personal history? Again, strange
double-standard you hold Brian....BOTH are quite deceptive, but you seem to be
oblivious to this fact.
Bob Weigel
>Spin One80 wrote:
>
>> >
>
>>
>> Who is claiming her actions invalidate the truth of the Gospel? Quite a stretch
>> there Brian and cheerleader. Again, I guess you and Breezy cannot comprehend
>> the concept of influence huh?You know, the "no man is an island" deal?
>
>I understand that you don't understand the difference between christian faith ,a
>sociological issue in an americanize christian subculture, John Done, Salvation by
>grace and the Bible.
>
>> So much
>> for all of Paul's wasted breath when speaking to the Corinthians about "the
>> weaker brother" huh? You sure do dismiss a clear biblical principle in the name
>> of rationalization don't you two?
>
>You have no knowledge of hermeneutics do you?
And Healy leads out with a powerful demeaning pointed question to the right
flab....
>Again the only clear implication is of your narrow minded view of grace and the
>christian subcultures failure to live up to the standards of your personal
>interpretation of the bible.
and follows with a sluffing inuendo laden jab to the perpleximus
>I'll try again it's grace only.
>Not, Oh I know that, but...
WAit...now he's doing "dope a rope"????
>No but 's involved at all.
>People are saved by grace so no man should boast like you seem to be doing with
>your self-righteous indignation.
No, all a cover up....another spin move with a reverse elbow to the
inflamitus scripturendo! Did you SEE THAT!! What a fight we have
here tonight folks! Brian, a man who will not stop long enough
to study his opponents strategy because he's studied under the
greats! Who needs a strategy when you operate in a dimension like
this man does...a dimension that is simply invinceable. It's
as though he lives in another universe! It's as though he can't
even hear me announce this fight because I'm in his killfile!
Amazing! Well, I'm down for the count on this one. That
punch carried right through to everyone in this stadium and I
see nothing but punch drunk people in here tonight....awwhhhhemmmmm.
Yessirree... zzzzzzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzzzzzzz. -Bob
Subconscious P.S. if somehow this does leak through...Brian...
I really hope you are feeling great, but I wish you'd take
your "opponent" in this discussion a little more seriously...I
mean like..take the great adventure man and lower yourself
to his universe for a while...a universe where he sees two
things that conflict and he has to reject one of them..ya know..
that place. I think it would make the fight a lot more interesting
for everyone. Who knows, it might even mutate into something even
better to watch than a fight?
Peter T. Chattaway
: Sorry, the "Christian faith" also embraces the concept of responsibility
: for the influences you have on others due to your own actions....a
: principle CLEARLY spelled out all over the Bible, especially with:
: "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which
: your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak".(Romans 14:21)
The *last* thing Paul was trying to do in Romans 14 was lay down a new law
compelling Christians to tiptoe around each other, to give the upper hand
to the so-called "weak". Romans 14 is actually more complex, more open,
than that. It tells *everybody* to stop judging each other.
In other words, the "weak" should get off Amy's case (see verse 10).
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- pe...@chattaway.com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Brian Healy
>
>
> You sure do miss the boat here.....I AM NOT in a position of singing music that
> contains themes of purity,commitment, and waiting on God's power and grace,
> neither are many others who have had a divorce in their lives .Big difference
> Brian....one that apparently is under the range of your spiritual parascope. I
> guess it's ok to have Amy sing such acolades that directly conflict with her
> recent maritual problems, but Warnke can't be seen as one having credibility
> after being found out to be deceptive in his personal history? Again, strange
> double-standard you hold Brian....BOTH are quite deceptive, but you seem to be
> oblivious to this fact.
Your boat is the Titanic.
I'm not going to waste my time any more. We disagree, fine .
Please consider what I said about looking into grace, love & mercy with the same
zeal you have brought to this issue and I promise you won't care what some
christian sinner or singer does because you'll know what to expect from humanity
and why christ died in the first place.
I'm sorry that Grace, both God's and human, has escaped your grasp.
Brian Healy
>
>
Hi Peter,
Enjoyed your review of AI in Christianity Today.
Breezy
> The Pharisees did LOTS OF GOOOOD THINGS!!! LOTS AND LOTS OF GOOOOD GOOD
> THINGS! WHY DIDN'T Jesus...mention ANY of them???*
Because their good deeds were not fruit of the Spirit. I don't see where
Amy is Lording her good deeds over others, and I have no evidence to suggest
that she's doing it all just to make a good showing. My point had nothing
really to do with how "good" she is, but rather that it's much, much easier
for this anti-Christ Americanized "christian" culture to focus on the sins
of others, paying no attention to any good fruit.
> Hmmmm really makes ya
> think...errr..no it doesn't. Nothing makes you think on this. You are so
> hard hearted against the truth, and steeped in worship of your OWN
> IDEAS that...
It's like Healy said to Jeff... you think *your* interpretation of scripture
(including the little scripture you've relied on to make your points) is
*the* right interpretation. So when anyone disagrees with you, *they* are
wrong because they're going against the Bible... when in reality, they're
going against *your* interpretation of the Bible.
I've said time and time again that I have no need/desire/intention of making
you see my point of view... I don't care one iota if this *Bob Weigel*
agrees or disagrees with my biblical viewpoint. Again I'll say that it's
*obvious* that we disagree on biblical issues.
--- The crux of the matter for me is that I'm not going to waste my
time defending myself or my point of view with you ---
:-D It may matter to *you* that you think I have it all wrong... but it
doesn't matter to *me* that I think you have it all wrong. :-D
If you want the main reason(s) I don't get into deep discussions with you,
Bob, I'll share what I shared yesterday. This is one of the BIG reasons I
don't care to discuss things with you:
- If I write something in a simple manner, without much explanation, but
with enough information to make my point... you say "why don't you explain
yourself?"
- But when I actually explain myself, spending time looking up references
to make a logical reply, you would often completely *ignore* it and make 25
other points that had nothing to do with my reply. (Although over the last
few months I've learned my lesson and don't waste a lot of time trying to
build strong cases with you).
- Or if you actually do say something in reply to me that disagrees with my
view, and I am content to leave it at that, you say I'm being evasive! So
many times I've been content to leave you at your opinion and me at my
opinion... but you won't ever let go!
It's gotten old, very old. Very very old. Like I said, though, every month
or two I fall into the trap and try to actually have a discussion with
you...
Breezy
> I'm not going to waste my time any more. We disagree, fine .
How many times have I said that to "Bob?" :) Bob and Jeff just won't rest
until others see their view (you know - the *only* correct biblical view)!
Hopefully I'll take my own advice and quit wasting time defending myself.
Breezy
Bob Weigel
Breezy <bree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob Weigel" wrote:
>
>> The Pharisees did LOTS OF GOOOOD THINGS!!! LOTS AND LOTS OF GOOOOD GOOD
>> THINGS! WHY DIDN'T Jesus...mention ANY of them???*
>
>Because their good deeds were not fruit of the Spirit. I don't see where
>Amy is Lording her good deeds over others, and I have no evidence to suggest
Is "lording over others" the only possible motive for doing good deeds
that aren't spirit led? Amy has been walking in her own path for reasons
aforementioned. That should be evidence enough for you that there was
possibly something wrong. But anyway, I have no reason to blow the glory
horn for my own deeds or anyone elses. The topic at hand is that amy
has done something that is a very very bad example and she has maintained
that direction. That's all that was on topic. Read what I wrong. I have
no more time to discuss this as I said. We're just recovering the
same points as is our custom. -bob
Blade
wrote:
>Yeah, Im just wondering if Mike Warnke was found out to be a fraud or if maybe the person
>making the caims that he is, might be an undercover satanist trying to undermine Mike's
>ministry. I do not know as I didnt even know he was being labled a fraud untill this
>post, and I am shocked, as his material seems really good. So I just want to ask if it is
>a documented fact that he is a fraud, or if the person claiming he is a fraud might be out
>to pull him down. I will just be dissappointed if it is all true.
>